2 Clerics Turning Undead.

[Lord Pendragon]

Cleric A and Cleric B walk into a room filled with 12 skeletons. Immediately, Cleric A Turns Undead, and manages to turn 3 of the skeletons. Then Cleric B Turns Undead and gets a result that allows him to turn 4 skeletons.

Now, the four skeletons closest to Cleric B include the 3 skeletons that Cleric A already turned. Can Cleric B skip over these skeletons when determining which skeletons are affected by his own turning, or does he have to "double-turn" the 3 skeletons already turned by A, since he has not yet personally turned them himself?

 

[Len]

First of all, there should be three clerics in your example. It always goes, "A priest, a minister and a rabbi walk into a room...".

Anyway, I think you get to skip the undead that are already turned. The rules say:

You may skip over already turned undead that are still within range, so that you do not waste your turning capacity on them.

It doesn't say anything who may have turned those undead, just that they have been turned.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

An excellent point, Len, but the entire section you reference is assuming a single cleric, so I'm not so sure it's clear that any cleric turning the undead allows successive clerics to ignore them when turning. Of course, it'd be nice and that's the interpretation I like best, but I'm just not sure. Hence this thread.

 

[MichaelH]

I read that as applying to one, two, three, or any number of clerics. They cannot include every possible detail in these rules. The example is for one cleric, but the principle should apply to two or more clerics that turn undead in the same round, assuming they do not destroy them in the first place.

 

[Len]

An excellent point, Len, but the entire section you reference is assuming a single cleric, so I'm not so sure it's clear that any cleric turning the undead allows successive clerics to ignore them when turning.

Hmm, if you see that as a problem then it opens a whole can of worms. What about the Cleave feat, for example? If Fighter A damages an enemy and then Fighter B drops it, can B cleave?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Hmm, if you see that as a problem then it opens a whole can of worms. What about the Cleave feat, for example? If Fighter A damages an enemy and then Fighter B drops it, can B cleave?

No, I don't think your "can of worms" is in any way meaningful. Damaging an enemy without dropping him is not dropping him, and Cleave does not require the Feat-holder to have done all the damage to drop a foe. You're reaching here.

Regarding the clerics. I'm simply not sure that we can say "obviously it counts for as many clerics as are turning." I was hoping for some additional precedent, perhaps in a non-Core WotC product, or a Sage email, or some such.

 

[Len]

Just as cleave does not require the feat-user to have done all the damage, turn undead does not require the turner to have done all the turning. That's how I read it, anyway.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Just as cleave does not require the feat-user to have done all the damage, turn undead does not require the turner to have done all the turning. That's how I read it, anyway.

"all the turning"? There isn't any partial turning. Something is either turned, or it's not. A better comparison would be to compare the "dropped" status in the Cleave text to the "turned" status in our scenario.

If two fighters are standing side by side and Fighter A drops an opponent, fighter B doesn't get a Cleave attempt, because he wasn't the one who dropped the opponent.

In the same sense, if two clerics are standing side by side and Cleric A turns an opponent, Cleric B doesn't get to ignore that opponent for the purposes of further turning, because he wasn't the one who turned the opponent.

Or so the logic would go. And that logic makes a lot of sense to me. Turning power is clearly individual, otherwise clerics could all turn a single opponent together, and the turning damage would stack. But it doesn't. Each is resolved separately.

Which is not to say that Cleric B doesn't ignore the pre-turned opponent. Just that it's not clear-cut that he does.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

"all the turning"? There isn't any partial turning. Something is either turned, or it's not

I think the person intended the "partial turning" being that cleric A only turned x number of those 12 skeletons.

In the same sense, if two clerics are standing side by side and Cleric A turns an opponent, Cleric B doesn't get to ignore that opponent for the purposes of further turning, because he wasn't the one who turned the opponent.

Or so the logic would go. And that logic makes a lot of sense to me. Turning power is clearly individual, otherwise clerics could all turn a single opponent together, and the turning damage would stack. But it doesn't. Each is resolved separately.

Which is not to say that Cleric B doesn't ignore the pre-turned opponent. Just that it's not clear-cut that he does.

Or the two clerics could aid one another and both together have a chance of turning more skeletons than one alone could.

 

[Ottergame]

I'm simply not sure that we can say "obviously it counts for as many clerics as are turning."

Obviously we can, because if they wanted to limit turning in such a fashion, they would have said "You may skip over undeady ou have already turned." It does not say that, is says "You may skip over already turned undead." Therefore, it doesn't matter who turned them, just that they are turned.