L&L Turning & Churning

[UngeheuerLich]

it sounds reasonable, that the bread and butter undead will be affected for a day, unless attacked later, while vampires are only affected, as long as the cleric faces him. Seems still a good way to do it.

 

[D'karr]

Some of the aspects he speaks about really overcomplicate things on the wrong side of the screen.

Turn resistance could simply be a bonus to the "save" or "defense" for the creature. So that weak undead can be easily turned and strong ones are harder. The effects of the "turn" should be contained within the mechanics of "turning" not as addendums to each creature and should be general. Resistance can be specific to a creature.

The Turn Effect IMO should be a class feature that allows easy swapping for campaigns that don't feature undead. Or it can simply be a different ability based on the "rider" effect. So you could have an at-will ability that keeps undead at bay, but with the rider effect it can also blast them with holy power, or stop domination, or banish insubstantial undead for a turn, etc.

 

[dkyle]

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.

I like Zones in more narrative-style games. They might work for "no-grid" D&D combat, but it's hard to translate mechanics designed for them into grid-based combat, which is what I want from D&D. Even for "no-grid" D&D, I wonder if they're too abstract for the kinds of players who favor that style.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The whole point of "make some monsters run away for awhile" is divide and conquer. Such an ability being directional (e.g. cone instead of aura) makes it easier to use for its intended purpose.

 

[Iosue]

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.

Sounds perfect to me. If it doesn't come up that often, the fiddliness is not a problem. If it comes up often, the fiddliness is probably appreciated for variety, verisimilitude, etc. It's the stuff in between that we want simple, elegant, and not too fiddly.

 

[triqui]

I'd make it work whenever, as long as you have faith. If there's a class for worshipers of quantum physics, I suppose they could also turn, but it wouldn't be available in most settings I use.

Even those believing in gods that do not exist? (for example, believing in gods that are already dead)

Spells are already for channeling the power of your deity. If turning works like that it should be a spell (spontaneous or otherwise). However, I think making it be pure faith is more flavorful and matches the literature better.

Several things are already channeling the power of your deity without being spells. For example, "channel divinity" feature

That's a fallacy. Just becouse some things come from a source, it does not mean other things can't come from that source as well. It's not a binary system, and nowhere is written that gods are so weak that they can only give their followers one kind of gift through channeling the divinity. Turn Undead or those whacky Channel Divinity feats/powers are channeled too (hence the name). One could argue that Smite Evil, Lye on Hand, or Divine Grace are also an extension of the god's power and not a matter of faith in the individual.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

It fits in a category I would call "a good house rule." It's a great idea for adding some variety to undead, but if it was in place in the published game, I would balk at having so many little details put into every undead monster for an ability that I wouldn't even consider all clerics to need to have.

So it's cool for Mearl's campaign, or for anyone's, but it wouldn't be a good kind of base rule for the game, IMO. Unless it was tweaked a bit, maybe. Instead of having a "turn undead" line in every undead monster, make undead monsters have special reactions to certain kinds of damage: if the creature takes radiant damage, it also cannot enter squares adjacent to the creature that dealt the damage, or it must spend its next move action to go as far from the creature that delt the damage as possible, or something.

For the main rules, we need something a little more general-purpose, that has its rules contained within it.

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.

Personally, I think it's fine to have Turn Undead as a potential Save-Or-Die kind of effect (well, save-or-flee, but whatever). This certainly plays into how such affects should be adjudicated, but I think that's actually probably how they SHOULD work. A turn undead that doesn't send undead screaming for the hills isn't a good turn undead, IMO -- it doesn't satisfy the requirements I have of the ability.

Now, that doesn't mean that solo or elite or daily-level monsters should necessarily have to run away -- your powerful vampire lords should certainly just take damage or something -- but it does mean that if you're at the center of a zombie hoarde, and you turn undead, you have a little bubble around you that should be proof against most minion or standard-level zombies (and skeletons, and ghosts, and whatever).

 

[grimslade]

Cone works for B/X, which is what Mearls is running. No 5" grid for Basic, no 4E blasts and bursts, it's anachronistic even.
Is turning iconic for the cleric?
Is dusting undead iconic as well?
How should turning be resolved? Ability check? Turning Tables? A damage mechanic like the proposed Save or Die from last week?
Any riders for a turning attempt? Cost of failure?
SoD skews close to 1E, maybe turned if bloodied, dust if 0hp.

 

[triqui]

Unless it was tweaked a bit, maybe. Instead of having a "turn undead" line in every undead monster, make undead monsters have special reactions to certain kinds of damage: if the creature takes radiant damage, it also cannot enter squares adjacent to the creature that dealt the damage, or it must spend its next move action to go as far from the creature that delt the damage as possible, or something.

The space you need in the monster stat block is the same. Why do you agree with radiant damage and not with turn undead?

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Aside from sutras, all of the aspects that you list are characteristics of the creatures themselves, similar to how vampires fear crosses. For example, ghosts from Supernatural can't cross an unbroken salt line. You don't have to be a faithful preacher to utilize that property, you just need knowledge of that fact.

Interesting traits like that aren't bad, and can add an element of depth to a monster type. Turn undead, however, is a property of the cleric rather than the creature, and that's where I take issue. I think the space in the monster block, where Mearls' suggest adding a unique turning result, would be much better utilized adding a unique, exploitable property of the creature (that the party can utilize even without a cleric).

My issue isn't that a holy symbol can turn a vampire. My issue is that it's a class ability. I think that any faithful follower of a deity should have a chance to turn a vampire. However, I think it should have no effect upon a skeleton or a ghost. Essentially, when presented with the holy symbol of Kord, a zombie should simply chew upon the proffered arm.