Why was the Cleric's Turn ability changed from 3.5?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:


They also have a 15 AC, +4 to attack and only 26 HP. In 3.5 a fighter could put all of his BAB into power attack with a 2 handed weapon.
If that weapon is a great sword, 18 strength and weapon specialization, he kills one every hit, even if he rolls snake eyes on damage. He'll need to roll 7's to hit, but if it's a +2 weapon, that drops to a 3, the straight bonus to hit, plus needing to put 2 less into PA.

Drain is always a problem. One lucky roll and you are in trouble.

The fighter is probably busy dealing with the BBEG. As shallowsoul pointed out
shallowsoul wrote:


If you put enough CR 6 creatures together, you can have a level appropriate encounter, on top of the BBEG.

As for the:

Irontruth wrote:


By the time a cleric can auto destroy undead, so can other classes, so why do clerics need a unique ability that is only useful to accomplish what other classes can do with their standard abilities that are also useful against the BBEG?

With sun domain you could kill them at level 4 (or 3 if you had improved turning) and there were other ways to boost turning. And being able to wipe out armies of moks is better than not wiping out anything. It also saves healing and gives the others time to deal with the other monsters/foes.

Irontruth wrote:


Channel Energy is not superior at killing undead.

No, it sucks.

Irontruth wrote:


It is a superior ability in the versatility of clerics though. I can use it to heal my allies, saving my spells...

No one is denying that Turn undead couldn't heal and that Channel can, but it only takes a wand with CLW to save spells, and in battle Channeling is a bad healing option past level 5 unless you got quicken channeling and selective channeling.

Silver Crusade

Zark wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


They also have a 15 AC, +4 to attack and only 26 HP. In 3.5 a fighter could put all of his BAB into power attack with a 2 handed weapon.
If that weapon is a great sword, 18 strength and weapon specialization, he kills one every hit, even if he rolls snake eyes on damage. He'll need to roll 7's to hit, but if it's a +2 weapon, that drops to a 3, the straight bonus to hit, plus needing to put 2 less into PA.

Drain is always a problem. One lucky roll and you are in trouble.

The fighter is probably busy dealing with the BBEG. As shallowsoul pointed out
shallowsoul wrote:


If you put enough CR 6 creatures together, you can have a level appropriate encounter, on top of the BBEG.

As for the:

Irontruth wrote:


By the time a cleric can auto destroy undead, so can other classes, so why do clerics need a unique ability that is only useful to accomplish what other classes can do with their standard abilities that are also useful against the BBEG?

With sun domain you could kill them at level 4 (or 3 if you had improved turning) and there were other ways to boost turning. And being able to wipe out armies of moks is better than not wiping out anything. It also saves healing and gives the others time to deal with the other monsters/foes.

Irontruth wrote:


Channel Energy is not superior at killing undead.

No, it sucks.

Irontruth wrote:


It is a superior ability in the versatility of clerics though. I can use it to heal my allies, saving my spells...

No one is denying that Turn undead couldn't heal and that Channel can, but it only takes a wand with CLW to save spells, and in battle Channeling is a bad healing option past level 5 unless you got quicken channeling and selective channeling.

Spontaneous "Cure" spells work well.


Not if you want to save spels :P

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Dude, I wasn't saying that it sucked because it was weak. I mean, yeah, it was weak, but that's not the main problem.

Zark wrote:

True, My bad. I mixed up HD with CR.

Yes I know charisma and know religion affect your maximum HD.

A 8th level cleric with five ranks in know religion and char 12 could destroy 4 wights with average rolls, right?
Turning Check: 11 + 1 + 2 = 14, Turning damage: 7 + 8 + 1 = 16

Even if we look at the ability is when it is at its worst he could still destroy 2 wights:
Turning Check: 1 (d20 a natural 1) +1 (char) +2 (know religion) = 4 = cleric level -2
Turning damage: 2 (2d6 = 2 natural 1 rolls) + 8 (cleric level) +1 (char) = 11 HD

With a charisma score of 14 he could auto-destroy 3 wight even if he rolled natural 1s on every die.

Look at those mechanics. Look at them. That is a goofy, two-roll ruleset that isn't like any other mechanic in 3e. It doesn't play like anything else, it doesn't scale like anything else, and it doesn't stack with anything else. It's the worst case of random legacy garbage left over in 3e from previous editions, and good riddance of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why bother with a wand when you can just channel? I've never felt we were short on healing when a cleric was around. Channels are free and cover everyone most of the time. Once they can't, usually 1st level spells are plentiful enough to fill the gap.


Chanels are useful if you want to heal everyone and multiple people get damaged. Chanel is also better for npc clerics. How often has an npc cleric in any game used turn/ rebuke undead?

Shadow Lodge

A Man In Black wrote:
Look at those mechanics. Look at them. That is a goofy, two-roll ruleset that isn't like any other mechanic in 3e. It doesn't play like anything else, it doesn't scale like anything else, and it doesn't stack with anything else. It's the worst case of random legacy garbage left over in 3e from previous editions, and good riddance of it.

Attack and Damage rolls? It is ctually really common, just handled very slightly diffrently, just like ability damage, poison, and disease is.

A few spells are handled by HD vs Character/Caster Level too, like Holy Word, so it isn't this unique little island mechanic like you are saying. It also isn't complicated at all. Nat 1 is not an autofail, and because the chart only ranges basially between like 4 catagories based on your roll, it is easy to just base it off of your personal character and neer look at the chart at all.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:
Attack and Damage rolls? It is ctually really common, just handled very slightly diffrently, just like ability damage, poison, and disease is.

Ability damage, poison, and disease all share the bulk of their mechanics, and, in fact, Pathfinder made poison and disease even more alike than they were in 3.5. Also, if an attack is involved with these, it's just a plain old attack, and if you're affected by one, you generally use a plain old saving throw.

Turn Undead has a special "to-hit" table that is like nothing else in the game, and has damage that works like nothing else in the game. The fact that "Turn resistance" is its own special stat that works nothing like any other resistance in the game is telling!

Quote:
A few spells are handled by HD vs Character/Caster Level too, like Holy Word, so it isn't this unique little island mechanic like you are saying. It also isn't complicated at all. Nat 1 is not an autofail, and because the chart only ranges basially between like 4 catagories based on your roll, it is easy to just base it off of your personal character and neer look at the chart at all.

You mean, some of the most infamously goofy spells in the game? (They manage to be overpowered and underpowered at the same time.) Spells that Pathfinder specifically nerfed? Spells whose nerf was called out as one of the positive features of Pathfinder?

I don't think being more like Holy Word is a good thing!


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Unintelligent undead, and undead that don't speak, won't be alerting anyone.

About the 20HD zombie being a CR 6 as an example. This is one of those situations where Turn Undead isn't needed. All this is is a bag of hit points that everyone will pound on until it's dead. This is not a good example to use for your argument. Now imagine about 15 20HD zombies, that would be a better representation as part of a high level encounter in which a 15th or 16th level Cleric could turn.

Beckett was right, Turn Undead was never meant to take out the BBEG.

That does not change the fact that it is effectively* immune to turn undead, and up thread I listed other monsters such as liches, mummies, and morghs that also don't have to worry about it too much.

In theory it will get turn, but most games dont have level 16 characters fighting CR 6 monsters, and if they do there are a lot of them so turning more than one of them is not likely. On average the roll for total hd, not just once creature will be about 30. After the zombie eats up 20 die that does not leave much for the remaining 10 die to do.

If you put enough CR 6 creatures together, you can have a level appropriate encounter, on top of the BBEG.

In PF and 3.5 if the enemies were so many levels below you XP was not rewarded. It was CR 9 in the DMG so no those zombies were not to be fought. A GM can always step outside the game and ad-hoc XP, but that is into GM fiat territory.

Shadow Lodge

There is a difference between individual CR and an Encounter's CR. I cant remember it off hand and don't have books, but sticking a few CR 6 creatures together creats a higher ECL (Forget the name off hand, ACL?), which does grant that XP, and is how the game is designed to play, not by having most encounters be individual creatures within a 2 point range of the average party level.

Thi works equaly with 3E Turning and PF Channeling/Turning.

Beckett wrote:
Attack and Damage rolls? It is ctually really common, just handled very slightly diffrently, just like ability damage, poison, and disease is.
A Man In Black wrote:

Ability damage, poison, and disease all share the bulk of their mechanics, and, in fact, Pathfinder made poison and disease even more alike than they were in 3.5. Also, if an attack is involved with these, it's just a plain old attack, and if you're affected by one, you generally use a plain old saving throw.

Turn Undead has a special "to-hit" table that is like nothing else in the game, and has damage that works like nothing else in the game. The fact that "Turn resistance" is its own special stat that works nothing like any other resistance in the game is telling!

The Turning Table is fairly unique, but it is not s far different than the basic rules that it is in any way difficult, and honestly, I think that is a great thing. It's a slightly different mechanic that people can use for other systems if they want. I really don't see this as any kind of arguement, and PF's Channeling and Turning/Commanding also both do similar, slightly off any other rules things, too.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Beckett wrote:

The Turning Table is fairly unique, but it is not s far different than the basic rules that it is in any way difficult, and honestly, I think that is a great thing. It's a slightly different mechanic that people can use for other systems if they want. I really don't see this as any kind of arguement, and PF's Channeling and Turning/Commanding also both do similar, slightly off any other rules things, too.

You could, but you forgot why Holy Word etc. are broken. Turning bypasses every standard defense in the game. HP, saves, AC, all of those are irrelevant. The only defense against turning is more HD (not typically a directly defensive stat) or Turn Resistance.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The fact that I had to look up those damned turning tables every single time tells me that they were unlike anything else in the game.

Shadow Lodge

You rolled a D20 and added bonuses. Totls tells you what HD the Turner could effect, (-/+2 levels only, not difficult).

Roll 2d6 and maybe add a few bonues. That's the pool of HD you can affect.

If you know you have a +10(ish) to Turn Checks, (not hard at level 6 or whatever), you can basically ignor the -1, -2, or +0 to Cleric level of the Turn Check, and easily remember if I roll a 10+ on the dice, I can affect up to 7HD, and if I roll 11+, I can affect 8HD.


Nope, it's +/- 4 to your level. Having +10 was relatively rare, since it was based on Charisma bonus. You could do it if you wanted, but that was a lot of focus on something that is fairly situational.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Beckett, back in 2nd edition (and prior) there were tables for everything having to do with combat. You had to look stuff up on those tables all the freaking time. Then 3rd edition came out and with this one exception they did away with the tables during combat. Just rolls and modifiers to those rolls. The Turn undead check was the last vestige of a table that must be looked at during combat. It should have been turned into a D20 with a modifier to compare to a number rather than a table.

- Gauss


It's been a while since playing a D&D cleric (I mostly GM these days), but didn't the turn undead table follow a simple formula of every 2 above or below 11 added or subtracted a HD that can be effected to a total of 4 one way or the other (or something fairly close to that)?

EDIT: Found it; it was every 3 above 10 or 3 below below 12. I was close.


Result table:
0 or lower = Lvl-4
1-3 = lvl-3
4-6 = lvl-2
7-9 = lvl-1
10-12 = lvl
13-15 = lvl+1
16-18 = lvl+2
19-21 = lvl+3
22+ = lvl+4

Even with a 12+/- 3 for each level there were no variable combat rolls that are built like this in 3.X.

This is a 2nd edition artifact that I am happy to say..bit the dust. Now, that doesnt mean I completely like channel energy. It is a compromise. Then again, most of D&D/PF is a compromise.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Gauss: My idea was that D&D didn't have a very complicated table. If you were playing a cleric at the time, simply remember "12 +/- 3," and you wouldn't need to look up the chart. It would be no different than memorizing the abilities of any other character you have.

Shadow Lodge

Gauss wrote:

Beckett, back in 2nd edition (and prior) there were tables for everything having to do with combat. You had to look stuff up on those tables all the freaking time. Then 3rd edition came out and with this one exception they did away with the tables during combat. Just rolls and modifiers to those rolls. The Turn undead check was the last vestige of a table that must be looked at during combat. It should have been turned into a D20 with a modifier to compare to a number rather than a table.

- Gauss

I remember. 3E isn't that different. The various Special Combat manuvers in 3E where similar, some adding or penunlizing for Size, some did not. Some had bonuses for multiple legs, or special circumstances, some did not. Turning is not that different, and fairly easy to mark on a character sheet, (roll 1-4 + ?, 5-8 = ?, 6+ = ?.

A decent Cleric or Paladin, with something like a 16-20 Cha (with enhancement items) and +2 for Know Religion could easily knock off the first half of the chart. It's a false arguement that sounds good on paper, but ONLY on paper.

I can also point out that in 1st and 2nd Ed, there was a massive chart based on your level, and it had 4 types of entiries, a number, - (no effect), T (turned), and D (destroyed), and that was a chart you had to look at pretty much every time. But back then, a Cleric or Paladin could Turn Undead (or Other) a billion/trillion-gazillion times a day.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Beckett wrote:
I remember. 3E isn't that different. The various Special Combat manuvers in 3E where similar, some adding or penunlizing for Size, some did not. Some had bonuses for multiple legs, or special circumstances, some did not.

And they were infamously overcomplicated and also got changed in Pathfinder.

What point are you trying to make?

Shadow Lodge

That they are/where infamously NOT complicated and that the arguement is kind of stupid and groundless.

Or have you forgotten just how much people hate PF's Combat Manuvers?


Beckett, I think we have very different ideas of what 'different' is. 3E was a mechanical revolution compared to 2nd edition. I played 2nd since it first came out all the way up to 3rd. I switched to 3rd immediately because of the changes that were made. While the turning chart may have been simplified in the change to 3rd the same mechanic as the rest of the system was not applied. That mechanic being: roll a check and compare it to a DC. It should have been changed.

- Gauss


PF's combat manuver system is vastly superior to the 3.X system that used to exist. I hated that system. While the PF version is still clunky it is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. (Yes, it still needs improvement.)

- Gauss

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Beckett wrote:
Or have you forgotten just how much people hate PF's Combat Manuvers?

Well, I'm one of them. I think doing something to fix 3e's combat maneuvers is a good idea, just that PF's fixes for them suck.

My point is that if you're going to make a new edition that more or less breaks compatibility on the fine points (like Pathfinder does), then you should set the overcomplicated legacy systems like turn undead and combat maneuvers on fire and replace them with something that works better. That's not necessarily what PF did, but what PF ditched is a decent measuring stick for what was wonky and unpopular.

What's yours?


Beckett wrote:
Or have you forgotten just how much people hate PF's Combat Manuvers?

Oh, pick me! A stirge's CMD is 7 lower than its touch AC; you can wrestle it to the ground easier than you can touch it in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...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.

Shadow Lodge

...huh?


The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
...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.

Now that it's settled, on to more pressing issues. What is your ideal breakfast?

I personally have never really been a fan of breakfast food, but if I had to pick I'd say french toast and bacon.


chaoseffect wrote:
The Elusive Jackalope wrote:
...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.

Now that it's settled, on to more pressing issues. What is your ideal breakfast?

I personally have never really been a fan of breakfast food, but if I had to pick I'd say french toast and bacon.

I made french toast this morning, actually, but only because I don't own a waffle iron.


I can't help but feel that waffles are overrated, the poor man's pancakes if you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
I can't help but feel that waffles are overrated, the poor man's pancakes if you will.

What is the rich man's pancakes? Crepes?


That would be the logical choice.


chaoseffect wrote:
That would be the logical choice.

Because the cost more than pancakes at most restaurants despite yeilding less food? Because they are needlessly fragile? Or because they sound classier?

Doesn't matter, I suppose. As long as there are hash browns involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel pancakes are the poor man's waffles. Waffles require significantly more expense to make and can properly hold the butter and syrup where it belongs. Pancakes just pale in comparison. For proof: go to any resturaunt and price and equal weight of pancakes vs waffles. The waffles are more expensive per unit of weight.

- Gauss


I'm hungry.


Waffles are just pretentious and overpriced, as compared to the perfect design of the pancake. The same could be said of crepes for all the reasons Ringtail said. But he does bring up a good point concerning hash browns, which make practically any meal worthwhile.

On a side note, sausage: links or patties?


If vegetarian "meat" counts: Definitely links, though bacon > everything.


Put sausage where it belongs: in the trash. Bacon is the way to go!

- Gauss


Of course, no one is disputing that bacon is king, but I'm divided when it comes to sausage. Both patties and links have their place as far as I'm concerned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is very apropos to the conversation: Bacone.

See it, and weep.


A Man In Black wrote:


[Good stuff and:] You could, but you forgot why Holy Word etc. are broken. Turning bypasses every standard defense in the game. HP, saves, AC, all of those are irrelevant. The only defense against turning is more HD (not typically a directly defensive stat) or Turn Resistance.

One good night sleep and two good posts is what it took.

Yes 3.5 turning is dead and gone and this is a good thing.

I still think Paizo should offer some candy to channeling [amulets of Channeling and a feat like greater Channeling: twice per day add your cleric level (or level x2?) to heal/harm, or something], but that's another topic I guess.


chaoseffect wrote:
Of course, no one is disputing that bacon is king, but I'm divided when it comes to sausage. Both patties and links have their place as far as I'm concerned.

What about crumbled or ground? It works great for pizza, meatloaf, and breakfast burritos.


A Man In Black wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Or have you forgotten just how much people hate PF's Combat Manuvers?

Well, I'm one of them. I think doing something to fix 3e's combat maneuvers is a good idea, just that PF's fixes for them suck.

My point is that if you're going to make a new edition that more or less breaks compatibility on the fine points (like Pathfinder does), then you should set the overcomplicated legacy systems like turn undead and combat maneuvers on fire and replace them with something that works better. That's not necessarily what PF did, but what PF ditched is a decent measuring stick for what was wonky and unpopular.

What's yours?

PF's Combat Manuvers isn't far from good, but I like it better than 3.5. Grapple still suck though.

@ A Man In Black:

So now that your back, a good thing, have you noticed the Dev's rule clarification on flurry of blows that made the message boards practically explode a couple of months back?
What your thoughts on the subject


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wait? What? How do Pathfinder combat maneuvers suck? They're infinitely better than what I remember.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Of course, no one is disputing that bacon is king, but I'm divided when it comes to sausage. Both patties and links have their place as far as I'm concerned.
What about crumbled or ground? It works great for pizza, meatloaf, and breakfast burritos.

I always find it a little odd to have bacon in any form besides strips, but I can't deny it is reasonable to have it on pizza from time to time.


Beckett wrote:

There is a difference between individual CR and an Encounter's CR. I cant remember it off hand and don't have books, but sticking a few CR 6 creatures together creats a higher ECL (Forget the name off hand, ACL?), which does grant that XP, and is how the game is designed to play, not by having most encounters be individual creatures within a 2 point range of the average party level.

If that was in reference to me I understand that, and the book said that technically enough creatures of CR X might mathematically make an appropriate EL, but due to the difference in power level they should not be used because the some creatures don't present enough of challenge even if there are a lot of them.

The chart also gave XP for CR not EL, which goes hand in hand with my statement of CR 6 zombies were not intended to see use against 16 level parties.

As an example 32 orcs are an EL 9, but one or two fireballs wipes them off the map. That is hardly the equivalent of the party sneezing at them.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In the next episode: 3.5 holdouts start a thread to convince us that Use Rope was a great thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
In the next episode: 3.5 holdouts start a thread to convince us that Use Rope was a great thing.

The use of rope is a highly specialized skill that really deserves having to spend ranks for it alone. In fact I'd go so far as to say that it should require two skill points per rank to keep it from being broken.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
In the next episode: 3.5 holdouts start a thread to convince us that Use Rope was a great thing.

Right up there with Appraise and Fly. . .

301 to 350 of 548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why was the Cleric's Turn ability changed from 3.5? All Messageboards