Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quartz" data-source="post: 3109242" data-attributes="member: 40552">Umm... why shouldn't they? They're both expressions of Holy / Unholy powerFor example, a cleric of Merikka in Greyhawk might well have Turn Plant instead of Turn Undead. Why shouldn't he use his Turn Plant ability to power feats like Divine Might?Now, if said cleric of Merikka had both Turn Plant and Turn Undead, I'd mandate one or the other and not both. Or have one use of each expended. Otherwise you'd get people taking extra domains simply to get extra uses - a particular problem at Epic levels and also with the Divine Metamagic feat.Granted it's rare to have multiple Turning ability but with the introduction of Divine feats, I wonder if there isn't a case for not having multiple Turning pools? Just say that if you can Turn multiple types, you get +2 Turn attempts? Extra Turning grants +4 uses, but the character is getting added flexibility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quartz, post: 3109242, member: 40552"] Umm... why shouldn't they? They're both expressions of Holy / Unholy power For example, a cleric of Merikka in Greyhawk might well have Turn Plant [b]instead of[/b] Turn Undead. Why shouldn't he use his Turn Plant ability to power feats like Divine Might? Now, if said cleric of Merikka had both Turn Plant and Turn Undead, I'd mandate one or the other and not both. Or have one use of each expended. Otherwise you'd get people taking extra domains simply to get extra uses - a particular problem at Epic levels and also with the Divine Metamagic feat. Granted it's rare to have multiple Turning ability but with the introduction of Divine feats, I wonder if there isn't a case for not having multiple Turning pools? Just say that if you can Turn multiple types, you get +2 Turn attempts? Extra Turning grants +4 uses, but the character is getting added flexibility. [/QUOTE]

Verification