3.5 Solutions [Turning]

[beastman]

Turning creatures is another mini-rule different from the core rules. So here is my attempt for fixing the turning issue. Please discuss:

To do this, make a Turning Check: 1d20 + class level(s) granting the ability + CHA-modifier. This is the number of creatures’ HD you can turn with this turning attempt. Turning is a standard action and does not provoke AoO. You must have LOS and LOE to your targets.

Choose a target. If your check result meets or beats the target’s HD, the creature is turned and the check result is reduced by the creature’s HD. Now, choose your next target and repeat the process until the next creature you choose as target cannot be turned because of having to many HD and at which point the turning attempt ends.

Bolstered creatures are treated as if their HD were higher as given in the bolstering effect.


further thinking about this, seems a bit tooooo overpowered. A low level cleric rolling a 20 and turning a greater undead? No. So perhaps instead of the turning check roll 1d6 per 3 class levels to get the HD you turn. Or limit the creature that can be turned to HD equal to class level?

[brasten]

I've always wonder, why not make it a direct damage effect instead of something that makes the undead run away. We already have that it's a 60 ft. radius, LoS, LoE ability.

On the topic, I need to think....

One thing to note with the old turning check is that you wouldn't see anything higher then cleric level + 4 turned. That says to me a turner should effect a highest HD of 1d4 + class levels + Cha mod - 1. This would completely remove the 1st through 3rd/4th level turners possibility of not turning anything.

That's about as simple and dirty as I can think. Although perhaps we could use a 1d8 + class level + Cha mod - 5. Which would close to the old Turn check table, but without the table.

I do like the revised Turn Check/HD Attack, having though about it for a bit now.

[beastman]

brasten said:

On the topic, I need to think....

Furthing thinking on this topic too, I came to my "final proposal":


TURNING & REBUKING CREATURES :
Some characters have the ability to turn / rebuke creatures. To do this, make a Turning Check: 1d20 + class level(s) granting the ability + CHA-modifier. This is the number of creatures’ HD you can turn with this turning attempt. Turning is a standard action and does not provoke AoO. You must have LOS and LOE to your targets. Choose a target. If your check result meets or beats the target’s HD, the creature is turned. If its double the creature’s HD the creature is destroyed instead. Reduce your turning check result by turned the creature’s HD.

Choose your next target and repeat the process (using the reduced turning check result) until the next creature you choose as target cannot be turned because of having to many HD and at which point the turning attempt ends. You can also not turn a creature with more HD than your class level +3 and the turning attempt immediately ends if you are trying to do this. Bolstered creatures are treated as if their HD were higher as given in the bolstering effect.

[hedgehobbit]

Turning, Smiting and Wildshape are three things which offer another tedious thing to keep track. This is exacerbated by the tendancy to create a slew of feats which allow you to do things other than Turn or Smite with these /day abilities. Why have a seperate /day ability when you already have a /day ability called Spells. I would replace all these abilities with Spells.

Turning, as it now stands, is pretty silly since it just adds an entire new type of hassle for the DM as he has to keep track of all these monsters running around and coming back. Just remove turning and add spells that damage undead. Like a Cone of Cold.

[beastman]

You are right with the Turning-And-Replace-Turning-With-Other-Specials-Thing. Perhaps you have read my approach of "Use Divine Power" at the Wiki for the Devout class of the Torn Lands? Nevertheless, using a "divine power" which turns a creature has to be defined and the working of the original rules are somewhat unsatisfactory (at least to me). So the rewrite-try above...