Cleric's Turning [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cleric's Turning [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lucian_Swift
12-29-07, 01:12 AM My DM is putting a hinderance on my cleric's turning ability.

He is saying that my cleric can not turn undead if an undead of higher HD is in front of the lower HD undead.

Example- my cleric can turn up to 8 HD. There's a 9 HD vampire in the front line behind the vampire there are skeletons and zombies. He is saying that because I didn't have a high enough roll to affect the 9 HD vampire that, the vampire shields the rest of the skeletons and zombies, which would remain uneffected.

:P Cleric

:cool: Vampire
:rolleyes: (s):rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z)
:rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (z)
:rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z)

I don't buy in to this and I've explained to him that turning is a burst so how can you determin a starting point. His answer was the starting point is the undead that is closest to you in the direction that you are facing.

Can anyone support one side over the other??

Lucian Swift
mplindustries
12-29-07, 05:05 AM Here are the relevant turning rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm) from the SRD.

Your DM is probably referring to this section in saying that a higher HD undead can "block" your effect:
"You turn the closest turnable undead first, and you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away or that have total cover relative to you. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect."

He is likely reading this as "A vampire with 9HD is technically turnable, just not by your 8HD roll. You target the vampire first though, as per the rules above, but you only turn 8 of his HD and fail." To be honest, I would never even consider reading it that way. Unfortunately, the wording is extremely vague, and so that interpretation is certainly valid, though I feel as if it goes against RAI.

The only thing that may give you a decent argument (other than general consensus, which I'm sure sides against your GM on this) is later on when it says:
"If your roll on Table: Turning Undead is high enough to let you turn at least some of the undead within 60 feet, roll 2d6 + your cleric level + your Charisma modifier for turning damage."

The key here is that it specifies that you roll damage only if you are able to turn at least some undead withing 60' (which is the range. and the starting point for it is you. it moves away from you in all directions equally, as there is no facing in 3.x without houseruling). This suggests to me that the unturnable undead are simply not even counted. Additionally, while the example in the PH never outright says it, it seems to me like it is hinting that we are correct.

So, while you have general consensus and a lot of RAI on your side, there is no RAW argument that makes you obviously right.
ksbsnowowl
12-29-07, 08:53 PM I'm the DM in question.

I recall the situation slightly differently (but it's possible I'm misremembering - I was leaning on the group's other cleric for the minutia of Turning while in the heat of a large battle).

The issue was that there was a 10 HD Mummy, and several lesser undead (1- and 3-HD skeletons) "behind" him, relative to the turning cleric. The cleric's turning check was high enough that he could turn the Mummy (we'll say it was 14 HD-worth; I don't recall the exact number), but his turning damage was not enough to turn the Mummy (we'll say 9 HD; again, I don't remember the exact number).

I then asked "does it bounce to the next undead?" The other cleric's player (the one turning) said no.

And that's the way the rules work in that situation. If you are able to turn a given undead, but don't roll enough damage to turn its HD, it "absorbs" those HD-worth of turning damage, and nothing beyond is turned.

If I am mistaken in the way I remember it, and the situation was that the turning check couldn't touch the Mummy, after having time to read the rules thoroughly, I freely acknowledge that the "higher-than-turning-check" undead are treated as non-existant for the application of turning damage.

In any case, the rules certainly could have been more user-friendly in their layout.
Toombs79
12-30-07, 10:36 AM I have to side with the GM based on that last testimony and the following factors:

1. Undead closest to you are turned first.

2. You may be able to turn an undead, but if the damage isn't enough it simply fails.

Both those facts are stated in the PHB 3.5 under turning. It even gives an example about Joe the Cleric (Sic) successfully turning the HD of an UD but failing to turn with damage.

From a tactical standpoint, why wouldn't an intelligent Undead put himself in fromt of a line of easily destroyed minions just to foul turning attempts. One would assume a Vampire high enough level to cast animate undead (9th as wiz) would know at that point how clerics work and, in combat against one, would take precautions against it.

I know that's what I would do if I were said vampire, that and boost my turning resistance out the roof so the minions I created to distract spellcasters and swamp fighters can do their job.
mplindustries
12-30-07, 04:26 PM With those circumstances, the GM is right.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lucian_Swift 12-29-07, 01:12 AM	My DM is putting a hinderance on my cleric's turning ability. He is saying that my cleric can not turn undead if an undead of higher HD is in front of the lower HD undead. Example- my cleric can turn up to 8 HD. There's a 9 HD vampire in the front line behind the vampire there are skeletons and zombies. He is saying that because I didn't have a high enough roll to affect the 9 HD vampire that, the vampire shields the rest of the skeletons and zombies, which would remain uneffected. :P Cleric :cool: Vampire :rolleyes: (s):rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) :rolleyes: (s) :rolleyes: (z) I don't buy in to this and I've explained to him that turning is a burst so how can you determin a starting point. His answer was the starting point is the undead that is closest to you in the direction that you are facing. Can anyone support one side over the other?? Lucian Swift
mplindustries 12-29-07, 05:05 AM	Here are the relevant turning rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm) from the SRD. Your DM is probably referring to this section in saying that a higher HD undead can "block" your effect: "You turn the closest turnable undead first, and you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away or that have total cover relative to you. You don’t need line of sight to a target, but you do need line of effect." He is likely reading this as "A vampire with 9HD is technically turnable, just not by your 8HD roll. You target the vampire first though, as per the rules above, but you only turn 8 of his HD and fail." To be honest, I would never even consider reading it that way. Unfortunately, the wording is extremely vague, and so that interpretation is certainly valid, though I feel as if it goes against RAI. The only thing that may give you a decent argument (other than general consensus, which I'm sure sides against your GM on this) is later on when it says: "If your roll on Table: Turning Undead is high enough to let you turn at least some of the undead within 60 feet, roll 2d6 + your cleric level + your Charisma modifier for turning damage." The key here is that it specifies that you roll damage only if you are able to turn at least some undead withing 60' (which is the range. and the starting point for it is you. it moves away from you in all directions equally, as there is no facing in 3.x without houseruling). This suggests to me that the unturnable undead are simply not even counted. Additionally, while the example in the PH never outright says it, it seems to me like it is hinting that we are correct. So, while you have general consensus and a lot of RAI on your side, there is no RAW argument that makes you obviously right.
ksbsnowowl 12-29-07, 08:53 PM	I'm the DM in question. I recall the situation slightly differently (but it's possible I'm misremembering - I was leaning on the group's other cleric for the minutia of Turning while in the heat of a large battle). The issue was that there was a 10 HD Mummy, and several lesser undead (1- and 3-HD skeletons) "behind" him, relative to the turning cleric. The cleric's turning check was high enough that he could turn the Mummy (we'll say it was 14 HD-worth; I don't recall the exact number), but his turning damage was not enough to turn the Mummy (we'll say 9 HD; again, I don't remember the exact number). I then asked "does it bounce to the next undead?" The other cleric's player (the one turning) said no. And that's the way the rules work in that situation. If you are able to turn a given undead, but don't roll enough damage to turn its HD, it "absorbs" those HD-worth of turning damage, and nothing beyond is turned. If I am mistaken in the way I remember it, and the situation was that the turning check couldn't touch the Mummy, after having time to read the rules thoroughly, I freely acknowledge that the "higher-than-turning-check" undead are treated as non-existant for the application of turning damage. In any case, the rules certainly could have been more user-friendly in their layout.
Toombs79 12-30-07, 10:36 AM	I have to side with the GM based on that last testimony and the following factors: 1. Undead closest to you are turned first. 2. You may be able to turn an undead, but if the damage isn't enough it simply fails. Both those facts are stated in the PHB 3.5 under turning. It even gives an example about Joe the Cleric (Sic) successfully turning the HD of an UD but failing to turn with damage. From a tactical standpoint, why wouldn't an intelligent Undead put himself in fromt of a line of easily destroyed minions just to foul turning attempts. One would assume a Vampire high enough level to cast animate undead (9th as wiz) would know at that point how clerics work and, in combat against one, would take precautions against it. I know that's what I would do if I were said vampire, that and boost my turning resistance out the roof so the minions I created to distract spellcasters and swamp fighters can do their job.
mplindustries 12-30-07, 04:26 PM	With those circumstances, the GM is right.