Celebrim
Legend
Hmmm... once again I maybe slightly misled by the fact that the 3.X rules aren't as clear as mine. Instead of explicitly stating that turned undead are imposed a condition, it relies on plain and comparatively untechnical language to describe the effects. The particular effect it describes appears to be half-way in severity between 'frightened' and 'panicked', but because it uses vague language like 'best' it's very difficult to know what the text means. Like the 'frightened' condition though, I see that the text could be interpreted as suggesting that the undead still retains rational mental control and can act with foresight (which, BTW, a zero intelligence undead shouldn't be able to do anyway, but to simplify, let's assume we are talking about ghouls here). Unlike the 'frightened' condition though, it doesn't specifically state that the target is acting under any sort of penalty. And like the 'panicked' condition, the creature is forced into the 'cowering' condition if it cannot flee.
My 3.X derived rules explicitly provoke the 'panicked' condition, which I interpret as follows:
a) You must move at your best possible speed in your fastest movement mode away from all of the sources of your fear. You may not at any time move closer to any source of fear, even if doing so is the best way to escape from the source of your fear.
b) If there are multiple choices that remove you an equal distance from the source of your fear, you must move randomly, even if this movement is irrational and subjects you to additional dangers. For example, if the only direction you can move in that is away from the source of your fear is off a cliff or through a fire (and assuming you have no special fear of such things), then you must move off the cliff or through the fire.
c) You cannot plan or act with foresight. You will not move randomly toward a door or passage simply because after moving through the door you could then move yourself even further from the source of the fear. You can only move toward the door if after moving as far as you can from the source of fear along a random path, it is still true that you can move toward the door and not come closer to the source of your fear. If a door and a window 50' off the ground equally remove you from your source of fear, you can't express a rational preference for one or the other (either because you can fly and your enemy can't or because you can't fly). If a corridor is lit and the other is not, you can't preference one or the other (either because you have darkvision and your enemy doesn't or you can't see in the dark). You are panicking. You will not take rational action.
d) If you cannot at some time move such that you are further away from all sources of your fear, then you assume the cowering condition until such time as you could so move.
Note that in my game the Ravenloft Fear/Horror/Madness rules are in full force and this interpretation also holds true for panicking PC's as well as panicking monsters.
Using the above guidelines, which I have been doing, IMO experience turning undead just destroys them. They loose all tactical cohesiveness, split up into small groups, trigger traps, throw themselves off things, cower in corners, and generally turning them acts as an win button for the encounter - even ignoring that by 8th level you are incinerating many common sorts of undead on turns and not 'merely' panicking them. It's anything but counter-productive, and simply doing say 1d6 damage/class level to each effected undead would probably be less effective rather than more so.
I see that the 3.X rules, especially the 3.X turn rules which give the vague description 'best'* could be interpreted in other much less harsh ways.
*(Best by what standard? Most direct? Most effective? Most tactical? Most likely to avoid harm? For example, it might be "best" at times to flee behind nearby cover and stop there so as to avoid being exposed to missile fire. At other times the "best" means of movement might to take the withdraw action rather than the run action, or otherwise slow down to avoid offering attacks of opportunity. In short, the wording in the SRD leaves a DM a lot of wiggle room to advocate for strategic decisions on behalf of the monster, as opposed to plainly imposing a harsh and objective penalty and treating PC's and NPC's by the same standard.)
I'm not familiar with the wording of the 5e rules, but it sounds like they are equally ambiguous if not more so.
My 3.X derived rules explicitly provoke the 'panicked' condition, which I interpret as follows:
a) You must move at your best possible speed in your fastest movement mode away from all of the sources of your fear. You may not at any time move closer to any source of fear, even if doing so is the best way to escape from the source of your fear.
b) If there are multiple choices that remove you an equal distance from the source of your fear, you must move randomly, even if this movement is irrational and subjects you to additional dangers. For example, if the only direction you can move in that is away from the source of your fear is off a cliff or through a fire (and assuming you have no special fear of such things), then you must move off the cliff or through the fire.
c) You cannot plan or act with foresight. You will not move randomly toward a door or passage simply because after moving through the door you could then move yourself even further from the source of the fear. You can only move toward the door if after moving as far as you can from the source of fear along a random path, it is still true that you can move toward the door and not come closer to the source of your fear. If a door and a window 50' off the ground equally remove you from your source of fear, you can't express a rational preference for one or the other (either because you can fly and your enemy can't or because you can't fly). If a corridor is lit and the other is not, you can't preference one or the other (either because you have darkvision and your enemy doesn't or you can't see in the dark). You are panicking. You will not take rational action.
d) If you cannot at some time move such that you are further away from all sources of your fear, then you assume the cowering condition until such time as you could so move.
Note that in my game the Ravenloft Fear/Horror/Madness rules are in full force and this interpretation also holds true for panicking PC's as well as panicking monsters.
Using the above guidelines, which I have been doing, IMO experience turning undead just destroys them. They loose all tactical cohesiveness, split up into small groups, trigger traps, throw themselves off things, cower in corners, and generally turning them acts as an win button for the encounter - even ignoring that by 8th level you are incinerating many common sorts of undead on turns and not 'merely' panicking them. It's anything but counter-productive, and simply doing say 1d6 damage/class level to each effected undead would probably be less effective rather than more so.
I see that the 3.X rules, especially the 3.X turn rules which give the vague description 'best'* could be interpreted in other much less harsh ways.
*(Best by what standard? Most direct? Most effective? Most tactical? Most likely to avoid harm? For example, it might be "best" at times to flee behind nearby cover and stop there so as to avoid being exposed to missile fire. At other times the "best" means of movement might to take the withdraw action rather than the run action, or otherwise slow down to avoid offering attacks of opportunity. In short, the wording in the SRD leaves a DM a lot of wiggle room to advocate for strategic decisions on behalf of the monster, as opposed to plainly imposing a harsh and objective penalty and treating PC's and NPC's by the same standard.)
I'm not familiar with the wording of the 5e rules, but it sounds like they are equally ambiguous if not more so.