| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 00:54:38
|
Turning undead in 3.5 is absolutely insane, if just for the mechanics involved in the process. I've been thinking when I start up my next campaign, I may officially adopt some variant of turning undead, but I'm torn between what version of the ability to use.
The option in Complete Divine is likely the simplest one to use, which essentially just does damage to undead based on the level of the cleric, and undead with turn resistance lessen the number of die to roll for damage, and take half damage from the turning attempt if they make their will save.
While its a nice, simple option, it just doesn't feel "Realms" or "D&D" to me. The whole point has always felt like the unholy creatures are cowed by the power of the cleric's god, and flee, unless the cleric is REALLY powerful, in which case they just blow them to Kelemvor Come.
This leads me to another variant, from the SRD/Uneathed Arcana, which basically makes turning a level check, which the DC is determined by the undead's HD + Cha bonus + turn resistance (if any). If the cleric makes the check he can hold the undead paralysed if he concentrates, or if he makes the check by 5 or more, he can turn them if he wants. If the undead are 1/2 the hit dice of the cleric, he can still destroy them, and he can affect undead in a 60 foot radius up to three times his "turning level" (equal to the cleric level, or the paladin level -3 times three).
So, has anyone used either of these options, or have any opinions on how they would fit into the campaign? I was thinking of leaving it up to the player, or making it specific to the particular order of cleric (i.e. Lathander's automatically pick the damage option, etc), but I don't want too many variant abilities floating around, especially if one, in practice, works much better than the other.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 02:47:42
|
I like, and use, the CD one. It's simple and easy and divine casters channel divine and positive energy, so it makes sense to me that it harms undead since undead, usually, are made/filled with negative energy.
However, if you use the CD version as written, I'd add the you can only turn so many times per day per charisma modifier that is in the PHB. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
 |
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 05:05:56
|
That's why I'm torn. The Complete Divine one is so simple, its just "roll your damage," and then they can make their save or reduce the damage with turn resistance, and that is that. Its a really simple system and keeps everything flowing.
On the other hand, the other system just seems to be more along the lines of the traditional turning. |
|
|
|
Dhomal
Senior Scribe
USA
565 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 05:44:29
|
Hello-
being somewhat new to 3.5 - and not having run into turning really - what basically is the system that you are looking to replace? I know you mentioned it as being "totally insane" but i'm unsure if that is because it is difficult to use - or too powerful.
Dhomal |
I am collecting the D&D Minis. I would be more than willing to trade with people. You can send me a PM here with your email listed - and I can send you my minis list. Thanks!
Successfully traded with Xysma! |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2007 : 05:52:18
|
Dunno,
I like simple and the core turning gave me, and the players that were trying to learn it, a headache. So, we went with the easier rules but I added the Cha modifier, otherwise a cleric (less it got errata'd, which is why I said the as written part) could turn to many times for my liking. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 01 Feb 2007 05:53:23 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2007 : 22:55:58
|
| I definately agree that the original limit should be imposed if you use the "straight damage" system of turning. |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2007 : 23:30:24
|
| I'll have a look at both of those. I've never liked the turning rules as they are - SKR wrote a piece about it for his website http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/turningundead.html, which highlights the fact that it does nothing a lot of the time, but can completely swing an encounter if a successful roll is made. I agree with this assessment and would rather see something more balanced; I've been looking for an alternative for ages, yet seem to have not taken in the CD option and hadn't heard about the SRD one. The straight up damage one seems simple and in line with the idea of channeling positive and negative energy. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
Edited by - Reefy on 02 Feb 2007 23:31:59 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2007 : 03:13:49
|
The SRD optional version seems to be more in line with the philosopy of how d20 rules should work, with some task having a DC, and you rolling a d20 with all of your modifiers to see if you hit the DC, rather than rolling multiple dice and cross referencing a table, which seemed to be something that they were trying to get away from in 3rd/3.5, and ironically, the table for turning is even more complicated than the older 1st/2nd edition turining charts were.
But the straight damage one is still very tempting because it is what it is . . . its never really completely useless, regardless of level or relative due to PrCs or whatever, since it can always do some damage to undead, adding something to the encounter one way or another. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2007 : 03:37:50
|
| The damage-causing version doesn't appeal to me from a gameplay or setting perspective. Turning undead should be drastic, sudden, and unreliable. I like the 1E version. |
|
|
|
Reefy
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
892 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2007 : 15:01:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
I like simple and the core turning gave me, and the players that were trying to learn it, a headache. So, we went with the easier rules but I added the Cha modifier, otherwise a cleric (less it got errata'd, which is why I said the as written part) could turn to many times for my liking.
I'm going to adopt this variant, assuming my players are happy with it (and I can't see that they wouldn't be). I agree with you that it should still be restricted to a certain number of times per day. |
Life is either daring adventure or nothing. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Turning Undead Variants, Which Should I Use?
