Fly as a skill make sense, even if the mechanics is a bit wonky. I never did like that "you cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability).
Why isn't there a Burrow skill or a sail skill?
I do agree Appraise needs to be redone. A DC 20 Appraise check determines the value of a common item? A fighter don't know the prize of a long sword without a beating 19 on the skill check? Almost as silly as Barbarians with 16 rank in knowledge nature can't tell an ogre is an ogre if she is ranging. Or worse, if the same Barbarians has learned giant (by adding ranks in linguistics), she no longer understands it when she rages.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people so mad they couldn't talk in any language.
Or worse, if the same Barbarians has learned giant (by adding ranks in linguistics), she no longer understands it when she rages.
Is that correct? I thought that whenever a character puts a rank into Linguistics they gain a new language known, but there is no skill check neccessary to understand/speak a known language, so even though a barbarian can't use Int-based skills they should still be able to speak and understand their known languages.
Or worse, if the same Barbarians has learned giant (by adding ranks in linguistics), she no longer understands it when she rages.Is that correct? I thought that whenever a character puts a rank into Linguistics they gain a new language known, but there is no skill check neccessary to understand/speak a known language, so even though a barbarian can't use Int-based skills they should still be able to speak and understand their known languages.
You are correct. EJ. You don't need to use a skill to speak a language so raging does not affect your ability to speak.
Appraise is a bit of a problem. A 1st level expert NPC class shopkeeper who puts his 13 into Int and bumps it to a 15 with a racial bonus while putting a rank into Appraise and takes Skill Focus (Appraise) still can't take 10 and succeed on appraising the value of common items without an assistant or some expensive (masterwork) situational tools (or becoming middle-aged). That's a pretty heavy investment into a single thing for someonw who probably would like to focus in Cha to be a good salesman and he still can't reach 50/50 success on his own.
That said, this is the part I like about Appraise:
If you succeed by 5 or more, you also determine if the item has magic properties...
It is like a free detect magic for skill-based characters at mid- to high-levels when the DC isn't so outrageous to hit.
|
Wraith: I just want to go back to the encounter discussion.
There is something key that you are missing. I'm going to use the 20HD zombies as my example.
Encounters are not all about doing damage to the PC's. I can tell you right now that most characters aren't going to drop 20d12 + 3 in one hit left and right. The purpose of these zombies against high level PC's is to actually eat up actions, resources, and to set the stage for the big battle.
I can tell you from my experience that I don't have my enemies huddling together in perfect groups just waiting to be annihilated by an AoE or two.
That is the reason why 20HD zombies are perfect to add to an encounter with a BBEG.
Or worse, if the same Barbarians has learned giant (by adding ranks in linguistics), she no longer understands it when she rages.Is that correct? I thought that whenever a character puts a rank into Linguistics they gain a new language known, but there is no skill check neccessary to understand/speak a known language, so even though a barbarian can't use Int-based skills they should still be able to speak and understand their known languages.
Perhaps/perhaps not.
Using a skill does not necessarily equal a skill check. A barbarian/bard can't rage and use bardic performance at the same time even if the actual performance doesn't involve a performance check.One of the reasons people like lingering performance.
I've seen people so mad they couldn't talk in any language.
LOL!
You have a point about talking, but understanding? And what about not being able to recognize creatures when raging?Anyway, the whole rage and Int skills isn't really a big deal and I think Pathfinder has done wonders to the skill system.
The two things I love most with Pathfinder is the new skill system and Multiclass/favored class rules (even though some stuff needs some tweaking, like stealth). You can freely choose your favored class, there is no XP penalty regardless of how you multiclass, all classes can multiclass (even monks and Paladins), skill consolidations, no cross class skills or prohibited skills, etc. etc.
...so after a week of discussing D&D v.3.5's turn undead system we are all in agreement, then: PF's combat maneuvers suck.
Absolutely. I will never adopt CMD and CMB, and never have the maneuver feat give a +2 instead of ol' 3.5's +4. More feats to do what you used to be able to do, psshaw.
Basically because PF expanded them all out to Feat Chains that even when maxed out fail to keep up with monsters ability to defend against them. So more investment is required to gain less of an effect.
Yeeep. The designers (in a forum post long long ago) acknowledged their distaste with 3.5 maneuvres, and how easy it was to successfully get them off. Trip, sunder, bull-rush, etc. So they were still ported over, but CMD rises quickly, especially in powerful monsters, so that they can be used/spammed less effectively.
I do love weapon locking though.
Wraith: I just want to go back to the encounter discussion.
There is something key that you are missing. I'm going to use the 20HD zombies as my example.
Encounters are not all about doing damage to the PC's. I can tell you right now that most characters aren't going to drop 20d12 + 3 in one hit left and right. The purpose of these zombies against high level PC's is to actually eat up actions, resources, and to set the stage for the big battle.
I can tell you from my experience that I don't have my enemies huddling together in perfect groups just waiting to be annihilated by an AoE or two.
That is the reason why 20HD zombies are perfect to add to an encounter with a BBEG.
I never said they could not be added. Without going to check my post my point was that turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party. IIRC I also said that such creatures were uncommon because in most situations you don't even get XP for them since the CRB and DMG advise against using such creatures because they are negligible. Unless the GM is very creative I would just ignore them or using the raging pouncing barbarian that was very popular on the 3.5 boards. IIRC it could do 100+ points of damage in one or two attacks.
With all of that aside it still takes a high roll to get rid of a minion, which is one of many reasons why I am not sad to see it go. The cleric is better off summoning or gating something in to deal with it/them.
Honestly? I like the CM system. It is much simpler to use. Grapple is still clunky as all hell but it isnt as bad as it used to be.
*waits for the flames to begin*
- Gauss
Wraithstrike, since when are we on the same side of a discussion? Quit scaring me man!
- Gauss
Wraithstrike, since when are we on the same side of a discussion? Quit scaring me man!
- Gauss
I don't remember disagreeing with you, even though I do remember your name. It must have been a minor quibble. :)
We also agreed on the "Master Summoner + Wild Caller" thread.Yep, you are finally seeing the light. :)
Gauss, haha, no flaming here. I recall the common complaints with grapple, so for a player I went over the section and summarised it down. Editing is what I do. Then the player could understand it. The grapple section of 3.5 was poorly written, and can be made easier to grasp.
As someone who has learned how to grapple, it actually makes a lot of sense. Get a hold, get control, then do damage and you can later move to other things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said they could not be added. Without going to check my post my point was that turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party. [...]
With all of that aside it still takes a high roll to get rid of a minion, which is one of many reasons why I am not sad to see it go. The cleric is better off summoning or gating something in to deal with it/them.
I haven't caught up completely with this thread so I am probably missing something, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party"? I assume you are talking about the 3.5 Turn Undead mechanic. Are you talking about Destroying rather than just Turning?
I am not overly familiar with 3.5 Turning but in my earlier post here I worked out that a basic level 2 cleric could Turn undead in the CR 1/3 to CR 1 range (and turn quite a few of them, enough to make the Encounter Level APL+1 or APL+2.
Does this drop off at higher levels?
Taking a cleric with Charisma 12 (+1), Knowledge (Religion) 5 ranks (i.e. nothing too over the top) the average results would be:
Turning Check: d20 +1 (Cha) +2 (5 ranks in Religion) gives an expected result of 13 therefore can turn Undead with (Cleric Level +1) Hit Dice or less
Turning Damage: 2d6 + cleric level + 1 (Cha) gives an expected result of (8+ cleric level) hit dice of damage
So looking at some higher CR undead...
Mummy (CR5 / 8 Hit Dice)
Level 7 to Turn one, Level 16 to Destroy three
Spectre (CR7 / 7 HD +2 Turn Resistance)
Level 8 to Turn one, 18 to Destroy two
Bodak (CR8 / 9 HD)
Level 8 to Turn one, Level 18 to Destroy two
Large Dread Wraith (CR11 / 16 HD)
Level 15 to Turn one, Level 32 to Destroy two
So yeah, I guess I can see how if you are talking about destroying then APL has to drastically outweigh CR at higher levels, but for just turning, not so much.
However if you have the Sun domain once a day you could destroy all those you could turn, so a Level 15 Sun Domain Cleric could expect to Destroy a Large Dread Wraith. CR 11 vs APL 15.
Moving on from average rolls, if you can achieve a roll of 16 on the turning check (for a total of 19) so able to affect (Level +3) then a level 5 cleric could turn a mummy (CR5), a level 6 cleric could turn a Spectre (CR7) or a Bodak (CR8) and a Level 13 cleric could turn a Large Dread Wraith (CR11).
I never said they could not be added. Without going to check my post my point was that turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party. [...]
With all of that aside it still takes a high roll to get rid of a minion, which is one of many reasons why I am not sad to see it go. The cleric is better off summoning or gating something in to deal with it/them.I haven't caught up completely with this thread so I am probably missing something, but could you elaborate on what you mean by "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party"? I assume you are talking about the 3.5 Turn Undead mechanic. Are you talking about Destroying rather than just Turning?
I am not overly familiar with 3.5 Turning but in my earlier post here I worked out that a basic level 2 cleric could Turn undead in the CR 1/3 to CR 1 range (and turn quite a few of them, enough to make the Encounter Level APL+1 or APL+2.
Does this drop off at higher levels?
Taking a cleric with Charisma 12 (+1), Knowledge (Religion) 5 ranks (i.e. nothing too over the top) the average results would be:
Turning Check: d20 +1 (Cha) +2 (5 ranks in Religion) gives an expected result of 13 therefore can turn Undead with (Cleric Level +1) Hit Dice or less
Turning Damage: 2d6 + cleric level + 1 (Cha) gives an expected result of (8+ cleric level) hit dice of damage
So looking at some higher CR undead...
Mummy (CR5 / 8 Hit Dice)
Level 7 to Turn one, Level 16 to Destroy threeSpectre (CR7 / 7 HD +2 Turn Resistance)
Level 8 to Turn one, 18 to Destroy twoBodak (CR8 / 9 HD)
Level 8 to Turn one, Level 18 to Destroy twoLarge Dread Wraith (CR11 / 16 HD)
Level 15 to Turn one, Level 32 to Destroy twoSo yeah, I guess I can see how if you are talking about destroying then APL has to drastically outweigh...
I was talking about the 3.5 mechanic, and even turning then can be burden. This is not true of all undead, but for too many of them it is true.
Using the mummy as an example a level 5 cleric which is an APL=CR(easy fight) will have a hard time doing so. At level 7 the mummy is below APL.The spectre has +2 turn resistence so it is not that easy to turn either.
The bodak is not that hard to turn.
As to the Sun Domain idea, that is point against Turn Undead. You should have be a cleric of deity X to make an ability useful.
Others also pointed out that turn undead had various uses if you took feats from splat books. That does not make turn undead useful. That makes those other things useful. If the best use of something is to use it for something else instead of the original intended use, then I would rather just have that other thing.
Example:If I make say my laptop makes a good doorstop that does not mean it is a good laptop. It might mean I am better off with a new laptop though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Turning is fantastic for mooks, but a fickle ability for the tough undead a party will be facing. Combat specs still have their time to shine then, cleric does not solo insta-win all combats against undead.
Ability seems balanced from that angle.
My issue with it is that something should not have to be APL-3 for an ability to work, and even more if it is APL-3 then struggling to make it work should not happen.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was talking about the 3.5 mechanic, and even turning then can be burden. This is not true of all undead, but for too many of them it is true.
So if we're talking about just turning (rather than destroying) was "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party" a bit of an exaggeration?
From my examples, Turn Undead with a basic Cleric (Charisma of only 12, no extra abilities other than 5 ranks in Knowledge Religion) can be expected to handle a single creature that is CR 1 to 4 below the APL.
Using the mummy as an example a level 5 cleric which is an APL=CR(easy fight) will have a hard time doing so.
According to the DMG APL=CR is Challenging (or at best Easy if handled properly which could mean pushing foes over cliff etc, CR less than APL is Easy).
Our fairly basic cleric of level 5 would need to roll a 16 on a d20 (25% chance) and only minimum turning damage (2 on 2d6 + 5 for level + 1 for charisma) to turn a Mummy - so yes, a hard time but not impossible.
The spectre has +2 turn resistence so it is not that easy to turn either.
I took that into account I believe, without the Turn Resistance a level 6 cleric (i.e. 1 below the CR) could expect to turn two spectres.
As to the Sun Domain idea, that is point against Turn Undead. You should have be a cleric of deity X to make an ability useful.
The Sun Domain doesn't make Turn Undead useful - its already useful IMHO, the Sun Domain just makes it extremely useful once a day as it can end an encounter in a single go.
Others also pointed out that turn undead had various uses if you took feats from splat books. That does not make turn undead useful.
I think we will have to agree to disagree, I think Turn Undead is useful, those other things just make it more useful.
IMHO it would be poor design to make a general cleric ability able to work against CR = APL pretty much most of the time, and then have extra feats and features that make that go from expected to probable to automatic. All that does is force a GM to throw higher CR undead at the party so they have a chance to survive.
In my example I used a simple cleric with only slightly above average Charisma and it seems eminently useful - just not a automatic success or encounter ending class feature.
Although I quite like Channelling to hurt undead (and may even prefer it to 3.5's Turn Undead), overall I prefer 3.5's Turn Undead because I really dislike Channelling's ability to heal.
Turning is fantastic for mooks, but a fickle ability for the tough undead a party will be facing. Combat specs still have their time to shine then, cleric does not solo insta-win all combats against undead.
Ability seems balanced from that angle.
I haven't claimed the Cleric should insta-win all combats against undead.
I'm pointing out that by the time Turn Undead destroys things... those things are not usually much of a threat. With the exception of incorporeal undead, their attack bonuses are low enough that even a low AC character won't be hit very often. Their HP's are low enough that most any attack from the party can kill them and their AC is low enough that anyone can hit them.
So yes, the Turn Undead ability is very good at destroying things that are of minimal threat, which can also be easily dealt with by numerous other abilities.
To add, the ability is only useful in some situations against undead, but not all.
I choose Channel Energy over Turn Undead every time.
One thing I was wondering: what would happen if the 3.5 Turn Undead mechanics were imported into Pathfinder. Would it work better or worse than in 3.5? In other words, does the average undead in Pathfinder has more or less hit dices for his CR than the average undead in 3.5?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike: I was mostly joking. :)
3.5 Loyalist: with the flame's comment I was also mostly joking. Although when you do come out in favor of a system that some people are denouncing...heheheh.
- Gauss
You know, I think channel undead "doesn't do enough damage" because most limited use damage options do not do enough damage in PF.
1) The melee classes generally got an upgrade in damage.
2) The spellcasting classes did not.
3) After a certain point creatures have a round or two to harm the players (if that) and then they die. At level 9 a hastened rogue and fighter tag team can strip 150hps off of an enemy in a single round with just the full BAB attacks.
Why throw out a damage option (either fireball OR channel energy) when the melee classes can single round an equal CR monster. If Fireball is a weak option, channeling energy is a weaker option. However, that does not mean (to me) that Turn undead should make a comeback. In my mind it is still worse than channel.
To me, this is more about the general problem of limited use damage abilities compared to melee.
With all of that said, fireball and channel energy still have a place in the game, dealing with massed enemies.
- Gauss
So if we're talking about just turning (rather than destroying) was "turn undead struggles to even handle a single creature that is CR 10 below the APL of the party" a bit of an exaggeration?
Not, at all. Zombie=20 HD and CR 6. You have to be at least a level 16 to turn them barring investment in feats or having a particular domain. Unless you have a counter I was not exaggerating. The other examples are not as bad, but they are not good.
Our fairly basic cleric of level 5 would need to roll a 16 on a d20 (25% chance) and only minimum turning damage (2 on 2d6 + 5 for level + 1 for charisma) to turn a Mummy - so yes, a hard time but not impossible.
Needing the 16 is bad enough. The entire time I was talking about making the max hd roll. Now that you mention it, that does not help your case.
The Sun Domain doesn't make Turn Undead useful - its already useful IMHO, the Sun Domain just makes it extremely useful once a day as it can end an encounter in a single go.
I think "extremely" is not the right word to use. It might be better "if" you are in an undead campaign. I don't see how the word extreme comes into play.
Others also pointed out that turn undead had various uses if you took feats from splat books. That does not make turn undead useful.
I think we will have to agree to disagree, I think Turn Undead is useful, those other things just make it more useful.
IMHO it would be poor design to make a general cleric ability able to work against CR = APL pretty much most of the time, and then have extra feats and features that make that go from expected to probable to automatic. All that does is force a GM to throw higher CR undead at the party so they have a chance to survive.
In my example I used a simple cleric with only slightly above average Charisma and it seems eminently useful - just not a automatic success or encounter ending class feature.
Although I quite like Channelling to hurt undead (and may even prefer it to 3.5's Turn Undead), overall I prefer 3.5's Turn Undead because I really dislike Channelling's ability to heal.
If you think an ability that might never come into play in a general campaign, and that is marginally useful in its own niche is better than something that always has use, then we do have to agree to disagree. I have not met one person in real life with this train of thought. The smiles of joy at getting rid of "turn undead" makes me wish I had a camera handy. I am not saying the cleric should own undead, by the way, but the ability did not interact with the CR system well. The devs, and it seems most players I have met online, and in real life agree.
Wraithstrike: I was mostly joking. :)
3.5 Loyalist: with the flame's comment I was also mostly joking. Although when you do come out in favor of a system that some people are denouncing...heheheh.
- Gauss
I know. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line here is the fact that Turn Undead worked for our group and it worked extremely well.
Just like with any other ability, if it includes a stat then you will invest in that stat if you are interested in using that class ability. Don't whine about the ability not working well when you don't invest in it.
Other classes invest in their abilities so why single out the cleric?
I can tell you that I mostly played clerics that invested heavily in Wisdom and Charisma. I left the major fighting to the actual melee people and I took care of the undead and the spellcasting.
Please stop trying to use a CR 6 20HD zombie as an example to back up your argument. I have already pointed out to you the level that would be appropriate for a cleric of 15 or 16th level to turn creatures with this many hit dice.
Turn Undead isn't going to work every time, neither do a lot of spells and neither does your fighter when he misses. Big freaking deal if you can't turn a 20HD zombie when you are 6th or 7th level. It's really not that important and it sure as hell isn't a legit argument against the ability.
It can work at times, but my main point is that you should not have to. I am not saying it is not a bad idea to do so.
Yeah it takes a 16th level cleric to to turn the monster before feats come into play, and even then it is not a sure things. Actually it is a good argument. If you are saying that it should be chosen vs channel. If you are going to try to sell me such a niche ability I don't think it is unreasonable to allow it to work better.
In short a generally useful ability having less power is ok for many people, but a specialized one should work well(better) when it is called upon, otherwise why give up the general ability?<---That is what it boils to in many people's minds. Now if your group fights undead a lot, or if you don't mind having something that may never see the light of day you like turn undead that , and fail when it does that is fine. I don't think you will convince others that it is a good idea though.
You are arguing based on playstyle. I am not just going, by how I play, but how others play the game. I do things in my game, that the general population won't agree with, but I won't try to convince others that it is a good idea in their games.
|
Or worse, if the same Barbarians has learned giant (by adding ranks in linguistics), she no longer understands it when she rages.Is that correct? I thought that whenever a character puts a rank into Linguistics they gain a new language known, but there is no skill check neccessary to understand/speak a known language, so even though a barbarian can't use Int-based skills they should still be able to speak and understand their known languages.Perhaps/perhaps not.
Using a skill does not necessarily equal a skill check. A barbarian/bard can't rage and use bardic performance at the same time even if the actual performance doesn't involve a performance check.One of the reasons people like lingering performance.
At the risk of going slightly off topic, this isn't true.
A bard/barbarian can indeed rage while inspiring courage, because inspiring courage is not a concentration-required ability; nor does it require a charisma skill check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please stop trying to use a CR 6 20HD zombie as an example to back up your argument.
Just counter with ANY undead from PF to show how well Channel Positive Energy affects them (hint, it doesn't). I'd rather have an ability that does what it is supposed to a good chunk of the time (3.5's Turn Undead) of the time rather than one that almost never works (PF's Channel Positive Energy to harm undead).
One thing I was wondering: what would happen if the 3.5 Turn Undead mechanics were imported into Pathfinder. Would it work better or worse than in 3.5? In other words, does the average undead in Pathfinder has more or less hit dices for his CR than the average undead in 3.5?GM a few games and find out!
Why would I do that? I just need to compare undead HD in the Monster Manual with those in the Bestiary. I was just wondering if someone else did the job for me, to save time, because I'm lazy. ;)
|
|
10th level Lawful Good Human Cleric of Pelor “Ignatius”
Str: 8
Dex: 12 (+2 Gloves of Dex)
Con: 10
Int: 12 (+2 Headband of Intellect)
Wis: 23 (+2 level, +4 Periapt)
Cha: 16 (+2 Cloak of Charisma)
HP: 10d8
AC: 24
Flat-Footed: 23
Touch: 11
Initiative: +1
Fort: +7
Ref: +4
Will: +13
Spd: 20 ft
Feats: Improved Turning, Empower Turning, Quicken Turning, Extra Turning, Disciple of the Sun,
Cleric: Domains: Glory/Sun, Turn Undead: 10/Times per day, Turn as a 15th level Cleric for a possible 19 HD creature if max Turning Check is rolled, Turn Check + 7 (+2 for 5 ranks in Knowledge Religion + 3 Charisma + 2 Glory Domain) , Damage Roll + 2d6 + 10 level + 3 Cha + 1d6 X 1.5 Empower Turning = 46.5 HD worth of Undead (Max).
Gear: +2 Cloak of Charisma, +4 Periapt of Wisdom, Phylactery of Undead Turning, +2 Gloves of Dex, +2 Headband of Intellect, +1 heavy steel shield, +2 Full Plate Armor, +1 silver heavy mace.
This is just the bare bones of a turning cleric build using a 25 point buy from the DMG. Since I have the Disciple of the Sun feat, I could burn two turn attempts to destroy instead of turn and with the Quicken Turning feat I can do this as a free action. I also have my Greater Turning from the Sun domain.
Now I could use my standard to cast Consecrate which would boost my Turn check to + 10 and then Turn as a free action.
Wow, Turn Undead would be even worse in Pathfinder if it was based on the 3.5 mechanics. It would be only more effective against undead with templates (advanced, giant, etc.)
Devourer
3.5 = 12 HD; CR 11
PF = 14 HD; CR 11
Ghast
3.5 = 4 HD; CR 3
PF = 2 HD; CR ? (probably 2)
Ghoul
3.5 = 2 HD; CR 1
PF = 2 HD; CR 1
Morgh
3.5 = 14HD; CR 8
PF = 14HD; CR 8
Mummy
3.5 = 8HD; CR 5
PF = 8HD; CR 5
Shadow
3.5 = 3 HD; CR 3
PF = 3 HD; CR 3
Shadow. Greater
3.5 = 9 HD; CR 8
PF = 9 HD; CR 8
Spectre
3.5 = 7 HD; CR 7
PF = 8 HD; CR 7
Wight
3.5 = 4 HD; CR 3
PF = 4 HD; CR 3
Wraith
3.5 = 5HD; CR5
PF = 5HD; CR5
I have trouble thinking of a time I would really want to do either. I think when I played 3.5 I only really remember someone using turn undead like twice. Using chanel energy to harm undead also seems underwhelming as well. chaneling negative energy seems better than rebuke undead for npcs if the pcs are good.
At the risk of going slightly off topic, this isn't true.A bard/barbarian can indeed rage while inspiring courage, because inspiring courage is not a concentration-required ability; nor does it require a charisma skill check.
Using a skill does not necessarily equal (rolling) a skill check.
"Bardic Performance: A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired."
Inspire Courag: "Inspire courage can use audible or visual components. The bard must choose which component to use when starting his performance."
The Bard is clearly using the "performance" skill although no die roll is necessary.
/
Back on the topic.
I'm not going to flip flop, but isn't there a whole lot of focus on the destroying part of Turn undead. The Turning part was actually very useful even if a lot of GMs hated the book keeping.
Useful as crowd control, useful as battle field control, etc. If the cleric was cleverly positioned the rest of the party could just hack them up or if the undeads fled the rest of the group would get an awful lot of attacks of opportunity.
Also if the Party was unbuffed the Cleric could by the Party some time. Party Buffed, then went on undead hunt.
Getting char 14 was also easier since raising char from 12 to 14 only cost 12 points. Char and Wisdom didn't use the same slot so boosting char AND wisdom wasn't a big problem.
Yes, Char used the Cloak slot, but Cleric has two good saves and Magic Circle against evil and resistance energy spells.
|
I agree. The 20HD CR 6 is a really poor arguement. Not because it is impossible, but because for one the game is not designed to be played that way and two it is a corner case, but one that has the same ramifications in PF as it did in 3E. It doesn't proove anything (either way) except to show that the CR system is and was not perfect. That 20HD CR6 also has Saves and skills that are not in line with any class of that level. If it had any special ability attacks, SR, etc. . . they would likewise be rediculous for a party.
It doesn't say how broken Turning was, but rather sometimes the rules get wonky.
|
|
Not, at all. Zombie=20 HD and CR 6. You have to be at least a level 16 to turn them barring investment in feats or having a particular domain. Unless you have a counter I was not exaggerating. The other examples are not as bad, but they are not good.
With your mention of a 20 HD zombe being CR 6 I actually skipped ahead in my reading of the 3.5 Monster Manual (only just reading it now!!!) and looked at the examples and rules for improving monsters via Hit Dice.
And wow, yeah, for the higher level zombies (Gray Render Zombie CR6 / 20HD) and also skeletons (Young Adult Red Dragon Skeleton CR8 / 19HD) the hit dice do make it impossible for a cleric within 7 to 10 levels of the CR to turn the Undead. Ditto for any undead improved via adding 4+ hit dice (only adding +1 to CR).
However, the exaggeration I was seeing in your statement was the fact that you seemed to be presenting the statement as a blanket statement about Turn Undead. There are plenty of baseline undead of various CRs (vampires, vampire spawn, spectres, ghouls, devourer etc) that Turn Undead can be effective against with a cleric within +/-3 of the CR.
And against low hit dice skeletons and zombies (e.g. Human skeleton and zombies) Turn Undead can be very effective, turning nearly a half dozen or so in a single go.
Our fairly basic cleric of level 5 would need to roll a 16 on a d20 (25% chance) and only minimum turning damage (2 on 2d6 + 5 for level + 1 for charisma) to turn a Mummy - so yes, a hard time but not impossible.
Needing the 16 is bad enough. The entire time I was talking about making the max hd roll. Now that you mention it, that does not help your case.
I think "extremely" is not the right word to use. It might be better "if" you are in an undead campaign. I don't see how the word extreme comes into play.
I used the word Extremely because it can change a Turn (which may only give the PCs a chance to escape, or a chance to break up their foes to tackle them in separate waves rather than all at once) into a Destroy potentially defeating an encounter's worth of foes with a single action (lets see a Fighter do that!)
E.g. 2nd level cleric (Charisma 12 (+1), Knowledge (Religion) 5 ranks) faces off 5x Wolf Skeletons (CR1, 2 HD each), EL 4 with his party. Now with just average dice rolls that cleric could Turn all those skeletons, however with the Sun Domain, the cleric could choose Greater Turning (only once a day) and destroy all those Wolf Skeletons. In a single action, with just average dice rolls a 2nd level cleric could defeat an Encounter Level 4.
And it doesn't matter whether it is an undead campaign or not, if you happen to come up against undead just once, the Sun Domain can prove its usefulness in only a single encounter. If anything in an undead campaign it loses something as it only allows Greater Turning once a day.
If you think an ability that might never come into play in a general campaign, and that is marginally useful in its own niche is better than something that always has use, then we do have to agree to disagree.
In general I would agree with you, my problem is with PF channelling is that the choice of "something that always has use" was healing. It just made the disparity in healing capability between a party with a cleric and without a cleric greater.
In a "general campaign" where the option for using Channelling to damage undead may not come up, or only come up once, there is no reason not to spam your channels and heal up everyone in the party.
If you're going to give a party with a cleric the ability to heal up after each battle, it would IMHO be better to just give the party that ability without the requirement for a particular class (e.g. 4e's short rests).
Seriously, I originally liked the idea of channelling to heal but started to really dislike it once I played a cleric because the game lost its gritty feel, when we were playing in a low combat adventure (1 combat a day) I was spamming Channels so we healed to full each day, meaning there were no lingering consequences to those fights. It lost the gritty feel and I was almost tempted to purposefully not use channels to heal to get some of that feel back again - but I figured the other players would think I was being a dick (and yet if I hadn't been playing a cleric and channelling wasn't available, the gritty feel would have been there and no one would have been a dick).
Now if channelling's "something that always has use" was to perhaps be to channel negative energy to harm living creatures that may be okay (i.e. every cleric could channel positive energy to harm undead or negative energy to harm living).
Alternatively maybe channelling positive energy could just provide temporary hit points that have a time limit (e.g. if unused they fade after 5 minutes) and that can't stack. That wouldn't be too bad IMHO.
|
|
I've proven that you can build a turn cleric that can effect 9 more hit dice at 10th level so the notion about the ability not really working is false. I've also shown that I can have a +10 to my turn check at level 10 which will enable me to get a +4 to my cleric level very easily.
If the tools are there then you use them. You can't turn a blind eye to those tools and then argue that an ability is bad.
I've proven that you can build a turn cleric that can effect 9 more hit dice at 10th level so the notion about the ability not really working is false. I've also shown that I can have a +10 to my turn check at level 10 which will enable me to get a +4 to my cleric level very easily.
If the tools are there then you use them. You can't turn a blind eye to those tools and then argue that an ability is bad.
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
|
|
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.I've proven that you can build a turn cleric that can effect 9 more hit dice at 10th level so the notion about the ability not really working is false. I've also shown that I can have a +10 to my turn check at level 10 which will enable me to get a +4 to my cleric level very easily.
If the tools are there then you use them. You can't turn a blind eye to those tools and then argue that an ability is bad.
A fighter has to boost his to hit and damage so what's the difference?
|
|
A fighter has to boost his to hit and damage so what's the difference?The difference is that those boosts are common and generally-applicable to nearly every combat situation, whereas turning boosts were very situational to begin with, and often weren't enough to contribute to a fight against undead even then.
Well the only situation was undead but again it is called "Turn Undead". If you wanted to turn other things you could easily take a feat.
Works fine against undead, not so much against undead that have a good many more hit dice that you do but mostly, you shouldn't be fighting those kinds of creatures anyway.
I 1st level cleric with Improved Turning can turn up to a 6 HD creature. You won't be fighting creatures with that many hit dice at 1st level anyway.
It's still situational.
1) It can only be used against undead
2) It isn't desirable to use all the time against undead
Even if you get an ability to apply it to other types of creatures, 2 still applies.
What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish with this argument? Tell me what 'winning' looks like.
The argument was never that the ability couldn't be boosted. It was that it had to be in the first place.
The Pathfinder cleric ability to deal with undead requires more work to function; not only do you have to put effort toward increasing your save DC, but you must take a feat for a failed save to have an effect (1/30 to 1/10 of a creature's total hit points doesn't count as a meaningful effect).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "undead stuff" isn't secondary; it's a waste of space and an appeal to flavor. It's almost like PF copy-pasted 90% of their rules and fumbled when they had to create their own stuff (channel hurting undead, combat maneuvers...).
|
|
It's still situational.
1) It can only be used against undead
2) It isn't desirable to use all the time against undeadEven if you get an ability to apply it to other types of creatures, 2 still applies.
What exactly do you think you're going to accomplish with this argument? Tell me what 'winning' looks like.
It's supposed to be used against undead. Why do you think it's called "Turn Undead"?
Why isn't it desirable? I can tell you that myself and a lot of people I know use it.
What are you trying to accomplish with this argument? You keep spouting bits of opinion with anything to back you up. I have already presented facts that show the ability is perfectly capable of handling undead. Corner cases like the 20HD zombie are not good arguments against the ability.
Winning is the dust that gets blown into the wind from all those undead that I just destroyed and the satisfaction on the other party member's faces.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read this entire thread front to back, but this was always my problem with 3.5 turning...
scenario - a small village is being attacked by undead from the local graveyard at night and they request the aid of our brave heroes to stop the undead from picking off travellers in the middle of the night. In comes the group, making their way into the cemetary at dusk and awaiting the rising of the undead menace.
The sun sets and suddenly, the foul creatures begin clawing their way from the earth and moving toward our heroes. Cue the cleric, holy symbol aloft: "Foul and unnatural creatures, flee form the holy might of (insert deity name here)!" The roll succeeds, causing a group of undead to flee...into the nearby village the group was asked to protect. Good job, cleric! You're useless again (actually not just useless...counter-productive).