L&L Turning & Churning

[I'm A Banana]

For those who think it's finicky for undead to have a special weakness line on their stat block, I disagree. I think more monsters should have explicit weaknesses that the PCs can exploit with the right combination of abilities.

I think you have two choices. You can either put a weakness into a monster stat block that anyone can exploit (regardless of class), or you give a class a special ability to handle certain types of monsters (regardless of which specific monsters fall within that type).

Mearls's solution is kind of the worst of both worlds: a weakness in the monster to a specific class's ability that doesn't exist except for that particular weakness. Bleh.

This week on "4E Addressed It But We're Gonna Pretend It's 2007 Again": What would happen if a single feature of a single class had to be addressed over and over again in every single statblock of every monster it applied to? BRILLIANT GAME DESIGN, THAT'S WHAT!

While I don't like Mike's suggestion for the game in general (though it's great for his campaign), it's pretty clear he took into account what 4e did for his game, and rejected it as not meeting his needs. 4e isn't the panacea some might think it is, and some features of earlier game design are worth reconsidering as belonging to D&D again (and a turn undead that doesn't just work like an occasional nuke is certainly within that scope).

 

[KidSnide]

I think you have two choices. You can either put a weakness into a monster stat block that anyone can exploit (regardless of class), or you give a class a special ability to handle certain types of monsters (regardless of which specific monsters fall within that type).

Mearls's solution is kind of the worst of both worlds: a weakness in the monster to a specific class's ability that doesn't exist except for that particular weakness. Bleh.

So would you suggest that undead are generally vulnerable to displays of holy symbols, but that clerics (and, presumably, other divine characters) are better at employing these techniques than others? I think it's a nice idea that the fighter, down to 4 hit points and surrounded by skeletons, might raise his holy symbol and hope to roll a 20. (Or, if it's just a cone, maybe that's a path through which he can run to safety...)

That said, I don't see Turn Undead as a super narrow ability. If paladins (and whatever other divine classes are in 5e) can also turn undead, then it doesn't seem too narrow for use. In most parties (i.e. >50%), there will be at least one divine character and someone will be able to exploit that weakness.

-KS

 

[FireLance]

The problem is that you, then, fail the classic trope where
1. The hero fails to turn the vampire;
2. The vampire tells, the hero, "You have to have *faith* for that to work on me!"; and
3. Suddenly, the vampire recoils and starts stepping back, because the hero found his faith and started pressing forward with the holy symbol held before him.

I'd say that's a pretty odd thing to happen to a cleric, who's actually performing miracles on a daily basis. It might work better for a non-Divine character who is trying to turn the vampire, and actually has some chance of doing it through a feat or skill (Religion?). The first attempt wasn't a failed Turn Undead attempt, it was a failure to activate Turn Undead in the first place. The second was a successful attempt both to activate Turn Undead and to turn the vampire. If the second attempt activated Turn Undead, but the turning check failed, the vampire would have flinched for a moment, then sneered and said: "So, you have some faith, then. But not enough."

 

[GSHamster]

So would you suggest that undead are generally vulnerable to displays of holy symbols, but that clerics (and, presumably, other divine characters) are better at employing these techniques than others? I think it's a nice idea that the fighter, down to 4 hit points and surrounded by skeletons, might raise his holy symbol and hope to roll a 20. (Or, if it's just a cone, maybe that's a path through which he can run to safety...)

Sure. After all, a werewolf is vulnerable to silver weapons, but a fighter is better at employing silver weapons than other characters.

More or less the same principle, imo.

 

[Mark CMG]

Might be that non-Divine types could utilize a holy symbol properly consecrated by a Divine type to achieve some limited effect against undead. Such things in movies and whatnot seem to rely either on this line of reasoning or the line of reasoning that a vulnerability, such as to silver, can allow someone to pick up two silver candlestick holders and fashion a cross from them or use the heavy end as a silver club or mace.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So would you suggest that undead are generally vulnerable to displays of holy symbols, but that clerics (and, presumably, other divine characters) are better at employing these techniques than others? I think it's a nice idea that the fighter, down to 4 hit points and surrounded by skeletons, might raise his holy symbol and hope to roll a 20. (Or, if it's just a cone, maybe that's a path through which he can run to safety...)

Like a few other posters mentioned above, I think that's a good idea. Vampires can't cross running water -- that isn't a feature of the River Master class, that's a thing about Vampires.

That said, I don't see Turn Undead as a super narrow ability. If paladins (and whatever other divine classes are in 5e) can also turn undead, then it doesn't seem too narrow for use. In most parties (i.e. >50%), there will be at least one divine character and someone will be able to exploit that weakness.

It still only applies to certain character types, and to certain enemy types. I still think it's a solid "house rule," when you can control for which character and enemy types will actually be present in your game, but in absence of that control, it mandates too much text for too little benefit.

 

[Savage Wombat]

This is still grossly overcomplicating what Mearls' has described as basically a skill check. Instead of the fighter intimidating a bunch of goblins, or the rogue is bluffing a group of guards, the cleric is turning a horde of skeletons. If the power is going to be this weak, I don't see why it should have limited use, or even be restricted to clerics - except that they're better at it, like rogues are better at stealth.

If turning undead is to be a class ability, and a supernatural one, it should feel like a supernatural, magical effect. I'm not getting that from Mearls' idea.

 

[Incenjucar]

Here's a thought: Give certain clerics lots of radiant fear powers. Give them the ability to ignore fear immunity.

 

[CM]

It also shouldn't have a specific daily limit - either balance it to be at-will or make it work like other spontaneous magic by using your prepared spell slots.

I agree with the first part of this. As long as the effect is immediately broken by the undead taking any damage from the cleric or his allies, I think it would work.

 

[keterys]

I think Mike said the right thing...

Make it a spell.