Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dragonklaw82 02-18-06, 03:17 AM	I made a similar post about three weeks ago, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to bring it up again. The cleric ability to command undead is too vague. The effects and duration of turning and destroying undead are clear. The effects of rebuking are similarly clear. The rules for commanding, however, are as murky and unfathomable as any I have seen. Points of clarification: What exactly does "commanding undead" entail specifically? Does it function like the command undead spell, the Control Undead spell, or something else altogether? How do intelligent undead behave while commanded? Can undead that possess the create spawn ability control their spawn while commanded? Can they create additional spawn while commanded? If so, how can you justify game balance when a sixth level cleric can create an exponentially growing army of shadows in a matter of minutes? For all the bellyaching people have done over Polymorph, I should hope they could have at least been bothered to clarify this rather important issue, which has had no errata printed about it. So please, please somebody prove me wrong. Tell me a page number in the PHB, DMG, or MM that answers these questions. Point me towards the errata (if it exists). Reference a specific issue of Dragon or something that addresses this problem. Give me directions to a mountain-top guru to the Himalayas who can answer all questions. Just please tell me there's an answer to this before I go insane.
Seeker95 02-18-06, 08:19 AM	Does it function like the command undead spell, the Control Undead spell, or something else altogether? As per the command undead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/commandUndead.htm) spell. Although the duration is permanent, assuming the line that compares command to destroy undead also parallels in the duration category. It would also be reasonable to set the duration as per the spell: one day per caster level. How do intelligent undead behave while commanded? Assuming the subject is intelligent, it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way (treat its attitude as friendly). It will not attack you while the spell lasts. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An intelligent commanded undead never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Can undead that possess the create spawn ability control their spawn while commanded? Yes. Can they create additional spawn while commanded? Yes. If so, how can you justify game balance when a sixth level cleric can create an exponentially growing army of shadows in a matter of minutes? Minutes? Somewhat of a degree of hyperbole there. As far as justification goes... the game was written for non-evil PCs, so if your NPC cleric has such a large army of undead hat his disposal, more power to him. If you use a duration of one day per caster level, then this is itself a balance... at the end of the two or three weeks of command, the now-not-commanded undead has an army at his disposal to exact revenge. So please, please somebody prove me wrong. Tell me a page number in the PHB, DMG, or MM that answers these questions. PHB page 159. Although it must be inferred that "command undead" will function as the spell "command undead", it is a reasonable inferrence.
weasel fierce 02-18-06, 01:40 PM	Give me directions to a mountain-top guru to the Himalayas who can answer all questions. Just please tell me there's an answer to this before I go insane. That would be your DM ;) Though gaming in the Himalayas could get awful chilly
Dragonklaw82 02-18-06, 03:12 PM	If so, how can you justify game balance when a sixth level cleric can create an exponentially growing army of shadows in a matter of minutes? Minutes? Somewhat of a degree of hyperbole there. As far as justification goes... the game was written for non-evil PCs, so if your NPC cleric has such a large army of undead hat his disposal, more power to him. If you use a duration of one day per caster level, then this is itself a balance... at the end of the two or three weeks of command, the now-not-commanded undead has an army at his disposal to exact revenge. So please, please somebody prove me wrong. Tell me a page number in the PHB, DMG, or MM that answers these questions. PHB page 159. Although it must be inferred that "command undead" will function as the spell "command undead", it is a reasonable inferrence. 1. I'm afraid it's not hyperbole. A creature slain by a shadow rises as a shadow in 1d4 rounds. A small town full of 1st level commoners could literally be wiped out and transformed into shadows in a matter of minutes 2. I've read page 159. Extensively. That's what has led to this post. I shouldn't have to infer the rules. But I do agree with your assessment here, despite the potentially game-breaking consequences. That would be your DM ;) Though gaming in the Himalayas could get awful chilly lol that's the problem, I am the DM. I've read the turn/rebuke rules from top to bottom, and while I was able to infer most of the information posted by Seeker95, it would be nice to see it verified in print.
Seeker95 02-18-06, 04:38 PM	while I was able to infer most of the information posted by Seeker95, it would be nice to see it verified in print.Please do not take this the wrong way, as your comment is a springboard, and not a direct example. I've been playing D&D since 1978. That's 28 years. I've had third edition for only six of those years. In the previous 22, we did not have nearly as extensive nor as complete a rule set as we have now. And we never seemed to have any problem with ambiguous or inference-required rules. we had those kind of rules, but we just didn't consider it a problem. Third edition, while it has brought the largest number of players into the game than any previous edition, seems to have brought in the type of player that needs every detail of the game spelled out. Personally, I blame it on video games.
rkr1970 02-18-06, 05:56 PM	Please do not take this the wrong way, as your comment is a springboard, and not a direct example. I've been playing D&D since 1978. That's 28 years. I've had third edition for only six of those years. In the previous 22, we did not have nearly as extensive nor as complete a rule set as we have now. And we never seemed to have any problem with ambiguous or inference-required rules. we had those kind of rules, but we just didn't consider it a problem. Third edition, while it has brought the largest number of players into the game than any previous edition, seems to have brought in the type of player that needs every detail of the game spelled out. Personally, I blame it on video games. ::BEGIN RANT:: :rant: It's not the video games. This problem isn't just found in D&D. It's the education system & what today's youth are, or rather are not, getting out of that system. It has become endemic across an entire generation. And those childeren who are currently in school are finding it harder and harder each year to learn, but whether due to lowered standards of achievement, laziness by parents, students, or educators, or media example and media overload has yet to be determined. It has been proven that those kids graduating high school this year have lower average I.Q.s than graduating classes of just 10 years ago. This is primarily caused by deficiencies in reading comprehension, problem solving, and ability to follow direction. As for D&D, consider the fact that 1st Ed was written at a near post-grad level and thus those that played had an excellent grasp of language, including inference. Add to that the outright statement in the rulebooks that the DM was final arbiter of all rules, and there was no real need to pick every possible interpretation apart by the masses. If you didn't understand, you asked your DM how he wanted that rule to be used. Simple. (AKA Rule #0) 2nd Ed wasn't written at as high a level, more like college freshman level, but the ability to read betwen the lines as well Rule #0 allowed most people to play with few problems. The simplified rules allowed a broader audience to join in on the fun, but they were still, for the most part, an educated audience. 3.x, however, being written at a junior high school reading comprehension level (and remember that this is today's jr. high, not jr. high from 25 yeas ago), and no where stating that the DM is the final arbiter of rules, perhaps because they no longer believe the average person playing the game would understand said rule, is exessively detailed. There are very few places where an inference is required, and fewer still that require a regular arbiter. I'm sure it was written at this level to allow the broadest possible cross-section of people to understand and enjoy the game, but unfortunately, there are a lot of people who play today, because of that very reason, who lack the ability to follow the rules without assistance. That all said, the fact that Dragonklaw82 is at least asking a question about something that is implied rather than stated plainly (I saw a thread 2 days ago asking how to figure hp :rolleyes: ), means that he is probably smarter than the majority of people who ask questions about rules that the books answer. He just needs to learn to learn to draw his own inferences, rather than rely on what's been written, and call into power Rule #0. Then, it doesn't matter if he interpreted the rules correctly, they will be at least be applied evenly whlie he DMs. And in this game, that's far more important than the exact number of undead a cleric can command indirectly. :ahem: ::END RANT:: Oh, BTW, I would have to personally rule that the HD of spawned undead under the control of the creature that created them would be added to the "parent" creature's total HD to determine a cleric's ability to control it. This is both a matter of game balance, as well as an indication of the creature's growing power. (I'm fairly certain I read this ruling somewhere, but I have no idea where.) I know it doesn't look "balanced" against the destroying undead, since you wouldn't take the HD of the spawn into consideration, but it makes a lot better balancing act than ruling from the other perspective: If you can control him, and through him all of his spawn, then I only have to destroy him and I will therefore destroy all of his spawn. Sorry, Dragonklaw82, it comes down to your judgement and what makes sense to you, the DM. Seeker and I have offered our best arguments, one for, one against, but now you must choose one path or the other. A tough choice, to be sure, but it comes with the job. ;)
Seeker95 02-18-06, 09:52 PM	rkr1970, a very well written post, and hardly the type I would expect when labeled [rant]. Thank you very much. :tiphat: And for the record, I like your take on the HD counting. If I allowed evil PCs, I believe I would implement it. I do not, so it is an empty statement, but I like your take on it nonetheless.
Dragonklaw82 02-20-06, 09:07 PM	Third edition, while it has brought the largest number of players into the game than any previous edition, seems to have brought in the type of player that needs every detail of the game spelled out. Fair enough. It is true that 3rd edition is less inductive than previous versions of the game. My point was that since WOTC has put an emphasis on rules disambiguation in 3.5 they should apply that across the board. Making the call on my own is no problem, but I consider it the game designer's duty to make a class ability as common as turn/rebuke undead as clear as possible and it seems to me that the rebuke undead rules have fallen short in that regard.
Dragonklaw82 02-20-06, 09:15 PM	Sorry, Dragonklaw82, it comes down to your judgement and what makes sense to you, the DM. Seeker and I have offered our best arguments, one for, one against, but now you must choose one path or the other. A tough choice, to be sure, but it comes with the job. ;) My thanks to the both of you. I have come to my own conclusions about this particular issue, but hearing two informed and eloquent opinions on the subject has proven enlightening.
rkr1970 02-21-06, 10:06 AM	Fair enough. It is true that 3rd edition is less inductive than previous versions of the game. My point was that since WOTC has put an emphasis on rules disambiguation in 3.5 they should apply that across the board. Making the call on my own is no problem, but I consider it the game designer's duty to make a class ability as common as turn/rebuke undead as clear as possible and it seems to me that the rebuke undead rules have fallen short in that regard. They have indeed! This is one of the few places where I, long used to figuring this stuff out on my own, wish there had been a bit more clairity. There are many places I wish they had been a bit more vague, if only to shut up the rules lawyers, but alas... :( ;)
Bruunwald 02-21-06, 12:49 PM	I don't think the commanding undead aspect of the turning rules was meant to allow free use of the spell of the same name to the full duration of that spell. If that were the case, it would likely be listed instead as a domain power. I think you do get to command undead, per the spell, but that the duration is no more than it would be for a normal turning attempt (and you definitely still must use the turn undead chart to see just which undead you can command and how many). What is that? Ten minutes? Having an army for weeks (and by the way, if you believe that, one could just as easily expend new command attempts each day to put off Seeker's revenge theory indefinitely, if the dice are on one's side), is obviously game breaking and not the intent of the power. The spirit of the rule is to grab command of some zombies or a wight or two, in the heat of the moment, and coerse them to aid you in the current battle, maybe follow you around the dungeon for a few minutes. Anything else is munchkinning. I agree that the rule needs clarification. I disagree that any rule not 100% completely clear, such as this one, must be an invitation to Ultimate Power (TM). Great Cleave, anyone?
Ged Coldplain 02-22-06, 05:11 AM	people, command undead gives you a definitive permanent control over anything you manage to command... and it has noting to do with the spell command undead... as the spell did not even exist in 3.0 core. Evil Clerics and Undead Evil clerics channel negative energy to rebuke (awe) or command (control) undead rather than channeling positive energy to turn or destroy them. An evil cleric makes the equivalent of a turning check. Undead that would be turned are rebuked instead, and those that would be destroyed are commanded. Rebuked A rebuked undead creature cowers as if in awe (attack rolls against the creature get a +2 bonus). The effect lasts 10 rounds. Commanded A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric. The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead. At any one time, the cleric may command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level. He may voluntarily relinquish command on any commanded undead creature or creatures in order to command new ones. So if you command undead as a evil cleric they are more than friendly to you, they are your helpless slaves, intelligent or not.