Cleric turning out of control...undead adventures becoming impossible...

[I'm A Banana]

He was three levels higher than the party with +4 turn resistance. The 15th level cleric turns as a 21st level cleric. Rolling on the table she received a Cleric level +1 on the turn check, not a very hard check, and turned a BBEG 7 levels higher than her level. 7 levels higher. That is obscene.

Point #1: Know your party. If your cleric can turn as a 21st level cleric, and you want to put in an undead BBEG, you want to put in an undead BBEG that cannot be turned by a 21st level cleric. Pump up the Turn Resistance, the HD, fill the dungeon with lesser undead, etc. Your cleric is hellishly good at turning -- make sure that he *can't* end the adventure on that anticlimax.

The cleric I mentioned added the Phylactery of Undead Turning to her Periapt of Wisdom. At high levels, such enhancements to already existing items are affordable to a group of 16th level characters who just finished looting a sixteenth plus level adventure and selling the booty.

Point #2: Don't be surprised at power problems if you're tinkering with the rules. There's a reason you can't wear a periapt and a phylactery at the same time -- they have a lot of the same powers, and uniting them would make things quite mighty. Admittedly, this is hardly revolutionizing the game, but it is something to watch out for.

read the PHB, under Effect and Duration of Turning it says- Tunred undead flee from you by the best and fastest means available to them.

Point #3: Think about the effects. Turned undead run. If you don't want the BBEG to run, think about other effects turning can have -- CD has advice for just such an occasion (turning does damage). You can mix up the effects in general, or just for a specific monster; giving a Vamp a special quality or a feat where instead of running they take damage.

There's no reason that a DM who knows about his party should be caught by surprise by a relatively common roll, IMHO.

Now, there are issues with Turn Undead, and I'm all for changing it (the CD's damage variant is my favorite so far), but it's not a problem with 3.5 or anything; each campaign needs to decide what's right for it, and what it can do.

 

[stephenh]

One question I have about some of these turning abilities is whether even by the rules they should stack? I don't know much about the sacred armor but I was thinking more with repect to the Phylactery of Undead Turning and the Improved turning feat.

From the SRD

Phylactery of Undead Turning: This item is a boon to any character able to turn undead, allowing him to do so as if his class level were four levels higher than it actually is.

Improved Turning: You turn or rebuke creatures as if you were one level higher than you are in the class that grants you the ability.

I assume the sacred armor is worded in some similar manner?

Should these two things stack together? e.g. for a 10th level cleric you could read at as if the Phylactery of Undead Turning allows the character to turn as 14th level cleric (base cleric level of 10 + 4 for the item) and that the Improved Turning allows a character to turn as a 11th level cleric (base 10 +1 for the feat). Both of these (item and feat) base their increase relative to a class level, which is fixed for any particular character. Basically I am not sure that they should stack. What does anyone else think?

 

[Celtavian]

Point #1: Know your party. If your cleric can turn as a 21st level cleric, and you want to put in an undead BBEG, you want to put in an undead BBEG that cannot be turned by a 21st level cleric. Pump up the Turn Resistance, the HD, fill the dungeon with lesser undead, etc. Your cleric is hellishly good at turning -- make sure that he *can't* end the adventure on that anticlimax.

He was an 18th level Wizard 13/Arch Mage 5. The party was in for enough pain. I didn't want to make him too many levels higher.

I should have checked the full benefits of the magic item more thoroughly. I was caught off guard that magic items that give such an extreme boost in turning existed.

Point #2: Don't be surprised at power problems if you're tinkering with the rules. There's a reason you can't wear a periapt and a phylactery at the same time -- they have a lot of the same powers, and uniting them would make things quite mighty. Admittedly, this is hardly revolutionizing the game, but it is something to watch out for.

The rules state that you can make magic items with multiple abilities and that you can add magic item abilities to already existing items. There was no tinkering with the rules.

It is entirely reasonable to combine a phylactery and a periapt since they occupy the same slot, and is in fact cheaper than combing magic items that do not occupy the same slot.

The cleric in question is 16th level and has the Craft Wondrous Item feat. All the magic items the player has crafted have been done using the rules for magic item creation. There was no tinkering with the rules.

There's no reason that a DM who knows about his party should be caught by surprise by a relatively common roll, IMHO.

I agree. I should have been more aware.

 

[Celtavian]

Should these two things stack together? e.g. for a 10th level cleric you could read at as if the Phylactery of Undead Turning allows the character to turn as 14th level cleric (base cleric level of 10 + 4 for the item) and that the Improved Turning allows a character to turn as a 11th level cleric (base 10 +1 for the feat). Both of these (item and feat) base their increase relative to a class level, which is fixed for any particular character. Basically I am not sure that they should stack. What does anyone else think?

They are all unnamed bonuses from different sources. As far as I know, unnamed bonuses from different sources stack even if they grant similar abilities.

 

[stephenh]

They are all unnamed bonuses from different sources. As far as I know, unnamed bonuses from different sources stack even if they grant similar abilities.

Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that it is not like any of it says you get a +4 bonus to your effective turning level. It instead says you may turn as if you were a cleric 4 levels higher. I see no mention of any bonus or a +4 (or similar) anywhere, which is how all bonuses are normally expressed (I think.... I could be wrong).

It seems to me like it may actually be saying "this item allows you to turn as if you are 4 levels higher tha your current cleric level", while the feat says "this feat allows you to turn as if you are one level higher than your current cleric level" --- i.e. neither specifies a bonus, but instead both are explicitly defined relative to your current cleric level. In this case there are no bonuses to worry about and they wouldn't stack.

 

[Torak Stoneweaver]

My lord... give that man a prize

Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that it is not like any of it says you get a +4 bonus to your effective turning level. It instead says you may turn as if you were a cleric 4 levels higher. I see no mention of any bonus or a +4 (or similar) anywhere, which is how all bonuses are normally expressed (I think.... I could be wrong).

It seems to me like it may actually be saying "this item allows you to turn as if you are 4 levels higher tha your current cleric level", while the feat says "this feat allows you to turn as if you are one level higher than your current cleric level" --- i.e. neither specifies a bonus, but instead both are explicitly defined relative to your current cleric level. In this case there are no bonuses to worry about and they wouldn't stack.

I think perhaps you have stumbled upon, by reading the plain text, the fix for the uber-turningabilities of the Built for turning Cleric. The fix is in fact part of the rules. Once again it comes down to how you read and percieve the rules.

The 'Current Cleric Level' nails it in my book... now if it had said 'Effective Cleric Level' rather than 'Current Cleric Level' then stacking would occur...