Cleric's turning ability + paladin's turning ability

[Henry]

Actually, to me, it sounds like a player saying, "But it says I get X+Y uses of Turn Undead. Does it say anywhere that I don't?"

The DM, in this case, sounds much worse off - especially since his is the only PoV we've got, and his typing skills are lacking.

The general rule says, "Turning undead is defined in THIS way" - and then the only addendum we see is that cleric and paladin levels stack for turning ability. What this says to me is that the turning attempts is the rule no matter WHAT, you either have the ability or you don't, you don't "have Turn undead twice."

It's just like being sickened twice, or getting Martial weapons proficiency twice from being a fighter AND barbarian. You don't accrue any extra benefit or penalty.

Past that, DM adjudication is needed for EXACTLY this sort of thing. Would someone rather argue for 30 minutes that they should be getting this, or would they rather be gaming? I know my answer.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Would someone rather argue for 30 minutes that they should be getting this, or would they rather be gaming?

The thing is, though, I don't see any thing in this thread that indicated the player argued for 30 minutes - or even argued much at all!

The only comment we have is garbled beyond understanding and calls the player names, to boot.

I'd hardly call that firm ground for understanding the situation.

 

[Scion]

The general rule says, "Turning undead is defined in THIS way" - and then the only addendum we see is that cleric and paladin levels stack for turning ability. What this says to me is that the turning attempts is the rule no matter WHAT, you either have the ability or you don't, you don't "have Turn undead twice."

It's just like being sickened twice, or getting Martial weapons proficiency twice from being a fighter AND barbarian. You don't accrue any extra benefit or penalty.

Actually, I dont think that it is automatically the same. Afterall, if I had arcane casting ability from two different classes I would get to use each seperately. Now, of course each does not add extra casting levels to the other, but it easily 'could'.

The character in question still only has 'turn undead' but just because it says that it stacks in levels does not explicitly make the number of uses 'not' stack.

Even the examples given so far as to 'why' they dont give extra turnings arent entirely convincing. Sure, it is likely the vast majority of us play that way, but it seems fairly circumstantial. But, as it is the best we have so far, that is what we go with.

I dont see anything wrong with the player wanting some extra confirmation for something that winds up, from his point of view, costing his character extra for something that he already paid for twice (at least one level in cleric and at least 4 levels in paladin).

in that fashion it could be like being shaken twice, the effects get worse (the corallary would be the stacking of turning levels, and possibly even extra uses) and there we are, different options.

Now, I certainly see no reason for the player not to ask these questions, and I also see no reason for the dm to get up in arms about it. Hopefully for their group this worked out all right in the end

 

[Henry]

Actually, I dont think that it is automatically the same. Afterall, if I had arcane casting ability from two different classes I would get to use each seperately. Now, of course each does not add extra casting levels to the other, but it easily 'could'.

The interpretation I get from reading the books is that unless it is spelled out that a given ability stacks, then it does not, whether it's evasion or another unnamed class ability (which IIRC still does not stack between Rogues and Monks), or whether it's an automatic feat. I will grant, however, that it doesn't imply one way or the other. It normally wouldn't matter one way or the other, but with the addition of Divine Feats, you are talking about a huge benefit for a small sacrifice (a level of cleric goes with paladin levels like peanut butter and jelly). If one were not allowing turn undead to do anything but turn undead, I'd see no harm with it; if allowing turning feats, however, you are talking about a serious power upgrade. You're talking about an extra 5 to 7 turning attempts from 1 level of cleric (because face it, the average paladin has at least a 14 CHA), coupled with feats that allow spontaneous boosting of weapons, smites, or spells. It's not a small boost in power.

 

[Scion]

I'd have to say that giving up a level is a pretty big cost.

Note that he would have to take that cleric level at level 1 instead of going into paladin directly, cutting into when he gets the paladin abilities. Along with taking a BAB hit, delayed spell progression for the paladin, longer wait for mount and slower abilities, etc.

I am not saying he doesnt gain as well, I am just saying it isnt 'all' gain. There are definately some costs associated with the choice.

Spending a level and some feats in order to be able to get a class ability more often and then use it for something seems like a valid choice to me.

Of course there are some feats which turning in turn attempts for might be a very good thing, are there any that are so incredible as to make this overpowered? Then compare a few more attacks with them each day to every attack having a +1 to hit without having to pay the turn attempt or feat

 

[Henry]

I'd have to say that giving up a level is a pretty big cost.

Note that he would have to take that cleric level at level 1 instead of going into paladin directly, cutting into when he gets the paladin abilities. Along with taking a BAB hit, delayed spell progression for the paladin, longer wait for mount and slower abilities, etc.

...Of course there are some feats which turning in turn attempts for might be a very good thing, are there any that are so incredible as to make this overpowered? Then compare a few more attacks with them each day to every attack having a +1 to hit without having to pay the turn attempt or feat

On the other hand, if you're using said feats, you may well be using some of the feats or campaign options that ameliorate the role-playing restriction of the "paladin for life" clause in the PHB, at which point 1 level of paladin is feasible. If so, the BAB hit and class abilities is made up for by the cleric level 1 spell versatility - due to the compatibility of clerics and paladins in their respective roles, it's not a sacrifice of a large nature.

As to the power of the divine feats, there are feats which give allies fast healing for (CHA bonus+1) rounds, aligning all weapons in a radius, empower turning, boost caster level, spontaneously cast domain spells, inflict spells, etc. I'm just thankful they didn't carry over that one from Defenders of the Faith that gives a 2d6 positive energy damage bonus in exchange for a turn attempt -- talk about damage output!

Now, if we're talking the other way (cleric taking several levels of paladin to get the bonus) it's not a big issue, because in exchange the cleric is giving up a LOT to get those extra turn attempts. And again, I don't see a problem if you're not using divine feats, either, because all it means is a few extra turn undeads -- and there are only so many undead to face in a day's struggle.