D&D 5E The Turn Undead conundrum

[Celebrim]

Hmmm... once again I maybe slightly misled by the fact that the 3.X rules aren't as clear as mine. Instead of explicitly stating that turned undead are imposed a condition, it relies on plain and comparatively untechnical language to describe the effects. The particular effect it describes appears to be half-way in severity between 'frightened' and 'panicked', but because it uses vague language like 'best' it's very difficult to know what the text means. Like the 'frightened' condition though, I see that the text could be interpreted as suggesting that the undead still retains rational mental control and can act with foresight (which, BTW, a zero intelligence undead shouldn't be able to do anyway, but to simplify, let's assume we are talking about ghouls here). Unlike the 'frightened' condition though, it doesn't specifically state that the target is acting under any sort of penalty. And like the 'panicked' condition, the creature is forced into the 'cowering' condition if it cannot flee.

My 3.X derived rules explicitly provoke the 'panicked' condition, which I interpret as follows:

a) You must move at your best possible speed in your fastest movement mode away from all of the sources of your fear. You may not at any time move closer to any source of fear, even if doing so is the best way to escape from the source of your fear.
b) If there are multiple choices that remove you an equal distance from the source of your fear, you must move randomly, even if this movement is irrational and subjects you to additional dangers. For example, if the only direction you can move in that is away from the source of your fear is off a cliff or through a fire (and assuming you have no special fear of such things), then you must move off the cliff or through the fire.
c) You cannot plan or act with foresight. You will not move randomly toward a door or passage simply because after moving through the door you could then move yourself even further from the source of the fear. You can only move toward the door if after moving as far as you can from the source of fear along a random path, it is still true that you can move toward the door and not come closer to the source of your fear. If a door and a window 50' off the ground equally remove you from your source of fear, you can't express a rational preference for one or the other (either because you can fly and your enemy can't or because you can't fly). If a corridor is lit and the other is not, you can't preference one or the other (either because you have darkvision and your enemy doesn't or you can't see in the dark). You are panicking. You will not take rational action.
d) If you cannot at some time move such that you are further away from all sources of your fear, then you assume the cowering condition until such time as you could so move.

Note that in my game the Ravenloft Fear/Horror/Madness rules are in full force and this interpretation also holds true for panicking PC's as well as panicking monsters.

Using the above guidelines, which I have been doing, IMO experience turning undead just destroys them. They loose all tactical cohesiveness, split up into small groups, trigger traps, throw themselves off things, cower in corners, and generally turning them acts as an win button for the encounter - even ignoring that by 8th level you are incinerating many common sorts of undead on turns and not 'merely' panicking them. It's anything but counter-productive, and simply doing say 1d6 damage/class level to each effected undead would probably be less effective rather than more so.

I see that the 3.X rules, especially the 3.X turn rules which give the vague description 'best'* could be interpreted in other much less harsh ways.

*(Best by what standard? Most direct? Most effective? Most tactical? Most likely to avoid harm? For example, it might be "best" at times to flee behind nearby cover and stop there so as to avoid being exposed to missile fire. At other times the "best" means of movement might to take the withdraw action rather than the run action, or otherwise slow down to avoid offering attacks of opportunity. In short, the wording in the SRD leaves a DM a lot of wiggle room to advocate for strategic decisions on behalf of the monster, as opposed to plainly imposing a harsh and objective penalty and treating PC's and NPC's by the same standard.)

I'm not familiar with the wording of the 5e rules, but it sounds like they are equally ambiguous if not more so.

 

[Skyscraper]

I should thread-jack my own thread then, and ask: how do you handle the Turn Undead power considering that it is a win button against undead?

 

[MasterTrancer]

Hmm...it appears that I'm the only one that read 'Turn Undead' as a use of Channel Divinity, and as such being limited at low levels at 1 shot per rest...

 

[Kobold Stew]

I don't remember if it was different during the play test, or if we were just playing it wrong, but one of my favourite 5e moments while playing so far was when the party cleric used channel divinity to turn undead, creating a wall of force 30' away that only those that made the save were able to get past. It was maintained by concentration: the player had a blast, it was magnificent battlefield control (without eliminating the threat), and the effort of holding back the undead who were still ravenously trying to attack you made for a good (TOTM) visual.

Even if it was not RAW, it would be an easy house rule/variation to implement.

 

[Celebrim]

I should thread-jack my own thread then, and ask: how do you handle the Turn Undead power considering that it is a win button against undead?

Honestly, it's troubling. And if I knew a better way to handle it, I would. But mostly I handle it at present by metagaming.

1) Against masses of low HD undead, the party would generally not be severly troubled anyway, as the attack bonus of low HD undead is quite low. So mostly large numbers of skeletons and zombies are used as color or setting trappings after a while. It just helps establish, "Yes, this is a bad place."

2) When it is necessary or desirable to have undead be a challenge, there are number of mechanisms that can be used of quite old provenance to effect the outcome. So, as I would with any encounter, I do some math to make sure that the encounter is reasonable before steering the game in that direction (PC's can always go opening a lich's tomb if they want, but I try to avoid giving them in game motivation for doing so until they are capable of surviving the consequences.) First, most more powerful undead have some amount of Turn Resistance that makes it unlikely or impossible for the win button to work on a 'boss monster'. Secondly, spells like Desecrate or Unhallow can easily be applied as effects to areas that are sufficiently evil as to be teeming with undead - necromantic tainted catacombs, haunted houses, evil temples, demonic sacrificial altars, places where mass murder occurred, etc. These increase the turn resistance of monsters and consequently adjust the difficulty of the encounter. Finally, Gygax himself noted the problem here early on, and frequently outfitted his monsters with "amulets of turn resistance" that effectively adjusted the difficulty of the encounter. So for example, if you want something like a zombie to be a bit more challenging, you can up it to 4HD, put rusted platemail on it, give it a masterwork great axe, and an amulet of turn resistance +2, and put it guarding the door of a permanently desecrated tomb. The resulting monster turns as if it was 8HD, but isn't nearly as dangerous as an 8HD monster and as such is more appropriate of a foe to a 3rd or 4th level party.

I don't know the details of how 5e handles this, but presumably you could modify an encounter such that it read something like, "Evil Altar: This altar radiates evil and flickers with black shadows when observed. As long as this altar remains undamaged, any undead within 60' has advantage on their saving throws versus Turn Undead." That sort of thing lets you play with how much of the encounter you intend to be resolvable through turning.

3) Provide alternative uses for channeling divine power. For example, the PC cleric in my party has a feat that allows her to spend a channel divinity usage to temporarily give her weapon the 'flaming' property. The feat is open to clerics with either the Sun or Fire domain, and a large variety of other feats are open to other Domains that give options for using it. Using 'channel' in this way isn't OP in the long run, but keeps the cleric power to channel divine power relevant at times when turning undead isn't - including against undead. 5e seems to be doing something like this.

4) Generally never imagine for myself that lots of weak undead should be a very challenging encounter any way, any more than a room of kobold or goblins is supposed to be a very challenging encounter. I try to avoid making pets of my monsters, and look for alternative sources of challenge that are appropriate to the setting if I need a source of challenge.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't see the problem. If you plan on scouring the entire dungeon for treasure, you will eventually come across the undead that fled, and destroy them one at a time, which is much easier than taking them on all at once. If you don't plan on scouring the entire dungeon, then let the fleeing undead go. What kind of treasure do you expect to get off a bunch of zombies, anyway?

Also, if you get overwhelmed and your brains eaten, you don't get much treasure. Turn Undead is a "get out of zombie horde free" card. 5E expects that PCs sometimes run across threats that are more than they can handle in a straight-up fight. When that happens, you need something to give you an edge. Turn Undead can be that edge, breaking up a mob of undead into manageable groups. And if you screw up and find yourself facing the entire horde at once, it can save your butt.

And while the ability remains potent at high levels, the fact that it relies on a Wisdom save means truly powerful undead can tough it out. Liches, mummy lords, death knights, and vampires are all legendary creatures.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's been kind of problematic for me, but mainly because the paladin in my group is an Oath of Ancients paladin, and he can turn fiends as well. With a 20 Cha, and given how few monsters actually have trained saves, its trivialized a number of encounters through turning them and picking them off one at a time.

 

[evilbob]

I should thread-jack my own thread then, and ask: how do you handle the Turn Undead power considering that it is a win button against undead?

I don't think it's a big deal, really. It's a save, as you said. You only get to use it a very small number of times (1/short rest to start as someone mentioned) against specifically undead, and it's part of a very small number of class features. You're giving up other uses of Channel Divinity to use it. Really, in my mind, this is part of the reason that class is chosen: to do something REALLY cool every now and again. And even if you do have an entire campaign that revolves around fighting undead - wouldn't you WANT the cleric there for exactly that reason? I don't know; it just doesn't seem problematic to me. It's not as typically effective as something like fireball, and that can be done much more often. I'd say don't sweat it. Sometimes the PCs bring the right tools to handle encounters quickly and efficiently.

 

[Skyscraper]

I don't think it's a big deal, really. It's a save, as you said. You only get to use it a very small number of times (1/short rest to start as someone mentioned) against specifically undead, and it's part of a very small number of class features. You're giving up other uses of Channel Divinity to use it. Really, in my mind, this is part of the reason that class is chosen: to do something REALLY cool every now and again. And even if you do have an entire campaign that revolves around fighting undead - wouldn't you WANT the cleric there for exactly that reason? I don't know; it just doesn't seem problematic to me. It's not as typically effective as something like fireball, and that can be done much more often. I'd say don't sweat it. Sometimes the PCs bring the right tools to handle encounters quickly and efficiently.

My problem with this approach, is that encounters vs undead means that the PCs always have the right tools for them, unless they have numerous undead encounters between short rest. For example, at level 6, with 2 uses of channel divinity per short rest, it assumes that they have at least three encoutners with undead for those encounters to even be a threat.

I can, of course, simply accept that they PCs have the win button vs undead, as you suggest. But this is not satisfactory to me. Not while I'm playing Return to Castle Ravenloft - revamped (pun intended) to 5E.

 

[Skyscraper]

So, what now? I'm thinking about houseruling Turn Undead. I'll thread-jack my own thread... again!

What would you suggest as a houserule alternate design for Turn Undead that would not make undead encounters meaningless because of the win button, or unused because players don't want the undead to flee the battle scene? Does anyone want to suggest an interesting and flavorful turn undead power? I have a few ideas, but I'd rather hear what others have to say without skewing opinions. (though good suggestions are already in this thread...)