L&L Turning & Churning

[Mark CMG]

If Turning becomes a spellcasting option, it doesn't need to be chosen by a cleric who doesn't need it. My ideal system wouldn't require pre-choosing, but if a system did include required pre-choosing of spells it could also work as healing did in 3.5E where you could swap out any other spells of the appropriate level for turning ability at various levels.

 

[S'mon]

To evoke the traditional "I hold up my cross and the undead hiss in anger but can come no closer," I'd, well, make the rules say that a cleric* can spend a standard action to hold up his holy symbol, and any undead creature within, say, 30 feet cannot attack the cleric or any of his allies within 10 ft., nor approach closer than it already is, as long as it's weak enough. However you want to determine that (ideally just by comparing numbers, instead of having to make an 'attack roll.'

But the effect ends the moment you or any of your allies attack them.

*more accurately, a cleric who takes the 'turn undead' option, since not all gods really care about undead.

As for the "glowing holy nuke," make it a separate power.

Yes, thematically I think that's the best approach - a powerful ward against the undead that is used to escape/evade, not for fighting.

Blasting the undead with divine energy is fine, but should function like any other attack power/spell.

 

[S'mon]

My M certainly does V.

Look at it this way. In the real world priests and holy types of all faiths have dealing with the dead and dying as part of their job...

Nope. That's not true.

Eg I remember reading that in Japan, where people tend to take an a la carte approach to religion, Christianity was popular for death & funeral rites, as Shinto and Buddhism didn't pay much attention to that area, or dealt with it less satisfactorily.

With polytheism especially, only a minority of priests will be involved in death/dying rites; and death & dying may be relegated to an unpopular deity like Hades that most people would prefer not to deal with.

 

[Someone]

I think it’s time to expand the concept to be more god-specific. Clerics of Moradin should turn orcs and goblins, clerics of Kord should turn nerds, and clerics of Ioun should turn hillbillies.

 

[howandwhy99]

Turning was not really about Undead. It was simply that the undead by default setting design were animations powered by otherworldly evil. Demons and Devils could be turned by good clerics as well because the cleric's good deity emanating through the cleric's holy symbol repelled them (though I believe they received a saving throw like intelligent undead (e.g. vampires).

So Turning included all evil otherworldly creatures and those empowered by them. In return evil clerics could turn good-powered creatures like Devas and even Paladins. I think clerics could affect each other, but they might engage in a Cleric's duel. Also, the aspect of Controlling like-powered creatures worked both ways too.

Turning was a rolled chance like a "to hit" roll, so it wasn't so much a limited resource as an ability. A character could Turn repeatedly each round, but there were often caveats. As with picking a lock *I believe* usually a failure could only be overturned on a specific target after more experience was gained, leveling basically.

In the end what will matter for D&DN is what the designers understand clerics and their scope to be. Clerics were not primarily spellcasters originally, turning was a big part of how they interacted with the clerical system.

Being an agent of a deity was a necessary Class trait and not optional. Calling upon the power of the deity was kind of a big deal. However divine spells were understood to be gained through prayer (calling the divine) too, so I see room for flexibility with alternate options even in the old default setting.

Also, Turning did not mean the undead disappeared from the map. They could still be encountered later and remained a threat. Only threats significantly lower level than the cleric could be destroyed (or enthralled), so turning did not ruin undead and demon infested adventure modules.

Binding, the big treasure here is not having spells cast upon the binder (a risky proposition at best), but information maps - a redundant phrase, I know. Powerful creatures were notoriously difficult to dominate or charm, binding or not. Trading of information via discussion can be much more interesting and lucrative, while still resulting in some major pitfalls if done poorly. Also, perhaps a magical or divine pact could be another kind of binding spell, perhaps best used after the first? Think of it like a Geas variant enchanting both parties with a saving throw each is expected to voluntary fail. By binding the caster as well the target the spell level could be lower and affect more powerful creatures earlier.

 

[kunadam]

I think clerics should not have turn undead as a standard option.

Agree!

1) Not all Clerics should turn undead. I prefer it to be a channeling power specific to deities that care about undead.

Agree!

I also feel that this is where you get into the difference between a Cleric and a Priest as well. Many people apparently want the Cleric to become a 2E Specialty Priest, which it isn't and likely won't ever be.

Don't agree. The cool change in 3.x was a tiny step forward to the "only specialty priest" paradigm. The cleric concept is just weird in a setting where there is anything beside Christianity. It reeks of Christian belief, from raise the dead, through turn undead to using only bludgeoning weapons (2nd ed).
The armour wearing, weapon brandishing holy person is the paladin (IMHO) and whatever class one comes up for the other alignments/deities.
The cleric should be a specialty priest.

 

[Mercule]

I like all the rationale behind the proposed mechanic -- a lot. I like the basics of the mechanic, too, but the rationale gives me faith (no pun intended) that whatever mechanic comes about, I'll be okay with.