Alternative Turning Mechanic

[FrankTrollman]

One of the main advantages of the original suggestion is that it does not require a table. I'd like to keep it that way, which is why I don't like the "Cha check" approach.

Attributes have a table as well, when was the last time you referenced it? So long as the table is periodic and predictive, people won't need to look at it, so the disadvantages of having a unique table do not exist.

The problem with the current turning check table is that it does not follow a rule - it's just some arbitrary numbers - so people have to look it up every time. A "table" which was simply a mathematical rule would not have this problem.

How can a character get a +6 to Cha in one level? The only way he can do that is through heavy use of magic items.

Let's say you are a Cleric with the Fire Domain - you can control Efreet. Grab 2 of them (with the right set-up this can be done at 9th level, but we'll assume you are more like 15th) - now force them to give you six wishes. Wish for +5 Charisma and a +6 Cloak of Charisma. Your Charisma now goes directly from 15 (a +2 bonus) to 26 (a +8 bonus) with a single event.

Needless to say, your Charisma could rise much faster than that with the use of armor of command, prestige classes, exercising levelling bonuses into charisma, and so on and so forth.

How about instead setting DC=1d20+Cleric level+1/2 Cha bonus (or 5+... or something)? Not clean, but at least no table...

That's just a different table. Anytime you have any mathematical formulae it is inherently expressable in tabular form.

The undead would then be turned if they fail the Will save (or 10+Will if the DM is lasy...). They would be destroyed if they fail by 10 or more. (Frank: is there a reason you suggest 8?)

There is a reason I suggest 8 instead of 10. It's because we are already ramping down the power of Turn Undead by alot. Making the destruction modiifer an 8 gives 1st level Clerics a chance of destroying their undead foes - thus giving them a small advantage after we are kicking them in the crotch so very hard.

I don't know how much you've used Turn Undead, but despite it having a really weird mechanic (or perhaps because of that fact), Sun Clerics tend to kill just about every Undead creature they ever meet - at every level. Consider: at 1st level a "very hard" challenge is 12 Skeletons - that's supposed to be a group to nealry wipe out the entire party. And yet, the Cleric uses one turning attempt (using the awesome power of the Sun Domain) and he rolls a d20. Since he has a Charisma of 14 or so, he only needs to roll an 8 to successfully destroy skeletons - and when he does so he will destroy 2d6+3 skeletons (average 10). So the Cleric destroys an average of 6.5 skeletons per application - and he can do this 5 times a day (after which he will be be down to his 9 normal turning attempts). And if the Cleric involved is 2nd level, he destroys even more skeletons, only needs to roll a 5 on the d20 - and doesn't even need the Sun Domain to do it.

In short, at low levels, "difficult" encounters with undead are reduced to slag in short order. At high levels, characters tend to collect amulets of turning and such like - and don't even have a small chance of failure against most supposedly difficult encounters.

So what kind of math are we looking at for this method? Well, the 2nd level Cleric is having a DC of about 12, the Skeletons have a Will Save of about +2. So while in the old system he'd have an 80% chance of destroying all but one of the Skeletons - now they each have a 50% chance of having to run away (55% if we add half the Charisma Modifier).

So by the averages, where before our second level Cleric destroyed 8.8 skeletons per application - now he's going to Turn only 6 of them - a massive reduction in power. If the Skeletons are destroyed if they fail by 8 or more - then at least 1 of the skeletons might be destroyed.

I am against using BAB, for the same reasons AeroDm raises.

There are also lots of other good reasons for not using BAB and if people are still seriously looking at it I'll enumerate some of them (hint: think about multiclassing into Sacred Exorcist).

The reason for the specific limit to HD turned that I advocate is that in general undead's CR scales as HD/2.

No it doesn't. It's an erratic, and largely logarythmic progression. At the low levels it's often CR*2, but at the bottom it's CR*3 or CR*4. At the top it's mostly about CR*1.5

Hit Dice progress faster than CR does - but the rate at which they progress goes down as their CR goes up. In short: it's all screwed up and pretending that Hit Dice means a damn thing is counterproductive.

As for the range... I don't know If we institute a total-HD-limit, the range becomes less of a balancing factor, and I'm considering just leaving it at 60' radius.
Without such a limit, or if a balancing factor is desired nonetheless, I suggest a 30' cone would be relatively limited in area, while maintaining good flavor.
The more I think about it, the less 5'/level makes sense. It's just too weak at low levels and too powerful at high levels.

Making it a Save against every single Undead creature within range is less powerful than the Turning Check + Hit Dice Effected mechanic already in place. It allows people to still feel useful without having to invest in Amulets of Turning and Armor of Turning and crap - but it is on the whole less powerful than the original mechanic.

Why on Earth would we go and reduce the range as well? Do we really hate Clerics that much?

-Frank

 

[ichabod]

Attributes have a table as well, when was the last time you referenced it? So long as the table is periodic and predictive, people won't need to look at it, so the disadvantages of having a unique table do not exist.

The problem with the current turning check table is that it does not follow a rule - it's just some arbitrary numbers - so people have to look it up every time. A "table" which was simply a mathematical rule would not have this problem.

The current mechanic is not just arbitrary numbers. It's (check-10)/3, round down, add to cleric's level for maximum HD. Roll some damage. The problem is that it's a 'unique' table. It doesn't follow the standard progressions that almost everything else in the game does. Any other 'unique' table would have the same problem.

Let's say you are a Cleric with the Fire Domain - you can control Efreet. Grab 2 of them (with the right set-up this can be done at 9th level, but we'll assume you are more like 15th) - now force them to give you six wishes. Wish for +5 Charisma and a +6 Cloak of Charisma. Your Charisma now goes directly from 15 (a +2 bonus) to 26 (a +8 bonus) with a single event.

Any DM who just lets you do stuff like that is asking for it. In any reasonable campaign you'd have a large number of powerful creatures famous for their 'hatred of servitude' and 'desire for revenge' coming after you, not to mention the guy whose cloak you stole. Not that I even see how you're doing it, considering you need 20 cleric levels to command an efreeti.

I don't know how much you've used Turn Undead, but despite it having a really weird mechanic (or perhaps because of that fact), Sun Clerics tend to kill just about every Undead creature they ever meet - at every level. Consider: at 1st level a "very hard" challenge is 12 Skeletons - that's supposed to be a group to nealry wipe out the entire party. And yet, the Cleric uses one turning attempt (using the awesome power of the Sun Domain) and he rolls a d20. Since he has a Charisma of 14 or so, he only needs to roll an 8 to successfully destroy skeletons - and when he does so he will destroy 2d6+3 skeletons (average 10). So the Cleric destroys an average of 6.5 skeletons per application - and he can do this 5 times a day (after which he will be be down to his 9 normal turning attempts). And if the Cleric involved is 2nd level, he destroys even more skeletons, only needs to roll a 5 on the d20 - and doesn't even need the Sun Domain to do it.

In short, at low levels, "difficult" encounters with undead are reduced to slag in short order. At high levels, characters tend to collect amulets of turning and such like - and don't even have a small chance of failure against most supposedly difficult encounters.

So what kind of math are we looking at for this method? Well, the 2nd level Cleric is having a DC of about 12, the Skeletons have a Will Save of about +2. So while in the old system he'd have an 80% chance of destroying all but one of the Skeletons - now they each have a 50% chance of having to run away (55% if we add half the Charisma Modifier).

So by the averages, where before our second level Cleric destroyed 8.8 skeletons per application - now he's going to Turn only 6 of them - a massive reduction in power. If the Skeletons are destroyed if they fail by 8 or more - then at least 1 of the skeletons might be destroyed.

I don't get this. It seems like you're saying turning is overpowered, therefore we shouldn't power it down? And why not just keep the double hit dice destroys?

No it doesn't. It's an erratic, and largely logarythmic progression. At the low levels it's often CR*2, but at the bottom it's CR*3 or CR*4. At the top it's mostly about CR*1.5

Hit Dice progress faster than CR does - but the rate at which they progress goes down as their CR goes up. In short: it's all screwed up and pretending that Hit Dice means a damn thing is counterproductive.

60% of the variation in CR is explained by HD, and if you take out a few abberant cases that goes even higher. It's easily a good enough indicator, and a commonly used one, for a game mechanic.

 

[Nail]

Turning should be a simple, non-unique mechanic. Therefore no new tables, no "half-Cha bonus", no "8" instead of "10".

Forcing the UD to make a Will save against a standard DC complies with those restrictions. DC = 10 + 1/2 cleric level + Cha seems perfect. And if there are any higher CR UD that don't quite work, we use the already accepted cludge of "turn resistance". Simple enough.

...and FrankT, don't bring in that "genie wishes thing". That doesn't work in 3.5e - summoned or called creatures can't cast spells that require XP cost normally.

 

[FrankTrollman]

...and FrankT, don't bring in that "genie wishes thing". That doesn't work in 3.5e - summoned or called creatures can't cast spells that require XP cost normally.

Um... no. Summoned or Called creatures don't cast spells that cost them XP. But Efreets do not pay XP for granting Wishes as it is a spell-like ability.

-Frank

 

[AeroDm]

Turning should be a simple, non-unique mechanic. Therefore no new tables, no "half-Cha bonus", no "8" instead of "10".

Forcing the UD to make a Will save against a standard DC complies with those restrictions. DC = 10 + 1/2 cleric level + Cha seems perfect. And if there are any higher CR UD that don't quite work, we use the already accepted cludge of "turn resistance". Simple enough.

I agree. That DC is simply and fits in with d20. Since the system is largely arbitrary, it can be built to work with this. Will saves are equal to 1/3 HD for undead IIRC and HD is also a majority of CR for most undead. Those that don't fit the simple stereotype above generally either have high Wisdoms (boosting will saves) or TR (which should act as a bonus to will saves for resisting turning).

This would in affect give all undead a Turn DC = 10 + Will Save + TR (if any). Then the cleric just makes a turn check equal to d20 + 1/2 turning level (level -3 /2 for paladins, level /2 for clerics) + charisma modifier.

If they pass the Turn DC of a creature it is turned. If they pass it by 10+ they destroy it. I would use the 30' cone or burst to keep the area small.

 

[FrankTrollman]

I agree. That DC is simply and fits in with d20. Since the system is largely arbitrary, it can be built to work with this. Will saves are equal to 1/3 HD for undead IIRC and HD is also a majority of CR for most undead. Those that don't fit the simple stereotype above generally either have high Wisdoms (boosting will saves) or TR (which should act as a bonus to will saves for resisting turning).

This would in affect give all undead a Turn DC = 10 + Will Save + TR (if any). Then the cleric just makes a turn check equal to d20 + 1/2 turning level (level -3 /2 for paladins, level /2 for clerics) + charisma modifier.

If they pass the Turn DC of a creature it is turned. If they pass it by 10+ they destroy it. I would use the 30' cone or burst to keep the area small.

If people are seriously suggesting math this bad, I don't think I want to be involved in this project anymore.

Such a system is less game balanced even than the original Turning Table in the PHB - so it offers no advantage at all. I won't condone such a travesty - or appear to condone it by offering ideas for its implementation.

I've posted the relevent math - if you want to ignore it you do so without my blessing.

-Frank

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the d20 + 1/2 level + Cha modifier for the turning check.

Perhaps a resistance could be 10 + 1/2 HD + Wis modifier? Not sure if that would work...

And you need to be 20th level to control an efreeti?

 

[Storminator]

My problem with turning isn't the check (which is clunky, ok), but the way it skews an encounter.

If I were writing an undead encounter for a module, it would be "If there's no cleric in the party, use 4 wights. If there is a cleric, use 8 wights..." type of thing.

Turning should be a useful action, not a nobrainer. As it stands, there is nothing a cleric can do of comparable value in an undead encounter.

PS

 

[Nail]

I've posted the relevent math - if you want to ignore it you do so without my blessing.

Uhmm...Okay.....

Using FrankT's list of UD (CR/Eff.HD/Will), I've imported it into Excel and played a bit. I've added a few monsters he left out, including the Ghost, Vampire, and a few minor skeletons and zombies.

I assume:

• turn check is: 10 + 1/2 Clr lvl + Cha
• Cha bonus starts as +3, and that the bonus increases by +1 every 3 character levels. (I'm assuming stat boost items, special feats, etc.)
• the cleric is attempting to turn a UD of his CR (CR = Clvl)

To resist, the UD rolls a Will save. I have not added in Turn Resistance.

Using just the monsters from the MM 3.5e, the chance to successfully save vs. the turning is, on average, 57%.

That seems about right. About half the time the UD is NOT turned by the cleric of appropriate level.

However, it would be simple enough to add the UD turn resistance to the check. Doing that brings the average up about 5%. Really, this could be adjusted as the DM deems fit -- there's really no reason not to tweak this number.

 

[Yair]

If people are seriously suggesting math this bad, I don't think I want to be involved in this project anymore.

Such a system is less game balanced even than the original Turning Table in the PHB - so it offers no advantage at all. I won't condone such a travesty - or appear to condone it by offering ideas for its implementation.

I've posted the relevent math - if you want to ignore it you do so without my blessing.

-Frank

Now now, hold your horses.

I agree that you are right that this system does not scale well. But Nail is absolutely right in the points he makes, too - turning should be as simple and "d20ish" as possible.
Now, if only I could find a middle ground...

We essentially started with the cleric making a level check, opposed by the undead's will check. That seems to be the most balanced way to go about it.
The problem now lies in that this does not bring the cleric's Cha to bear. I've suggested adding 1/2 Cha modifier, but this was rejected for being non-standard. Yet I feel that adding + Cha modifier is too high, and making yet another Cha check combersome and complicated. So I'm at a loss here.
If you insist on a Cha check, I suggest increasing the bonus every +2 or +5; other multipliers are difficult to calculate effortlessly.
As for 1d20+1/2 clr level + cha modifier, I for one was convinced by FrankTrollman that it just doesn't work well. While I like the idea of making something so much like a Su ability, the math just doesn't add up, and the immense effect of Cha over level is just not what I want to achieve.

Making it a Save against every single Undead creature within range is less powerful than the Turning Check + Hit Dice Effected mechanic already in place. It allows people to still feel useful without having to invest in Amulets of Turning and Armor of Turning and crap - but it is on the whole less powerful than the original mechanic.

Why on Earth would we go and reduce the range as well? Do we really hate Clerics that much?

I am not at all convinced that this mechanic is weaker; on the contrary. This mechanic allows the cleric to turn foes of CR he would not be able to turn under the old system. (That's good - he should be able to turn foes of his own CR!). Not being able to turn/destroy as many weak foes under the new rules is does not compensate for this in my opinion.
The old "turning damage" mechanic was inherently weaker, allowing the cleric to turn only a small amount of foes. (Yes, maybe he could turn lots of 1 HD skeletons, but that's not the paradigmatic case.) If we leave the area at 60', the effect of the turning can be very large since even though only a fraction are turned there is no cap to their number other than the space they occupy.
Also, having no cap other than area means that if confronted by powerful foes the cleric could now turn them all in one fell swoop of his holy symbol.
I think under these mechanics, facing a foe at CR=Level + 4 the cleric will have something like 30% of turning it. By itself, this isn't that bad. But now add the fact that when sorounded by 100 such creatures the cleric will turn 30 of them, and this is WAAAY too powerful (yes, I know the cleric will die the next round - its still too damn powerful).
Limiting the range to a 30' cone at least allows the DM some measure of control in the affect the cleric has on the BBEU (Big Bad Evil Undead), if he can manuevere them right. The ability is still potentially too powerful, but less so, and in practice it will be more rarely felt.
(BTW, as for actually destroying them - this is an aspect of the Sun domain, rather than the actual turning mechanics, and is not pertinent to our current discussion.)