Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilbob" data-source="post: 4012769" data-attributes="member: 9789">Primitive Screwhead:  Thanks.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I usually don't go so far into this kind of depth, but this one is really stumping me.  You should see my old thread on magic points.  (Long story short:  spell level = points spent cannot ever work!)The only issue I see with your tactical turning is that it would be a bit annoying to keep up with.  The GM would have to track which undead had been hit and which had not, and I believe a good requirement for any house rule is to keep it as simple as possible.  (Adding extra complexity just means no one is really going to use your rule.)You did have a good train of thought on another idea for greater turning...  Perhaps adding Cha to the damage somehow...  Although raising the DC is probably not a good idea:  the traditional greater turn didn't help you turn any better, it just made the turns more effective.Corbert:  Yes, several people use your TR = -(TR)d6 from damage idea.  Personally, I think that -3 damage is just faster and easier.  The more you roll, the more effort has to go into it.  So we make it a static number that's pretty much functionally equivalent to 1d6.So, another few thoughts I had about greater turning and why it's hard to adjudicate:  first, because the regular damage-based turning is really already too good.  It's hard to decide how to make it even better when it already blows away the old style of turning.  (Which possibly means we need to just leave behind the old style and focus on "the new way.")  Second, anything less than "1.5 x damage" is effectively worse than the feat you can take to do the same.  This possibly means that feat is just too powerful given the new style of turning, but either way that should be addressed.So we're stuck:  it has to be better than regular turns, but it can't be much better or else it's just way too good.  But it has to be at least as good as 1.5 x damage, or else the Sun domain is really getting gipped.  Here's another example, still using our level 6 pimped-out-for-killing-undead cleric:18 HD undead, 13 will save, ~150 HP.  Traditional:  yeah, right.  Destroyer:  55% chance to do 1/3rd its HP each turn.  Say we make greater turns do double damage?  That's a 55% chance to do 2/3rds of this undead's HP in damage - to a creature a traditional cleric couldn't even dream about for 6 more levels.  1.5 x damage?  Still 55% chance to do 50% damage.  Two greater turns - using averages - will do it.I hate to say it, but making the will save use 1/2 the cleric's level is one of the only ways to get the numbers to balance out at high levels.  Ignoring the "empower turning" problem (which, honestly, my "un-optimized cleric" numbers tell me is really not even a big part of the problem since neither of them use that feat), that makes our level 6 cleric have a 15% less chance to effect anything.  That makes the numbers less good at low levels, but much more fair at high levels.  It also gives us more wiggle room to make greater turning really powerful.  And it also means that the higher up the cleric gets in level, the less effective he's going to be overall at turning - much like traditional turning.  It's not the best situation, but then again it does seem to solve most of the problems.  The only other similar solution I can think of is to use 1/2 cleric's level against the undead's Fort save + Cha, but I've already done one huge chart and I think I'd like to skip the Fort save + Cha one for today.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification