L&L Turning & Churning

[grimslade]

Another good L&L from Mearls. I like the methodology. Cone works with BECMI easier than other shapes. Aura doesn't have that whole "The power of Brandobaris compels you!" vibe. I like the single line for secondary effect in the monster stat block but it does limit future releases if there is a Ravenloft rule set or another radiant soul prestige class of reinventing the wheel with regards to monsters. MM skeleton or Von Richten's Bolstered Bone Beings?

I like Turning for the priest class not clerics. Clerics wear plate and smack the heathens with a mace, right? A clerics faith is in a strong arm and healing a struck comrade. They are combat medics, a priest is the more mystical of the two. A priest would have need of turning away undead from his frail mendicant body. The venerable scribe of Deneir searching an ancient tomb for hidden knowledge would need to channel that faith into a shield. The Seeker of Secrets of Vecna would revel in cowering ghouls as he stole their treasures.

I am sad to lose the channeling holy power. It was a nice mechanic to customize priesthoods with nice effects.

 

[Scribble]

Sigh.

This is the problem with a new edition.

I liked Mearl's goals, but the proposal is pretty fiddly and involved for something that, in some games, may not come up that often.

Of course, many of the alternatives proposed here are are also fiddly and involved for something that, in some games, may not come up that often.

What do you find fiddly and involved about it? Seems relatively straight forward to me.

 

[Hussar]

I like the idea but...

All the undead within a 30-foot cone in front of the cleric are subject to the turn attempt

For the love of all that is good and holy, can we NOT go back to cone effects? Imagine trying to plot out a 30 foot cone on a square battlemap. I mean, heck, even without a battlemap, what is angle of the cone? 45 degrees? 60 degrees? 92? YUCK!

Look, I understand why people don't like fire cubes, I do, but, wow, do I so not want to go back to having to use paper templates or a bloody protractor in game.

Sorry, that was my little rant for the night.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I never liked how all Clerics had to have Turn Undead, so I'm certainly open to other options. As for the mechanic itself, yes an ability check would be fine (if ability checks still use 4e's +1/2 level mechanic), as for using up more space for special cases if a creature was turned, I wouldn't like it: unless more than just clerics could do it and other types of monsters could be turned.

Otherwise it's a lot of space wasted for a mechanic that only belongs to a limited number of characters. And it might put pressure on every party needing to have a Cleric, if so much material was devoted to it.

However the special binding rules for spells and rituals, I really like those as a concept. And unlike the turning thing, more characters than just clerics could use it.

 

[dkyle]

What do you find fiddly and involved about it? Seems relatively straight forward to me.

Having specific stat block lines for "Turn Undead" is rather fiddly. Should we have a "damage taken when Backstabbed", and "chance to avoid Fireball" lines too?

For the love of all that is good and holy, can we NOT go back to cone effects? Imagine trying to plot out a 30 foot cone on a square battlemap. I mean, heck, even without a battlemap, what is angle of the cone? 45 degrees? 60 degrees? 92? YUCK!

Look, I understand why people don't like fire cubes, I do, but, wow, do I so not want to go back to having to use paper templates or a bloody protractor in game.

Time to standardize on hexes!

 

[GM Dave]

Another problem that I have with the Mearles approach is that it really doesn't do anything.

Think of it in terms of game play.

The Cleric uses the power.

Either

Fails > The monster can't be affected for another 24 hours. Result is wasted action with no effect.

Success > The monster moves away from the Cleric for a certain distance and length of time.

Unless Attacked > If the Undead are attacked then the effect is nullified. Result is wasted action with no effect ( a generous GM might allow a group to pick off individuals without upsetting this effect but another GM might interpret any attack on the one as the same for dispelling the effect on the whole).

Unless Time Expires > If you used the time to run away ( Satire *something players do regularly when faced with monsters* Satire off) or grab a specific item in a crypt then this will work. Normally the players are there to destroy any undead they see which means that the undead being attacked nullifies the turning effect. A ghost that plays 'peek-a-boo' with you is not going to be much help as it just means the GM waits 5 min of game time before continuing with the battle. A minute might by some time for casting of buff spells but otherwise just delays the eventual battle. A delayed battle is mostly a wasted action.

--------------------

This is the problem that I have with the idea propsed is that at best it creates a boomerang that comes back later (and possibly with friends as the ghosts go complain to Lord Straad that they need help dealing with the interlopers) or at worst has no effect. I'd rather have a +1 bless spell in most cases rather than this effect because at least it was going to help defeat the undead and aid the party in the battle.

----------------

Holy objects like sutras are a staple of Asian Anime and Cinema for affecting undead (addressed to the comment saying only DnD had holy items stop things other than vampires; I'd also point out shows like Supernatural which makes a fair usage of rituals to stop various undead/demons).

It is worth noting that in most shows and fiction that most monsters and undead do have some sort of weakness. Fae hate clothes put on backwards. Kappa are attracted to cucumbers and avoid water spilled from their head. Most ghosts suffer from presentation of facts of their prior life and proof that they are dead.

 

[Scribble]

Having specific stat block lines for "Turn Undead" is rather fiddly. Should we have a "damage taken when Backstabbed", and "chance to avoid Fireball" lines too?

I'm not sure it's that general though. In this case they are undead, and turn undead is a thing that specifically effects them.

 

[DonTadow]

Mike Mearls talking on his view of Clerics and Turning.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Turning and Churning)

I'm not opposed to the PF cleric 'nuke' (though it did eliminate 18 of my ratling horde on Saturday night in one swoop though it did blast the players in the same go which is a trade off) though I don't find it really captures what I want out of an undead turning mechanic.

I always think of turning as being the holy channel of a deity and being like a beacon of divine providence.

I'd much rather have it either of two ways;

Way 1 > It is like a bless effect for your companions and a curse effect for your opponents. Each round that it is in effect and used gathers power to improve the combat for your companions and hinders the opponents (if you are against undead then they are the 'cursed' but if your deity was a Lord of Water then it might be Fire or what ever is opposite of your deity's spheres).


Way 2 > It is more integrated with the spheres of the deities. A cleric/priest of Storms 'turning' would summon a storm effect that causes effects in a radius around the cleric. A priest of death or plague causes damage to people in the area (spontaneous bleeding for death maybe and boils to appear and burst for plague). You could still have the 'classic' priest that affects undead with a barrier that each round causes an undead to make some sort of will test or retreat from the area (with additional rounds spent in the aura building escalating damage like being dipped in acid).

Bringing back actual turning as an effect increases difficulty on the DM, even in MEarls example, and thus does not sound like fun on my end. I can't tell u how many times i've dm'nd a full undead encounter and forgot which zombie was still runing or who came back and when.

Mechanically, you have to look at why the creature is doing what he does. Clerics are destroying undead. I don't want to deal with a conee and have to figure out who is running or not. From a combat point of view running creatures prolong the combat as now the party must chase and find everyone. Even before pathfinder, I use to make the sun channel ability automatic for all clerics. It's just easier to deal damage and be done with it.

I think the pathfinder approach mixed with the divine channeler has it right from an ease of mechanic point view. As a matter of fact, I recommend everyone picking up the divine channeler and assigning those special channeling abilities to each god. So instead of destroying undead (and just undead) clerics have options based on the god they serve.

 

[Hussar]

Time to standardize on hexes!

Or maybe just "Zones". I know a number of RPG's that do it that way. Never going to happen in D&D, but I can dream.

GM Dave makes an excellent point though. I know that in the past, when an undead ran away, it effectively "died" because I just couldn't be asked to keep track of the darn thing. Boomerang effects are a PITA.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another issue with Turn Undead is that there's a pretty good chance during the design process of monsters that what you get out of using it just doesn't really match up favorably against the party out-and-out trying to destroy them all conventionally.

Usually the use of Turn Undead was because it was the best (or only) way to deal with them because the undead were either so much more powerful than the party, or their swarm numbers were so huge... that the party couldn't really hope to deal with them conventionally.

But with the advent of 4E's balanced encounter design and "minion" rules... neither of those cases really come up anymore.

All undead creatures in 4E now have several different versions available, all at differing levels. So with the DM building an encounter with one or more powerful undead... the need, urge, or desire to use one so powerful that Turning it is actually a better use of time and energy than just all-out attacking it, is lessened. If the party is 3rd level, and the Monster Manual has five different wraith builds at levels 5, 6, 7, & 9... the DM will probably just choose one that falls within the encounter level that a party of 5 would be able to deal with in some fashion.

And as far as "outnumbered swarms of undead"... most of them time nowadays the DM does it using lots and lots of minions. Which means that needing to "turn" them in the classic sense (i.e. make them flee or hold them at bay, but NOT actually doing damage to them) is also no longer a necessity. Because dealing 1 point of damage to each minion through conventional party tactics is just as easy, and actually a better long-term solution, than making them run away.

The simple fact of the matter is that for a Turn Undead ability (that isn't simply just a "nuke" spell of a certain amount of damage) to be a better option than just the party of 5 just attacking the creatures conventionally... it has to be a better and more powerful choice than what that party of 5 can do conventionally. And there's the problem. If it isn't more powerful, than just attacking it and getting rid of the threat altogether is the better option... and if it is, then you are basically giving a single class an ability that is more overpowered than the combined might of 5 characters.

And neither of those options are very good in my opinion.