Alternative Turning Mechanic

[Grayhawk]

Some great ideas here.

I agree with ichabod that the roll should be put in the hands of the cleric.

I agree with AeroDm that the roll should be adjusted by Cha.

I think Plane Sailing has it right with the 30 feet cone.

Perhaps this could be made like the turning check from 1st and 2nd ed., where you roll once and then use that single roll to check whether you can turn a given undead or not. Maybe something like this:

A turning check is 1d20 + cleric level + cha modifier. All undead within the AoE are turned if the check beats their individual DC's. This DC is the undead's will save + 11. (Not sure if these numbers work out OK - what do you say?)

Should there be a limiting factor on how many/how strong undead can be turned?

If so, how about limiting the total number of HD turned to a maximum of cleric's level x2? (Or will this work out to too few at low levels and too many at higher levels?)

The strongest undead you're able to turn could have a HD of cleric level + cha bonus.

If you can work out the correct way of setting the turn DC (or figuring out the appropriate 'turning power' of a cleric, being what he adds to his d20 check), are these limiting factors at all necessary?

Is it preferable to totally eliminate the undead's HD from the mix?

 

[Yair]

I agree with ichabod that the roll should be put in the hands of the cleric.

While I agree in principle it may be easier on the DM, I don't mind either way really.

I agree with AeroDm that the roll should be adjusted by Cha.

Me too, but I think Plane Sailing has it right at 10 + 1/2 Cleric Level + Cha mod. If you just add Cha, the DC becomes too high.

I think Plane Sailing has it right with the 30 feet cone.

Hmm... it's simpler, but as ichabold noted the distribution of undead is unknown...

Perhaps this could be made like the turning check from 1st and 2nd ed., where you roll once and then use that single roll to check whether you can turn a given undead or not.

A single roll is always nicer than multiple rolls, but this is problematic. Given that most encounters with undead (in my campaigns, anyhow) will include several undead of the same type and/or a single powerful undead, this would mean that the cleric will turn everyone (except possibly the powerful one), or will fail to turn them all.
I want the cleric to be able to turn SOME of the skeletons... but not an army of skeletons... (ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get my drift)

Should there be a limiting factor on how many/how strong undead can be turned?

Yes. Otherwise, its unbalanced.
Currently the limit to how strong is simply the save DC, and the suggested limits to how many are affected are either the area (with a cone) or the range + stop-as-soon-as-one-makes-the-save mechanic.
You and others suggested limiting the affected HD, but...

Is it preferable to totally eliminate the undead's HD from the mix?

I think so. Suprisingly, HD of undead are far less related to their CR than the Will save is. The result is that tying turning to HD will invariably have vary varied effects on the number of undead turned, as some equal-CR undead will have different HD.
I prefer to keep the number of turned undead tied more closely to their CR. This is why I like both of the above methods. YMMV.

Yair

 

[Grayhawk]

While I agree in principle it may be easier on the DM, I don't mind either way really.

More important than making it easier on the DM, putting the roll in the hands of the cleric's player will make him feel more like he's the one doing the turning. And a big (fun) part of the game is having the players roll dice to determine the outcome of their actions.

Me too, but I think Plane Sailing has it right at 10 + 1/2 Cleric Level + Cha mod. If you just add Cha, the DC becomes too high.

And this would be equal to a turning check by the cleric of d20 + 1/2 Cleric Level + Cha mod vs a DC of undead's will save + 10?

A single roll is always nicer than multiple rolls, but this is problematic. Given that most encounters with undead (in my campaigns, anyhow) will include several undead of the same type and/or a single powerful undead, this would mean that the cleric will turn everyone (except possibly the powerful one), or will fail to turn them all.
I want the cleric to be able to turn SOME of the skeletons... but not an army of skeletons... (ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get my drift)

I see what you mean, but the opposite argument could be made as well: 'Your previous turning attempt failed to affect any of the undead, but this time all the skeletons within your AoE are turned. The Ghouls though, keep advancing.' I guess this is more a questuion of personal preference (as long as the turning is balanced in some other way).

Yes. Otherwise, its unbalanced.
Currently the limit to how strong is simply the save DC, and the suggested limits to how many are affected are either the area (with a cone) or the range + stop-as-soon-as-one-makes-the-save mechanic.

I'm not sure this is limited enough. If you use the formula of d20 + 1/2 Cleric Level + Cha mod vs a DC of undead's will save + 10, a 2nd level cleric with a Cha of 14 will turn a Spectre on a roll of 14. With standard 3e rules he would only have been able to turn HD 4 creatures with that roll.

When paging through the MM other oddities stand out. Like vampires. The sample vampire (5th level human fighter) with a CR of 7 would be turned by the above 2nd level cleric on a roll of 11, while the CR 4 vampire spawn would require a roll of 14, due to his better will save and the +2 turn resistance.

Not sure if this can be easily fixed, though. Maybe going through the various undead and applying/removing turn resistance based on how their will save compares to their CR.

Suprisingly, HD of undead are far less related to their CR than the Will save is. The result is that tying turning to HD will invariably have vary varied effects on the number of undead turned, as some equal-CR undead will have different HD.
I prefer to keep the number of turned undead tied more closely to their CR. This is why I like both of the above methods. YMMV.

I think something can be worked out that includes both HD and will save, as I like the thought about the will save influencing how hard it is to turn a given undead, but having the HD decide whether it's too tough to be turned at all.

I still feel that having the highest affected HD be equal to cleric level + cha bonus might work.

 

[Mordane76]

Hence -- Turn Resistence. Just keep the figures that the monsters had originally for this factor, and add it as a bonus to their saves or to their Turn DC (if using the check). IIRC, Spectres have TR +4, which means that your cleric would need an 18 to turn it or the spectre would get a +4 to its Will save against the turn -- a bit more believeable and stomachable.

 

[Grayhawk]

IIRC, Spectres have TR +4, which means that your cleric would need an 18 to turn it or the spectre would get a +4 to its Will save against the turn -- a bit more believeable and stomachable.

The Spectre has a turn resistance of +2, which I forgot about in my calculation above.

Still, having a 2nd level cleric with a 14 cha turn a Spectre on a roll of 16 seems like it may be too powerful. By standard 3e rules the same cleric would have to be 5th level to be able to turn a Spectre, and then only on a natural 20 on the die.

To turn the Spectre on a roll of 16 he would have to be 7th level.

(If you use my proposal of having the highest possible HD turned be = cleric level + cha bonus he would have to be 7th level as well. I'm not saying that this system will match the old one in every instance, but at least is a way of keeping the turning power in check.)

 

[Kerrick]

I think what we're missing here is opposed rolls. Let's say you have the Clr 4 (Cha 14). He cleric rolls 1d20+1/2 level+Cha mod, or 1d20+4; the specter rolls 1d20+7. The specter, therefore, has an 85% chance to beat the cleric, all things being equal. This is only slightly better than the official version, where the cleric would have to roll a 19+ (IOW, a 10% chance).

The 5th-level vampire gains +8 (+4 Will and +4 TR); the vampire has a 25% chance to beat the cleric (which would only be 10% without the TR). This makes a lot more sense; ordinarily, the vampire would be unturnable by the cleric, due to its TR.

But, you say, opposed rolls make for a lot more dice rolling. True... so, you could simply implement the "group roll" - if you have a group of undead, make a single roll for all in the area of effect, then apply the turning damage to those undead. The others are assumed to be unaffected. In mixed groups, the same theory applies (except see below).

I'd also like to suggest that with groups with a leader (say, a vampire leading a pack of ghouls), the lesser undead are affected ONLY if the leader is. Or, if you don't like that, you could grant the leader's TR as a bonus to the lesser undead's Will saves. So, let's say you have the 5th-level vampire from the book, leading a pack of 10 ghouls. The party's cleric (5th level, Cha 15), makes a turn check. The vampire makes a Will save (+8 to the roll). The ghouls (if you use the second alternative) gain a +4 to their roll, as they are bolstered by the vampire's presence.

Note that I came up with this after running the numbers on the other systems presented in this thread, so I don't know if it consistently would work in practice. It does seem to be more flexible than the existing system, though, and it allows for effects like bane, unhallow, and sinks of evil.

 

[Grayhawk]

The 5th-level vampire gains +8 (+4 Will and +4 TR)

A vampire has a turn resistance of +4?

*Flips through MM*

So it does (I didn't read the small print the first time around). This makes much more sense, as the vampire spawn has a TR of +2. Of course, this makes my vampire/vampire spawn comparison above flawed, as I added the spawn's TR but not the vampire's.

But why the heck didn't they include the vampire's TR in the statblock when they did it with the vampire spawn?

 

[Yair]

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
putting the roll in the hands of the cleric's player will make him feel more like he's the one doing the turning. And a big (fun) part of the game is having the players roll dice to determine the outcome of their actions.

True, true.

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
And this would be equal to a turning check by the cleric of d20 + 1/2 Cleric Level + Cha mod vs a DC of undead's will save + 10?

Yes, but this check is kind of wierd. Not "d20ish".

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
I guess this is more a questuion of personal preference (as long as the turning is balanced in some other way).

Yes... I suppose it is.

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
I'm not sure this is limited enough... [lots of good points; even if the TR is +4 ]

Good points. I have to agree the cleric's powers do seem to stray too high too quickly.

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
Not sure if this can be easily fixed, though. Maybe going through the various undead and applying/removing turn resistance based on how their will save compares to their CR.

No. That would require too much work
We could base the DC on the CR, but this would not be very "d20ish" and will undermine the "beuty" of the mechanic.
Ponders...

Originally Posted by Grayhawk :
I still feel that having the highest affected HD be equal to cleric level + cha bonus might work.

Well, let's take a look than, shall we? Taking a post from another thread,

Originally Posted by Frank Trollman:
Using 3.r stuff whenever possible, here's the pre-packaged Undead (using total Hit Dice + Turn Resistance):

Creature CR/Hit Dice/Will Save
Abyssal Ghoul 10/16/+12
Allip 3/6/+4
Banshee 17/26/+19
Bhut 9/8/+5
Blood Fiend 14/18/+13
Bodak 8/9/+7
Bone Naga 11/15/+11
Corpse Gatherer 19/30/+17
Crawling Head 20/28/+20
Crimson Death 11/13/+10
Deathbringer 17/30/+19
Devourer 11/12/+11
Effigy 17/27/+20
Famine Spirit 19/32/+20
Ghast 3/6/+6
Ghoul 1/4/+5
Gravecrawler 16/31/+16
Hullathoin 15/16/+13
Jahi 16/25/+18
Mohrg 8/14/+9
Mummy 5/8/+8
Nightcrawler 18/25/+23
Nightwalker 16/21/+19
Nightwing 14/17/+17
Quth-Maren 7/12/+9
Ragewind 19/31/+18
Shadow 3/5/+4
Skeleton (Wolf) 1/2/+3
Skeleton (Owlbear) 2/5/+4
Skeleton (Troll) 3/6/+5
Skeleton (Chimerae) 4/9/+6
Skeleton (Ettin) 5/10/+7
Spawn of Kyuss 5/6/+4
Spectre 7/9/+7
Ulgarstasta 11/17/+13
Vampire Spawn 4/6/+5
Wight 3/4/+5
Wraith 5/7/+6
Wraith (Dread) 11/16/+14
Zombie (Troglodyte) 1/4/+4
Zombie (Bugbear) 2/6/+5
Zombie (Ogre) 3/8/+6
Zombie (Minotaur) 4/12/+8
Zombie (Gray Render) 6/20/+12

Using Clr lvl + cha bonus as maximum HD would mean that a cleric with level equal to the monster's CR could not turn it in many cases. (To be precise, assuming +4 Cha bonus, these are the Zombie (gray render, minotaur), wraith (dread), ulgarstasta, skeletaon (ettin), ragewind, quth-maren, nightwing, nightwalker, nightcrawler, mhorg, jahi, grave crawler, famine spirit, effigy, death bringer, crawling head, corpse gatherer, banshee, abyssal ghoul). Having a lower Cha will just make this worse.
In fact, except at low-levels where the differences are still small, this is basically the problem of CR going up as HD/2, whereas level=CR. I suggest using cleric level x 2 + cha mod might work better, but I have to go to work, so I can't check this out right now. Later
Now, this counts the TR as HD, which is not quite what we have suggested. But if turning is to be maxed at a certain HD, that actually makes sense. And I ain't got time to make the table myself

 

[Grayhawk]

Yes, but this check is kind of wierd. Not "d20ish".

Hm, the mechanic seems pretty similar to a Dispel Magic check.

I was thinking of making it even simpler by having the check be d20 + cleric level vs a DC of undead's will save + 11.

(I know that this removes the cha bonus, but if you use Clr lvl + cha bonus as maximum HD, it's still pretty important.)

We could base the DC on the CR, but this would not be very "d20ish" and will undermine the "beuty" of the mechanic.

I agree. It doesn't seem right to use CR in a game mechanic like this.

Using Clr lvl + cha bonus as maximum HD would mean that a cleric with level equal to the monster's CR could not turn it in many cases.

But that's true of the existing system as well, where the highest HD you'd ever be able to turn is cleric level +4 (on a good roll). But of course, this is one of the things we're trying to rectify...

With the risk of making it too complicated, you could have a seperate mechanic for turning a single undead vs turning an area, like so:

When turning just one creature, the maximum HD affected is = (Clr lvl + cha bonus)x2. This way you'd have to be an 8th level cleric with a cha of 14 to turn a CR 6 Gray Render Zombie as opposed to 18th level.

I suggest using cleric level x 2 + cha mod might work better, but I have to go to work, so I can't check this out right now. Later

I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with. My feeling though, is that this will make turning too powerful.

Now, this counts the TR as HD, which is not quite what we have suggested. But if turning is to be maxed at a certain HD, that actually makes sense.

If you use both HD and will save as determining factors, I'm not sure if TR should be applied to both. Maybe only will save, as it seems that the problem with the current system is that some HD are too high to be turned, even though the undead's CR often is less than half their HD. But then again, are there even any undead with high HD compared to their CR that have TR?

Anyway, to use the Spectre again, a cha 14 cleric would have to be 5th level and roll a 15 to turn a Spectre (if using max HD = cleric level + cha bonus, and having the cleric make a level check vs 11 + will save + TR).

If also applying the TR to the HD, the cleric would have to be 7th level, at which point he would only have to roll a 13 to turn the Spectre.

 

[AeroDm]

When I worked it out I also had a set DC (created by the cleric) that was then opposed by Will saves with Turn Resistance added on as a bonus. Mathematically it all seemed to work out quite well, with only smaller isolated problems. That was the rationale behind making it a cone vs a burst.

Hence, altering it around to make it a single roll is excellent with the exception of multiple opponents. What is the DC? Do you make multiple rolls? Do you affect everyone under your check within the radius? I suppose the last one would be the most prudent.

As an aside, could someone update what the "current" system is in reference to this thread. i am getting a little lost as i follow its progression as to what has been ruled a good idea and what has been cut out.