2 Clerics Turning Undead.

[hong]

Being turned is a state that applies to the undead. You either are turned or not turned, and it doesn't matter who was responsible. Just like being flanked is a state that applies to the defender, not the attacker(s).

Hence if one guy turns a skeleton, the other guy can ignore that skeleton for his own turning attempt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just like being flanked is a state that applies to the defender, not the attacker(s).

That's an awful analogy. Flanked is not a state. Flanking is a state. And it applies to the attacker, not the defender, and only while the attacker is making a melee attack.

If you have two people standing on opposite sides of an opponent, and both of them threaten him, but neither of them is making a melee attack, there is no flanking going on.

It's why Formians are screwy.

-Hyp.

 

[Keith]

It does in fact matter who turned "you", from the undead perspective (all too often ignored...). Should that person, and only that person, approach within ten feet, you are no longer turned. So, there is a portion of the "state" of being turned that is a relationship between two creatures, and it is always necessary to track which Cleric turned which undead. An argument can be built on those facts.
It does say that turning capacity does not have to be wasted on turned undead. The context appears to be during repeat tries by the same Cleric on the same, ah, pack of undead. They should probably have mentioned multiple Clerics- not that rare of a situation.

What is seems to boil down to is should two roughly equal clerics expect to get double the turning results, by not overlapping, or just better results? The odds are they will turn somewhat more, maybe even twice as many. Should turning twice as many be a given?

I think turning is individual, and stacked results for a group of Clerics is too much. It can certainly be argued the other way, as there isn't anything specific. But maybe there would be if you could stack.

The aid another idea is interesting- I don't think that is in the rules, though.

Also, isn't it the case that the flank bonus applies to the attacker, not the defender- you aren't flanked, you are flanking?

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

So what's the name of the player who you're trying to screw? He been messing up your all undead campaign or something?

 

[Keith]

Don't see the quote's connection, there, actually, but think I get your point. I think my question might be: "Isn't this another way that your players who aren't playing Clerics might get screwed?" Just a thought.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Keith: your reasoning is exactly why I don't think it's clear-cut. Your view is entirely logical.

hong: yes, this reasoning is why I don't entirely agree with Keith.

Ottergame: I think your logic could just as easily be used against you. If it had been the intention for multiple clerics to be able to ignore each others' turned targets, wouldn't it have said something about multiple clerics in the text? The entire text is referencing a single cleric vs. undead.

Hrm. I guess there isn't any further clarification somewhere, though, so I'll point my DM to this thread and see what he says about it.

 

[hong]

That's an awful analogy. Flanked is not a state. Flanking is a state. And it applies to the attacker, not the defender, and only while the attacker is making a melee attack.

HAW HAW! Next you'll be saying crazy stuff like unarmed people don't threaten the spaces around them, or something.


Hong "hypering up for a fight" Ooi

 

[Ottergame]

Ottergame: I think your logic could just as easily be used against you. If it had been the intention for multiple clerics to be able to ignore each others' turned targets, wouldn't it have said something about multiple clerics in the text? The entire text is referencing a single cleric vs. undead.

Not really, you can find many examples in the book that are similar.

For example, the Sleep spell. It says that the sleep spell does not affect sleeping targets. Would you take that to mean that someone who failed their save against Sleep is only "asleep" in regards to the person who cast the spell? If someone else cast sleep where the sleeping target is in, would they still have to have their spell target that person?

What if someone is hurt, and you cast Cure Light Wounds on them and heal them just a few points shy of max. Is that person still considered fully hurt if someone ELSE casts it on them right after you?

"You may skip over already turned undead that are still within range, so that you do not waste your turning capacity on them." There is nothing in that sentence that leads me to think that this applies only to the undead a single cleric has previously turned. This sentence is not in a paragraph talking about a single cleric, it is a solitary statement at the end of the turning damage section. If they had meant for this to mean that you cannot skip over undead someone else has turned, they would have said so. Don't assume the rules say something they do not.

 

[Len]

Lord P., I was going to post another rebuttal, but as you say, your DM can decide.

I don't think it's a big balance issue either way. If the DM thinks that the party got off easy because of the extra turning, he'll just add a few extra HD of undead next time. DMs do that. *sigh*

So what's the name of the player who you're trying to screw? He been messing up your all undead campaign or something?

Nah, you've got me all wrong. I'm on the player's side here (unless the undead in the example are the PCs!). I want my buddies to do all the cleaving and turning they can to keep those undead off my skinny rogue butt.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Lord P., I was going to post another rebuttal, but as you say, your DM can decide.

Yeah. And besides, I've been somewhat coerced into arguing against you, but I don't particularly think you're wrong. Just that there's enough room for doubt that clarification is needed.