Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trouvere" data-source="post: 3893540" data-attributes="member: 37250">[sblock=OOC]&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh&nbsp; &nbsp; :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" />&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /> RAW, maybe (though turned creatures cower only if cornered and unable to flee), but I've never before seen it played that way.&nbsp; Turned and cowering are defined conditions in the SRD, but awed and rebuked are not!&nbsp; One other RAW implication is that the cleric cannot approach turned creatures without breaking the effect, but can approach rebuked creatures.So, RAW, we've done absolutely everything wrong.&nbsp; But RAI, I think we're exactly right.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players treat rebuking as we have, or why would anyone say it's more powerful than turning, if it gives nothing more than a +2 to hit?&nbsp; No, no, I can't believe it.&nbsp; It's just symmetry - turned undead run away unable to attack, rebuked undead stand still unable to act.&nbsp; Argh.I've been trying to find a clear statement somewhere official, and all I can find is this wizards.com <a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DND_PH_Glossary_R.asp" target="_blank">glossary</a> in which game terms are bolded and rebuked undead are said to &quot;cower&quot; in bold text.&nbsp; But every other mention (for example an article on dealing with incorporeal creatures) treats turning and rebuking as equivalent abilities (without going so far as to actually say what rebuking does, of course) - not one as an insta-win and the other as a group buff.Meanwhile:Not IC: Keldar raises his head from a table in the Red Dragon.&nbsp; &quot;I had the strangest dream.&nbsp; And you were in it, and you, and you.&quot;[/sblock]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trouvere, post: 3893540, member: 37250"] [sblock=OOC] :confused: :heh: :( RAW, maybe (though turned creatures cower only if cornered and unable to flee), but I've never before seen it played that way. Turned and cowering are defined conditions in the SRD, but awed and rebuked are not! One other RAW implication is that the cleric cannot approach turned creatures without breaking the effect, but can approach rebuked creatures. So, RAW, we've done absolutely everything wrong. But RAI, I think we're exactly right. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of players treat rebuking as we have, or why would anyone say it's more powerful than turning, if it gives nothing more than a +2 to hit? No, no, I can't believe it. It's just symmetry - turned undead run away unable to attack, rebuked undead stand still unable to act. Argh. I've been trying to find a clear statement somewhere official, and all I can find is this wizards.com [url=http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DND_PH_Glossary_R.asp]glossary[/url] in which game terms are bolded and rebuked undead are said to "cower" in bold text. But every other mention (for example an article on dealing with incorporeal creatures) treats turning and rebuking as equivalent abilities (without going so far as to actually say what rebuking does, of course) - not one as an insta-win and the other as a group buff. Meanwhile: Not IC: Keldar raises his head from a table in the Red Dragon. "I had the strangest dream. And you were in it, and you, and you."[/sblock] [/QUOTE]

Verification