{kjd-imc} Undead and Turning (was: Turning Undead - Broke?)
Keith Davies
>
> Justisaur wrote:
>
>> Lets take a look at the higher end of the chart then.
>>
>> a lv 17 cleric... vs 12 undead of CR 8. That's something no xp is even
>> given for.
>>
>> The CR 8 zombies are 19 HD. That means he has to get +2 on the chart
>> to even turn one, and due to the number of HD that's all he's going to
>> turn is one, if he's lucky and gets the HD. He can't even destroy
>> them.
>>
>> Yea, he spends 2 rounds causing one out of 12 undead to run, undead who
>> are so weak he doesn't even get xp for them.
>
> On the other hand replace it with a number of CR 8 ghosts (6th level
> former characters) which turn as 10HD monsters. They are automatically
> destroyed and you can get around 5 of them, possibly 6.
>
> Conceptually if you see ghosts as a more supernatural force and
> skeletons and zombies as more like undead constructs it pans out
> nicely. More like an exorcism type of power. Wraiths, Spectres and
> Ghosts all fall into that sort of category.
I am strongly considering making mindless undead (skeletons and undead)
constructs. Constructs made of relatively grisly materials, but still
constructs nonetheless. Turning wouldn't do anything about them.
This would lead to turning being applied to HD-closer-to-CR monsters
such as ghosts, vampires, liches, and the like.
After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses. If
the turner wins the turnee is turned or rebuked. Destruction could
either something like 'wins by 10 or more', 'wins by 20 or more' (I
expect this will be rare), 'wins by 10 or more and HD exceeds target's
HD', or perhaps something else. Or a feat that improves turning
results.
Between the two, I suspect that Turn Resistance could either go away, or
all undead have a modifier to turn (resistance) checks equal to their
Charisma modifier (most nonmindless undead, IIRC, have a high Charisma).
This also gets rid of that pesky 'Turn Undead' table.
This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with HD;
without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves when
CR equals average party level will be comparable.
I think I'll look into this when I get home.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith....@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith....@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
Keith Davies
>
> I am strongly considering making mindless undead (skeletons and undead)
> constructs. Constructs made of relatively grisly materials, but still
> constructs nonetheless. Turning wouldn't do anything about them.
'skeletons and zombies', up there.
> This would lead to turning being applied to HD-closer-to-CR monsters
> such as ghosts, vampires, liches, and the like.
>
> After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
> check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses. If
> the turner wins the turnee is turned or rebuked. Destruction could
> either something like 'wins by 10 or more', 'wins by 20 or more' (I
> expect this will be rare), 'wins by 10 or more and HD exceeds target's
> HD', or perhaps something else. Or a feat that improves turning
> results.
Okay, some initial analysis
__________ undead __________ ____ cleric ____
Undead HD Will mWis mCha TR CR level Will diff
Allip 4 4 0 4 2 3 3 3 -1
Bodak 9 6 1 1 0 8 8 6 0
CallerInDarkness 11 7 2 2 2 9 9 6 -1
Devourer 12 8 3 3 0 11 11 7 -1
Ghost +2 4 +2
Ghoul 2 3 2 1 0 1 1 2 -1
Ghast 4 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 -1
Lich +1 +1 4 +2
Mummy 8 6 2 2 0 5 5 4 -2
Nightcrawler 25 14 5 4 0 18 18 11 -3
Nightwalker 21 12 5 4 0 16 16 10 -2
Nightwing 17 10 5 4 0 14 14 9 -1
Shadow 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 3 0
Skeleton 0 -5 0
Spectre 7 5 2 2 2 7 7 5 0
Vampire +1 +2 4 +2
Vampire Spawn 4 4 1 2 2 4 4 4 0
Wight 4 4 1 2 0 3 3 3 -1
Wraith 5 4 2 2 2 5 5 4 0
Wraith, Dread 16 10 4 7 0 11 11 7 -3
Zombie 0 -5 0
* I left template creatures in for completeness; they're kind of hard
to work with without specific examples.
So, assuming cleric level = undead CR, a base will contested check is
slightly in favor of the undead. This is probably just fine.
Proposal:
Turn Undead
. is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity;
. requires use of a divine focus;
. may be done 3+mCha times per day, Extra Turning may increase
. is (treated as a) a 60 foot burst;
. undead must make a Will save against DC 10+turner's Will save, with
both saves modified by mCha rather than mWis ('force of will');
. successful Will save is no effect;
. failed Will save, 'treat as frightened'[1] for one minute;
. probably get rid of Turn Resistance[2];
. see below for 'destruction'.
Rebuke Undead
. all rules for checking are the same;
. on (undead) failed Will save, treat as 'cowering'[3] for one minute;
. see below for 'commanding'.
Since I don't have a HD cap on the number of undead turned, it might
be worth reducing the area of effect to a 30' burst.
[1] Frightened: A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear
as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened
creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws,
skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use
special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature
must use such means if they are the only way to escape.
I know undead are immune to all mind-affecting effects, but treating
them 'frightened' is closest (of standard conditions) to the
described effect.
[2] unless you want some tougher undead. Right now TR is a workaround
for low-HD-for-CR undead. I don't think it's needed any more... but
it can still be used if desired.
[3] Cowering: The character is frozen in fear and can take no actions. A
cowering character takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class and loses her
Dexterity bonus (if any). Again, mind-affecting but best fit.
I'm not sure how I want to handle destruction, but one possibility is
that on being turned the undead takes 'damage' to Charisma based on the
type of divine focus, modified by the turner's Charisma modifier.
Again, I know undead are usually immune to ability damage, I was
thinking of having turning 'suppress' the turned creature's Charisma for
the duration. Commanded would be the same -- reduced to '0 Charisma'
makes them your slaves.
Mindless undead are a slight problem; skeletons and zombies have Cha 1
and will go down pretty easily. However, considering that I'm inclined
to make them grisly constructs instead this may go away entirely. For
undead that aren't mindless, I see *none* with a Charisma less than 10
(ghosts, which have a Cha 6 prerequisite, gain +4 to Charisma from the
template). It may take more than one round (and turning attempt), but
successful turning can eventually destroy undead, if you can get them to
stay still for it. 'Frightened' requires retreating as best they can --
turning a vampire will likely mean it goes gaseous and escapes, a turned
lich would likely teleport away... but you're unlikely to be powerful
enough to destroy them *anyway*, so their ability to escape isn't a big
deal.
> This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
> example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
> generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with HD;
> without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves when
> CR equals average party level will be comparable.
I'll examine elementals and outsiders[4] later; now I need to get back
to work.
[4] other potential turning/rebuking targets IMC
Reginald Blue
> This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
> example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
> generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with HD;
> without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves
> when CR equals average party level will be comparable.
What if you made it Will saves for undead, and Fort saves for "anything
else". I realize that "anything else" only includes Elementals (and
Outsiders?), but, what if this opened up the range of things you could
affect?
Of course, if nothing were removed from the possibilities, I'd actually want
to invent a "Turn Resistance" number which would look like an inverse saving
throw...
Consider:
Undead have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Cha modifier + Good Save
Elementals have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Con modifier + Good Save
Cleric's turn undead by making a Turn attempt = 10 + Cleric level (turn
level) and compare it to the target creature's turn resistance.
At < Turn Resistance = no effect
At > Turn Restistance < Turn Resistance + 10 = turn/frightened
At > Turn Resistance+10 = destroyed/panicked
or something like that.
--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
alex.cr...@gmail.com
attacks? 10 + 1/2 HD + CHA
On Oct 24, 12:36 pm, "Reginald Blue" <Reginald_B...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
> > This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
> > example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
> > generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with HD;
> > without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves
> > when CR equals average party level will be comparable.What if you made it Will saves for undead, and Fort saves for "anything
Reginald Blue
> On Oct 24, 12:36 pm, "Reginald Blue" <Reginald_B...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>> This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
>>> example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
>>> generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with
>>> HD;
>>> without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves
>>> when CR equals average party level will be comparable.What if you
>>> made it Will saves for undead, and Fort saves for "anything
>> else". I realize that "anything else" only includes Elementals (and
>> Outsiders?), but, what if this opened up the range of things you
>> could affect?
>>
>> Of course, if nothing were removed from the possibilities, I'd
>> actually want to invent a "Turn Resistance" number which would look
>> like an inverse saving throw...
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> Undead have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Cha modifier + Good Save
>> Elementals have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Con modifier + Good Save
>
> Why don't you just stick to the standard DC for monster special
> attacks? 10 + 1/2 HD + CHA
>
(I rearranged this to follow the bottom posting conventions of this group).
So, this would be a DC for a creature's "special defense for turning" (aka
Turn Resistance). That idea has merit, certainly. A quick glance suggests
that that would make the numbers for turning the various types of elementals
more consistent (since their Con scores vary widely, but their CHA scores do
not.)
Erol K. Bayburt
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am strongly considering making mindless undead (skeletons and undead)
>> constructs. Constructs made of relatively grisly materials, but still
>> constructs nonetheless. Turning wouldn't do anything about them.
>
>'skeletons and zombies', up there.
>
>> This would lead to turning being applied to HD-closer-to-CR monsters
>> such as ghosts, vampires, liches, and the like.
>>
>> After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
>> check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses. If
>> the turner wins the turnee is turned or rebuked. Destruction could
>> either something like 'wins by 10 or more', 'wins by 20 or more' (I
>> expect this will be rare), 'wins by 10 or more and HD exceeds target's
>> HD', or perhaps something else. Or a feat that improves turning
>> results.
>
>Okay, some initial analysis
[Great Cleave of analysis]
Interesting. One problem I see is that turning undead is a case of
"d20 gives too much variation" which is why the "book" rules use that
odd table.
Maybe require 2-4 rolls. E.g. on a failed save the undead is
Frightened for one turn and then gets another roll. On a second failed
save, it remains Frightened for an additional minute, and then gets
one save per minute to become unfrightened.
Also, requiring both sides to roll d20 can get messy, when a cleric
tries to turn large numbers of undead. I'd suggest one side rolling
d20 or whatever, while the other side "takes 10."
E.g. a cleric facing a mixed bag of undead makes a d20 roll and adds
his turning bonuses (base will save plus CHA modifier plus any
extras). This exceeds all the undead's will saves by more than 10, so
the undead are all frightened for 1 turn. The next turn, the d20 roll
is made again, and it exceeds the will saves of all the undead except
the boss by more than 10. The boss undead is no longer frightened, but
the other undead remain frightened for another 10 rounds (1 minute).
I like turning effects being an "exception" to undead immunity to
mind-affecting effects. It fits conceptually as well as in terms of
game mechanics, IMO - "The Power of the Holy Way is the ONLY THING
that a Vampire fears."
My personal preference would be to allow turning "at will" in the
style of earlier editions, weaking it as necessary to keep it from
being unbalancing, rather than limiting the number of times per day.
But that *is* just a personal preference.
I'd also prefer destruction being limited to mindless undead, or maybe
to mindless and incoporeal undead. The idea of coporeal intelligent
undead being made to go *poof* by a turn attempt just strikes me as
wrong. But again that is just my personal preference.
--
Erol K. Bayburt
Ero...@aol.com
Keith Davies
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:24:41 GMT, Keith Davies
><keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>
>>Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
>>> check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses. If
>>> the turner wins the turnee is turned or rebuked. Destruction could
>>> either something like 'wins by 10 or more', 'wins by 20 or more' (I
>>> expect this will be rare), 'wins by 10 or more and HD exceeds target's
>>> HD', or perhaps something else. Or a feat that improves turning
>>> results.
>>
>>Okay, some initial analysis
>
> [Great Cleave of analysis]
>
> Interesting. One problem I see is that turning undead is a case of
> "d20 gives too much variation" which is why the "book" rules use that
> odd table.
Indeed. But the table results in a very narrow window of application.
It works okay for those creatures that have a CR fairly close to HD
(though the designers felt the need to include Turn Resistance to beef
those ones up a bit), but fails pretty miserably when you get to created
undead (skeletons and zombies) because HD so greatly exceed CR at the
top end. They aren't 'more powerful undead', they are just *bigger*.
As it stands, a zombie and a lich of the same HD are about the same
difficulty to turn... but the zombie is a markedly weaker monster (much
lower CR). When it's an 'appropriate' encounter, it's *impossible* to
turn.
This offends me.
Going with a Will save does a lot to bring things back into line,
especially if we use mCha rather than mWis. Most intelligent undead
have Cha >= 12; created undead have Cha 1. This leads to a difference
of +6 in the Will contest, even before considering buffs and magic
items.
A lich and a zombie of the same HD will be turned quite a bit
differently. A 20HD zombie (CR 6 or 8 IIRC) actually will be turnable
by a cleric of level equal to the CR (base Will 12, -5 (mCha) = +7 for
the zombie[1], base Will +5, mCha probably +1 or +2 at least = +6 or +7
for the cleric) with some regularity. This strikes me as good.
[1] I forget if zombies get good will or not; I think they do. Other
undead templates (ghost, vampire, etc.) don't get their base saves
recalculated IIRC.
> Maybe require 2-4 rolls. E.g. on a failed save the undead is
> Frightened for one turn and then gets another roll. On a second failed
> save, it remains Frightened for an additional minute, and then gets
> one save per minute to become unfrightened.
Getting hard to play, I think. I'd rather have a relatively sloppy
roll-once technique here than a 'more accurate' multiple roll system.
> Also, requiring both sides to roll d20 can get messy, when a cleric
> tries to turn large numbers of undead. I'd suggest one side rolling
> d20 or whatever, while the other side "takes 10."
I agree, though I'd reverse what you say below. Have the cleric 'take
10' and provide a DC for the undead to save against.
> E.g. a cleric facing a mixed bag of undead makes a d20 roll and adds
> his turning bonuses (base will save plus CHA modifier plus any
> extras). This exceeds all the undead's will saves by more than 10, so
> the undead are all frightened for 1 turn. The next turn, the d20 roll
> is made again, and it exceeds the will saves of all the undead except
> the boss by more than 10. The boss undead is no longer frightened, but
> the other undead remain frightened for another 10 rounds (1 minute).
Having the cleric's roll determine quality of turning means you'll get
lopsided results -- turning could become an all or nothing encounter
effect. I admit there is some sense to this (a roll good enough to turn
the vampire should be good enough to turn its minions). However, I
think it would lend itself to the 'more random' effects you alluded to
above.
Consider, you don't roll damage for a 10d6 fireball by rolling d6 once
and multiplying by 10. This unreasonably magnifies the results, or at
least really buggers with the standard deviation -- the mean damage is
the same.
Much as it would annoy me as a DM, I think it is better to have each of
the targetted undead make a save, than have the cleric make the only
roll. The cleric rolling plays faster, but I think the undead saving
would get the 'less random' results (playing the averages, as it were).
> I like turning effects being an "exception" to undead immunity to
> mind-affecting effects. It fits conceptually as well as in terms of
> game mechanics, IMO - "The Power of the Holy Way is the ONLY THING
> that a Vampire fears."
Good enough justification for me. I was using 'frightened' because that
so closely matches the description of the condition caused by turning.
It's not *quite* the same, but it's close enough... and is a standard
condition.
> My personal preference would be to allow turning "at will" in the
> style of earlier editions, weaking it as necessary to keep it from
> being unbalancing, rather than limiting the number of times per day.
> But that *is* just a personal preference.
Considering how many undead a cleric is likely to run into in a single
'day' this is probably okay, even without weakening things. I wouldn't
do it because not all clerics IMC have Turn Undead. All clerics have
Channel Divine Power, usable a limited number of times per day.
Some have Turn Undead, others have Rebuke Undead, others use it to drive
various domain powers. Healing domain IMC, for example, has /lay on
hands/ -- channel to provide (hit point) healing equal to one day's
rest. I obviously would not want this usable at will without limit.
> I'd also prefer destruction being limited to mindless undead, or maybe
> to mindless and incoporeal undead. The idea of coporeal intelligent
> undead being made to go *poof* by a turn attempt just strikes me as
> wrong. But again that is just my personal preference.
I hadn't considered that.
Limited to mindless corporeal undead. I can see a couple of ways of
handling that.
1. mindless undead, on being turned, must make a Fortitude save against
the divine power, at the same DC as the Will save. On failure,
*dusted*. Since undead have poor Fortitude saves and no Con score,
this means a 20 HD zombie would have +6 total to the save -- about a
50% (or worse) chance of 'survival'. If you use mCha in place of
mCon, you're looking at the 20HD zombie having a net +1 (and a 2HD
zombie having a net -5... it's not going to do well, nope).
2. for all undead, on a successful turning the cleric rolls 'damage'
based on the quality of the divine focus (d4+mCha for a 'normal' DF).
If the 'damage' equals or exceeds the Charisma of the targetted
undead, *dusted*. I *almost* like this one -- a turner with a
sufficiently powerful personality (high enough Charisma) and/or a
powerful enough divine focus (holy relic, most likely) *could*
destroy a 'greater undead'. The possible downside is that *all*
zombies and skeletons would be destroyed on turning. It's easy to
get at least 1 on d4+mCha, when Cha can be expected to be 10 or
more....
Destruction needs some more thought. As does rebuking -- while it might
not be desirable to have ghouls destroyed (corporeal not-mindless
undead), having them controlled does.
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> This has the odd effect that alternate turn targets (elementals, for
>> example) are easier to turn than undead of the same HD (elementals
>> generally have poor Will saves). Elemental CR scales slowly with HD;
>> without specifically checking I suspect the elemental's Will saves
>> when CR equals average party level will be comparable.
>
> What if you made it Will saves for undead, and Fort saves for "anything
> else". I realize that "anything else" only includes Elementals (and
> Outsiders?), but, what if this opened up the range of things you could
> affect?
Outsiders have all saves good (IIRC), so having the save be Fortitude or
Will doesn't make a *huge* difference, at least as far as base saves are
concerned. However, I want it to be harder to turn the more intelligent
outsiders than the big and strong ones. Using Will+mCha rather than
Fort+mCon will do this better, I think.
For elementals using Fort could be more reasonable, but I don't mind
them being easier to turn. Elementals usually have *lots* of HD for
their CR (compared to outsiders and undead -- they don't have so many
(Sp) and (Su) abilities, usually). IIRC a CR8 elemental has 32 HD, for
+10 base (poor) Will. A CR8 outsider often has 6-12 HD, depending, for
+2-+4 base Will (though often higher mCha than the elemental). IIRC.
I think I'll be pretty happy using Will+mCha. I'll still run numbers to
confirm before committing to it, though.
> Of course, if nothing were removed from the possibilities, I'd
> actually want to invent a "Turn Resistance" number which would look
> like an inverse saving throw...
>
> Consider:
>
> Undead have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Cha modifier + Good Save
> Elementals have a Turn Resistance of 10 + Con modifier + Good Save
With the exception of mindless undead, elementals tend to have way more
HD for their CR than undead do. Compare (from memory):
Nightwalker 25 HD / CR 18 / good save +8 base
bigass elemental 32 HD / CR 8 / good save +18 base
We're back to the same problem zombies and skeletons have -- low threat
for HD, but unturnable.
> Cleric's turn undead by making a Turn attempt = 10 + Cleric level (turn
> level) and compare it to the target creature's turn resistance.
10 + cleric level (or d20+cleric level)? Wow, they're going to turn
*well*. Normally it would be half cleric level.
> At < Turn Resistance = no effect
> At > Turn Restistance < Turn Resistance + 10 = turn/frightened
> At > Turn Resistance+10 = destroyed/panicked
>
> or something like that.
As I said in another message in this thread, having the cleric do the
roll once for the attempt against all targets would lead to all or
nothing results. I'd prefer each of the targets to make a save against
the cleric's 'turn number'... and base the DC on 10 + Will save + mCha
(or 10 + turning level / 2 + mCha).
Keith Davies
(thank you)
> So, this would be a DC for a creature's "special defense for turning"
> (aka Turn Resistance). That idea has merit, certainly. A quick
> glance suggests that that would make the numbers for turning the
> various types of elementals more consistent (since their Con scores
> vary widely, but their CHA scores do not.)
This is more consistent with the standard, yes. It doesn't behave quite
the way I want it to, for the following reasons (most of which I've
stated in other messages):
. having the cleric make a single check against a target number for each
creature to be turned means that results tend to be all or nothing;
. using HD/2 rather than base Will means that undead will be slightly
easier to turn (though this is countered by using 'turner level/2'
rather than base Will[1]);
. elemental HD grows *way* faster for the CR than outsiders and undead
(or at least intelligent undead);
Using base Will + mCha keeps the target numbers comparable to CR for
*all* of these (poor Will for elementals, IIRC). This means that turn
results will be about the same for the various creature types.
Y'know, for destruction I may do the simple thing: failing the same by
ten or more results in destruction/control. Additional feats could
change this number:
Turn Focus
Prereq: Turn Foo, base Will +2
Benefit: Choose a type of creature you can turn. Save DC when turning
creatures of this type is increased by 2.
Improved Turn Focus
Prereq: Turn Foo, Improved Turn Focus, base Will +6
Benefit: Save DC when turning creatures of this type is increased by
2, stacks with Turn Focus.
Greater Turn Focus
Prereq: Turn Foo, Improved Turn Focus, Greater Turn Focus, base Will +10
Benefit: Save DC when turning creatures of this type is increased by
2, stacks with Turn Focus and Improved Turn Focus.
Improved Turning
Prereq: ability to Turn
Benefit: Choose a type of creature you can turn. A successfully
turned creature of this type is destroyed if it fails the save by 6
or more.
Normal: A successfully turned creature is destroyed (or dismissed, if
extraplanar) if it fails the save by 10 or more.
Greater Turn Foo
Prereq: Turn Foo, Improved Turn Foo
Benefit: A successfully turned Foo is destroyed or dismissed if it
fails the save by 2 or more.
Normal: A successfully turned Foo is destroyed if it fails the save
by 10 or more.
There are obvious analogs for Rebuke.
The last two I might replace with
Turn Specialization
Prereq: ability to turn, Turn Focus, base Will +6
Benefit: Choose a type of creature you have Turn Focus for. Turned
creatures of this type are destroyed or dismissed if they fail the
save by 6 or more.
Normal: Destroyed or dismissed if the save is failed by 10 or more.
Improved Turn Specialization
Prereq: ability to turn, Turn Focus, Improved Turn Focus, Turn
Specialization, base Will +8
Benefit: Destroyed/dismissed if the save is failed by 2 or more.
Greater Turn Specialization
Prereq: ability to turn, Turn Focus, Improved Turn Focus, Greater Turn
Focus, Turn Specialization, Improved Turn Specialization, base Will
+12
Benefit: Destroyed/dismissed if the save is failed at all.
Yes, this is getting pretty powerful (+6 to save DC and automatically
destroyed on failure)... but *expensive* and narrow focus. I can see
*some* characters wanting it, but there are better things to do with the
feats, I think.
Jim Davies
>I am strongly considering making mindless undead (skeletons and undead)
>constructs. Constructs made of relatively grisly materials, but still
>constructs nonetheless. Turning wouldn't do anything about them.
Maybe it should just do damage instead of scaring them. Being
genuinely mindless, nothing resembling a mind-affecting effect can
affect them at all. But maybe it should be a different use, so you
can't turn and blast simultaneously.
>After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
>check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses.
So a Bard-19/Cleric-1 turns better than a Cleric-18 ?
Just use cleric levels instead, presumably as lvl/2+mWis. Of course
this nerfs multiclassers and drops the total by 2, but that's not a
bad thing.
And why should a Ring of Resistance help the turner? Saves are a
defensive measure and should remain so.
>Between the two, I suspect that Turn Resistance could either go away,
Bin it
>or
>all undead have a modifier to turn (resistance) checks equal to their
>Charisma modifier (most nonmindless undead, IIRC, have a high Charisma).
Seems a bit odd. I'd use Cha for the cleric and Wis for the undead,
but I haven't run the numbers. You can balance it in various other
ways.
>This also gets rid of that pesky 'Turn Undead' table.
It's not really a table.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Keith Davies
> On the grave of Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org> is inscribed:
>
>>I am strongly considering making mindless undead (skeletons and undead)
>>constructs. Constructs made of relatively grisly materials, but still
>>constructs nonetheless. Turning wouldn't do anything about them.
>
> Maybe it should just do damage instead of scaring them. Being
> genuinely mindless, nothing resembling a mind-affecting effect can
> affect them at all. But maybe it should be a different use, so you
> can't turn and blast simultaneously.
I would think, yes. Turn *and* damage -- unless weak or unlikely for
both -- would be overpowering, I'd think.
I'd like to see a good damage-based turning, but none of the proposed
ones I've seen so far suit me.
>>After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a contested Will
>>check. Turner and turnee roll d20 and add their Will save bonuses.
>
> So a Bard-19/Cleric-1 turns better than a Cleric-18 ?
>
> Just use cleric levels instead, presumably as lvl/2+mWis. Of course
> this nerfs multiclassers and drops the total by 2, but that's not a
> bad thing.
>
> And why should a Ring of Resistance help the turner? Saves are a
> defensive measure and should remain so.
I'm switching to a Will save (DC 10+turnerlevel/2+mCha). Elementals are
*too* easily turned/rebuked if I use base 10+base Will+mCha; I don't
mind stiffening up undead and outsiders (all viable turn/rebuke targets,
if you've got the right divine powers) a bit.
>>Between the two, I suspect that Turn Resistance could either go away,
>
> Bin it
Yep. Will save (using mCha instead of mWis) looks like it'll suit just
fine.
>>or all undead have a modifier to turn (resistance) checks equal to
>>their Charisma modifier (most nonmindless undead, IIRC, have a high
>>Charisma).
>
> Seems a bit odd. I'd use Cha for the cleric and Wis for the undead,
> but I haven't run the numbers. You can balance it in various other
> ways.
mCha exhibits behavior closer to what I'm looking for. Non-mindless --
mindful? -- undead tend to have higher Charisma than Wisdom. In fact,
IIRC undead templates tend to grant higher Charisma bonuses than Wisdom
bonuses (with the exception of skeleton and zombie). Also, since undead
coming back appears to be 'force of personality' (a measure of Charisma
rather than Wisdom) it seems to fit better.
>>This also gets rid of that pesky 'Turn Undead' table.
>
> It's not really a table.
f(level,d20+mCha), then. It's presented as a table.
Nikolas Landauer
> On the grave of Keith Davies is inscribed:
> >
> > After this, I'd consider changing Turning so it's a
> > contested Will check. Turner and turnee roll d20
> > and add their Will save bonuses.
>
> So a Bard-19/Cleric-1 turns better than a Cleric-18 ?
Keith has long since done away with the multiclassing save bonuses
issue (I have, too, but that's beside the point). Save progressions
stack, so a Bard-19/Cleric-1 turns better than a Cleric-18 because he's
a stronger character (20 levels). Makes sense to me: using the minimal
training from his new faith with his long experience in directing his
powerful force of personality.
--
Nik
Keith Davies
I'd gone to DC 10 + turnlevel/2 + mCha so it was more consistent with
other rules... but this is almost good enough justification to me to go
back to a contested Will check (Cha-based rather than Wis-based). It
also makes turning useful for a higher-level character.
Dipping gets full effect for characters who already have good Will. On
one level this bugs me -- I've got an ingrained dislike for dipping
granting full effect -- but on another it makes sense in this case.
Someone with mixed Will (say, a Ftr19/Clr1) won't be as good (base Will
+8[1]).
[1] +6 IMC actually, if the first level is Fighter, since the +2 applies
only to saves considered Good at first level.
~consul
> I'd also prefer destruction being limited to mindless undead, or maybe
> to mindless and incoporeal undead. The idea of coporeal intelligent
> undead being made to go *poof* by a turn attempt just strikes me as
> wrong. But again that is just my personal preference.
I don't know if you've read Ghostwalk, but it has neat ideas about making personalized
undead. It was designed for PC's who are undead, but there is no reason why your NPCs
can't take the specialized feats.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For within these Trials, we
shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>