Cebrion's point about a cleric being able to turn in a full circle is the reason that I have always allowed Turning to affect a 360 degree circle around him. I have ruled this way through all editions since AD&D.
Lanthorn, I agree with your reasoning from a logical point of view. However, from a game balance point of view, I think it warrants reconsideration.
If you allow undead to possess character classes in your campaign, then you'll need to make some rules regarding the possibilities (since you play 1st/2nd ed.). If a 12th level wizard can become a vampire, can a 4th level fighter, cleric, or thief do so as well? Can a 12th level NPC become a mummy? A spectre, wraith, or ghost? A ghoul or ghast? None of these are mindless undead, IIRC. I think it would be rediculous for a cleric to turn a 12th level NPC ghast as a 4 HD undead.
Once option is, as the DM, simply never have the party encounter an undead NPC with class levels disproportionate to its undead hit dice. If that is not a satisfactory fix, I suggest you consider the NPC's/monster's total 'character level' as its hit dice. For example, if a 4th level fighter becomes a vampire, he gains all the abilities, including hit points and To Hit bonuses of an 8 HD vampire on top of his 4 levels of fighter. Thus, he is now a 12 HD monster, turnable at that level of power. At least this way you are free to buff powerful undead with a few levels of NPC class without overpowering it, or buff powerful NPCs with a weak form of undeath for storytelling effect without having to worry about it allowing the PCs an easy way to defeat the BBEG.
Any character class can become an undead creature of 'greater status' (spectre, wraith, vampire, etc), but they start at 1/2 their lvl upon reaching undeath. Their is nothing that says they cannot continue to progress in levels thereafter.
Van Richten's Guides (via Ravenloft) vampires to become more and more powerful with the passing of time (same is true with greater mummies), but I am not sure if this applies to Greyhawk. Using these rules, certain undead attain more power, including HD, as they age, and thus, older undead would be more difficult to Turn/Command.
Furthermore, everything has a weakness, and nothing is truly invulnerable, so I don't see allowing a 12th lvl vampire mage (for instance) to be Turned/Commanded at his vampire (8+3) HD to be unreasonable. Besides, said vampire probably has all sorts of other nasty resources, tricks, spells, magic items, and the like to help offset this vulnerability.
For instance, I know there is a spell that is in the Complete Book of Necromancers that greatly hinders the chance of Turning/Commanding upon undead (the Iuz priest spell, "Turnbane" is similar).
I have a feeling I may be the only one to take this position, but I feel that, in this case, it is NOT about which of the two is higher...
Never mind what I said. I was suffering from game edition cross-transferal thingamajig stuff.
Here we go: a non-unique undead, like a vampire, would be turned on the Turn Undead chart as a vampire, not according to its Hit Dice. It would have to be some sort of unique/special vampire to be turned according to its hit dice, in which case it would then count as a special undead most likely. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Hey, it happens. At least I have only to worry about 1e and 2e rules.
I was also going to note that liches (11 HD) are also typically 18th lvl wizards (or clerics), BUT they are turned/commanded as liches (11 HD) and NOT as 18th lvl undead creatures!
I do recall reading somewhere that, beyond draining levels to gain up to their full hit dice (if they are undead spawn and their master is slain), that undead cannot gain experience points. No idea where though. Could be a 1E thing. Could be a 2E thing. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Offhand, Ceb, I don't remember that, but you are usually pretty good about remembering rules stuff.
Another question. How many of you permit liches and vampires to command lesser undead? I know that the various Van Richten's Guides offer such a ruling, but this power is not part of the 'traditional' 1e or 2e versions of vampires or liches.
I don't allow vampires or liches to command undead beyond what they would normally be able to do, a lich either being able to command undead that they have animated through the use of a wizard spell or having cleric levels, and vampires only being able to command their own spawn. Those are their basic capabilities; anything more being the DM fudging things.
One "DM fudge" solution is to have the area that the undead are in tied to some horrific event/great evil, such that all undead in the area are beholden to it. Greater undead could then have some modicum of of control over the lesser undead in the area, but only by virtue of the great evil in the area giving them that capability. This is an intangible, "It just works this way because I decided that it is does." type of reason.
If you want something more tangible/rules specific, give the greater undead either cleric or mage levels and spells that allow them to control lesser undead, a magic item that allows them to control lesser undead, or install a magic item in some profane place that allows a greater undead keyed to it to control lesser undead in the vicinity. The latter option also has the benefit of enhancing things, because if the PCs find out about this sort of item they can destroy it, thereby lessening some or all of the greater undead's control of nearby lesser undead. That just makes for greater story depth and added fun. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Sun Mar 03, 2013 2:26 pm; edited 4 times in total
Do any of you use the age categories in the Van Richten's Guides for the greater undead, specifically vampires (but also mummies), that grants them more power as they age?
I think the Monstrous Manual hardbook does this, too, but ONLY for Greater Mummies...
I did, until I moved on to 3.x ed, which made the effort to give class levels to such creatures much easier. I really like how those rules allow you to customize intelligent undead to whatever power level you wish.
If you want something more tangible/rules specific, give the greater undead either cleric or mage levels and spells that allow them to control lesser undead, a magic item that allows them to control lesser undead, or install a magic item in some profane place a greater undead keyed to it to control lesser undead in the vicinity. The latter option also has the benefit of enhancing things because, if the PCs find out about this sort of item they can destroy it, thereby lessening some or all of the greater undead's control of nearby lesser undead. That just makes for greater story depth and added fun.
Love this Solution....
I have (even recently) lamented over a more plausible solution than "cause I said so"
Utilizing the original DMG, the artifacts were set up for so many powers and effects to be applied.
Speculating, would it be too great a "bend" in the "guidelines" if one of those effects were the equivalent of so many clerical caster levels?
There is a magic item which already does something similar. Why not have a different type of item/profane location that does the same?
"Hidden in a secret compartment in the Altar of Evil is the bloody heart of a high priest who once held power here. Such was his evil might that, long after his death, his heart still beats with an evil un-life of its own. Long ago, Vampire X found the heart and drank of its blood, thus bonding himself to its evil power. So long as Vampire X remains within the the Dark Fortress, he may command undead as a 10th level cleric.
The heart radiates evil, but this is cloaked by the altar, which also radiates evil. If the altar is defiled (by applying holy water to it and casting bless or prayer upon it), only the heart will then radiate evil, which may aid in finding it. If the altar is defiled, Vampire X may only command undead if he is on the Dark Temple level. If the heart is destroyed (Heart of Evil: a.c.: 4, H.P. 50, regenerates 3 h.p. per round, +1 or better weapon required to damage it; holy water causes 2d6 damage, which cannot be regenerated, to the heart) he loses the ability to command undead altogether."
Something like that? _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
Last edited by Cebrion on Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
STANDING AND APPLAUDING... Yes Consider it plagiarized! Great out-of-the-box idea....
I was not verbalizing anything so entertaining.... was thinking something along the line of the Hand of Vecna. I use the original DMG as a template even in 3.5 so I "power up" artifacts along those guidelines.
Instead of a power persay as defined in the DMG, was thinking instead to equating one of those "slots" as an ability to control undead at a certain clerical level, or maybe even allow clerical casting up to said level... just hadn't decided how for to "bend the rules" on artifact empowerment so to speak.
I know this thread has been reanimated once before but my question made sense to reanimate it again! (Hopefully it has enough bones left to do so)
In my session last night the priest of Wee Jas turned a group of skeletons. Due to his level the attempt was an automatic success. As the undead were part of a trap I considered that they counted as bound by orders rather than free-willed.
i) The rules state that bound undead retreat and allow the priest and his allies to pass or complete their actions. The players were not content to just pass by and wanted to smash the skeletons to pieces. Would the turned undead defend themselves or under the influence of holy magic stand still and allow themselves to be bashed to bits?
ii) Also in the case of free-willed undead. The rules state that if the clerics pushes the distance between he and they by closer than 10 feet the turning is broken. What if his allies rush in and attack? Will the undead defend themselves and attack normally?
iii) In 1st edition rules it looks like to be the case that if the cleric has not managed to turn all undead present on his frst succesful attempt he can try again the following round to turn additional undead (rolling his d20 and 2d6 again). Is this the accurate? If he does so are the first undead turned considered still to be turned? I know second edition changed it to once per encounter but I couldn't see that in the 1st edition rules.
Turning is the only type of 'fear' that undead feel, though it is a magical compulsion rather than an emotion. However, if they cannot flee, they will fight to defend themselves. That goes for the Cleric doing the Turning as well as any other attackers. If the Turned undead are attacked with missile weapons, they will attempt to elude such attacks by fleeing further. If they cannot, they will fight (though you may choose to give them a -2 penalty on To Hit rolls and a +2 bonus to damage when fighting under such extreme, frenzied, conditions).
I am sorry that I cannot provide any rules references for this opinion at the moment.
As to question number three:
That is a problem I recall from my days playing AD&D - how often can a Cleric Turn Undead? Every round seemed far too powerful. I suggest you take advice from one of the later editions of the game that spelled that out more specifically.
i) The rules state that bound undead retreat and allow the priest and his allies to pass or complete their actions. The players were not content to just pass by and wanted to smash the skeletons to pieces. Would the turned undead defend themselves or under the influence of holy magic stand still and allow themselves to be bashed to bits?
They can defend themselves even if Turned. However, if the cleric attacks, the Turning is negated. Otherwise, they will only defend/attack those who aggress upon them.
Quote:
ii) Also in the case of free-willed undead. The rules state that if the clerics pushes the distance between he and they by closer than 10 feet the turning is broken. What if his allies rush in and attack? Will the undead defend themselves and attack normally?
I would rule the free-willed undead will surely attack anyone who attacks them, even if Turned. And they would be more intelligent in how they retaliate than the mindless undead.
Quote:
iii) In 1st edition rules it looks like to be the case that if the cleric has not managed to turn all undead present on his frst succesful attempt he can try again the following round to turn additional undead (rolling his d20 and 2d6 again). Is this the accurate? If he does so are the first undead turned considered still to be turned? I know second edition changed it to once per encounter but I couldn't see that in the 1st edition rules.
A cleric can Turn or Command once per round, as often as possible. At least, that is the impression I get. The attempt is NOT affected if the cleric is struck or hurt, so it is not quite like spell-casting. Of course, if you use 'crits' and 'fumbles' in your game, you could rule that a natural 1 makes it impossible to make another Turning attempt.
Keep in mind that even auto Commands and Turns still need dice to be rolled for the number affected.
Thanks for the feedback guys. It sounds like it's down to good old DM common sense then.
It sounds like you've both gone for a similar ruling on these question that I did during the session it cropped up in (previously the priest had always failed his turning check!)
I think the main point for question 1 and 2 is that it is the priest who is channelling the holy power and the priest the undead 'fear' most. I agree that the undead in both circumstances the undead would defend themselves and attack back but I like the idea of the mods to the attack and damage you apply SX.
I think for question three - going by what is written in 1st edition a cleric can turn every round but a cleric must also maintain his turning each round. Therefore I think I'll go with Lanthorn's ruling on this one BUT if the priest wants to turn undead again the following round he must cease turning the original lot. Therefore ideally a cleric can keep at bay a number of undead whilst his fellows deal with those not affected.
Yay, sorted. Thanks!! Although I'm sure Cebrion could get to the bare bones (sorry!) of the rules on this one for us!
Adjudicating the use of Turn/Command is a somewhat tricky one. I think your decision to balance it by having the cleric continue to actively hold the first foe at bay is a good one, but bear in mind that most undead, if successfully Turned, typically flee the area. In my mind, this is especially true if the Turning matrix delineates an Automatic success.
I also let the roll dictate just how 'fearful' the undead are. If the Turn was successful by a few pts, perhaps they back off beyond the 10 foot radius from the cleric, and begin circling like wolves around the party. If the roll was greater, maybe they run away further still, watching from the shadows in terror til the cleric passes. If the Turning roll was truly good, perhaps 6+ pts, they flee in panic as if truly terrified and never return. In this regard, I reward my player by what was rolled.
My biggest problem with the ability to Turn every round is that a single Cleric of high enough level to Turn or destroy, say, skeletons and zombies automatically, could defeat an entire army of such creatures single-handedly. Obviously, a true army would have other creatures in it, but I am still leary of such a lack of a limit on any ability.
Therefore, I like Wolfling's idea for how to apply the rules as they are written.
Even if a high priest HAS the Turn ability (not all faiths grant it!) to outright destroy undead, there is still a limit to the number permitted, maxing at 2d6 per round. A horde simply cannot be obliterated in this fashion. At some point the undead will overbear such a person and tear him/her apart...
Wolfling, perusing Turning ability (in preparation for my game tonight and I have undead planned as a potential encounter), and noted that the 1e DMG states (page 65) that "this function may be attempted only once by each cleric." However, the DMG goes on to state that a cleric can turn more than once per encounter is if different types of undead are encountered at the same time, and the first roll for Turning was successful. So long as the cleric is successful in Turning, subsequent rolls are permitted (the lowest HD undead flee or are destroyed first, of course). Once the cleric fails to Turn, no more attempts may be made.
thanks for thinking off my turning query Lanthorn! The PCs have been away from the Temple for so long that I'm sure a bunch of the previously defeated undead will have been replenished so I'm sure turning will be cropping up sometime soon!!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
At least I have only to worry about 1e and 2e rules. 
Love this Solution....
Speculating, would it be too great a "bend" in the "guidelines" if one of those 
