An opinion on them? I dislike the new cleric rules.

I rate this OP at 0.5/10. Utterly lacking in anything to stir conversation, good or bad.

Now for the constructive part of the criticism: Why don't you review exactly how pathfinder's turning rules work for those of us who haven't memorized them or don't feel like looking them up, then explaining what, exactly, it is about them that you do not like?

I prefer the 3E rules for legacy issues. While the rules for turning were distributed in the 3E rulebook rather clumsily (3 pages spread across a 200-page divide iirc), I liked how turning basically worked as it always has.

From that angle alone I'm not fond of what Paizo put in turning's place, namely a massive area damage spell (1d6 to each undead creature in a 30 foot radius, +2d6 per 2 cleric levels I think).
That's a lot of paper work and die rolling cropping up for no good reason. Say there are 12 skellies around - you can resolve the issue in heartbeat under 3.0/3.5. Under Pathfinder you've just got another game stopper at your hands. [Edit: I found the turning rules in the Pathfinder PRD, so will post them in full:

QuoteChannel Energy (Su): Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.

A good cleric (or one who worships a good deity) channels positive energy and can choose to deal damage to undead creatures or to heal living creatures. An evil cleric (or one who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. A neutral cleric who worships a neutral deity (or one who is not devoted to a particular deity) must choose whether she channels positive or negative energy. Once this choice is made, it cannot be reversed. This decision also determines whether the cleric casts spontaneous cure or inflict spells (see spontaneous casting).

Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier. Creatures healed by channeled energy cannot exceed their maximum hit point total—all excess healing is lost. A cleric may channel energy a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier. This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect. A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.

-end of Edit]


It's like Paizo's "streamlining" of bardic music (where players need to track rounds used for bardic music, instead of having the ability used up in terms of numbers per day). You got to ask yourself who thought that these re-designs would speed up play (this being one of their design goals).

The only rationale I see at work here is that the reworking of the cleric into a class that can cast orisons "at will" (meaning, for free and as many times per day as he wants to), and removing cure spells from orisons, pretty much placed a strong need to make up for the removing of healing abilities on the Pathfinder cleric. So they loaded it onto turning, by having that have the (optional) alternative effect of curing everyone "living" (i.e. non-undead) in a 30 foot radius by 1d6 (or more, as per CL). I serioulsy hope that's not the case, though, since that would be rather poor rationale for the clumsy turning rules. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us?

In closing I should say I haven't tried the Pathfinder turning rules in my own 3.5 games (I gave other portions of PF a shot), so I'm curious to hear how it's working out for groups who have used them.

Interesting: Somehow equating a turning check with a Fireball slows the game down?

I will admit that there can be arguements made about the 'feel' of turning via damage vs the all or nothing approach from before, but calling a simple AoE attack a 'game stopper' seems... overboard.

I don't know about the comment regarding removing healing Orisons. I have never used the '1 pt of healing' 'orison'... ever, so I can't think its a 'major loss' of healing for the Cleric that needed fixing. Of course, my current cleric is occassionally lambasted for not doing enough healing, so who knows...

Doesn't sound like "turning" at all, to me - sounds like damaging them. Is there some way to make the undead cower or run away? That's "turning" - at least until you get really high up, when you just blast them to dust.

Yeah, I wasn't really fond of the change either.  It's not at all in the spirit of the ability, and seems like the kind of lame house ruled shortcut you'd see at the table with a strange new group, not something that should be made core.  

Leave my clerics alone, damnit!

Quote from: Spike;342153Interesting: Somehow equating a turning check with a Fireball slows the game down?

I will admit that there can be arguements made about the 'feel' of turning via damage vs the all or nothing approach from before, but calling a simple AoE attack a 'game stopper' seems... overboard.

You're right and I've  overstated my case.

What I meant is this. In 3.0/3.5 having the cleric turn 12 skeletons in round 1 of an encounter means for the DM to pick off a couple of minis from the battle map straight away without having had to write down their hit points anywhere yet. In Pathfinder it means writing down 12 numbers (the skeletons' respective hit points left) and then matching up (say) skeleton 7 with barbarian PC and skeleton 11 with wizard PC in the ensuing battle. This only gets worse with PCs and monsters switching positions (skelly 3 gangs in on the wizard, and skeleton 11 turns on the fighter instead), which is thankfully less frequent in 3.5 than in 4E.

That sort of book keeping - tracking numbers and matching multiple combatants - really slows down my DMing. Hence I've always liked the number of elements in the game (such as turning in 3E, or save-or-remove-mini-from-battlemap spells) that circumvent the thing on my behalf, so to speak. It may be just me, but it could also be one of these things which make older and simpler editions so appealing to some.

The problem I have with it, besides losing the flavor, is when an evil cleric of even first level walks into a village, he could, in theory, kill everyone without touching them.

Imagine a first level jail break lead by an evil cleric, disguised as something else, draws the attention of all of the guards in the area. He then channels twice and kills all of them.

Another thing I find annoying is that the third level negative cleric of Aries in my group deals 2d6 with his channeling. Any CR-1 Monster they run up against, even a hoard of them, will die as soon as he gets an action. I could attack the party with a dozen 8 hit point monsters and he could wipe them all with his first action.

Am I supposed to award experience for those kills?

Skeletons have 4 hit points in pathfinder. That means a first level cleric has a 50% chance of destroying any number of them with his first action. Even if he fails on his first, he will certainly get them with his second.

We have had a 4th level evil cleric join our party last session.  Based on limited exposure, it has its good and bad sides.  While the 30' kill radius is useful, you generally find a party member or two in the area of effect, limiting its deadliness (or pissing off the damaged players).

As it panned out, our party was attacked by an assassin vine (I think) and we lost a player due to a combination of its attacks and a crucial 3 points of damage from the evil clerics negative energy zone.  So while the turn did help kill a bunch of little animated bushes that were also attacking, it meant we lost a PC!

Can't agree that the new mechanic means more bookeeping.  It is far simpler than 3E.  You just roll damage, very simple when compared to the multiple rolls for a 3E turn.  The argument about tracking hp totals strikes me as also a poor one.  You'd have to track separate totals in any case once they entered melee, also, with the turn damage there is a good chance it would be enough to destroy the skellies, whereby the DM would simply remove the minis.

Having said all that, I'm not completely sold on the new rules from a flavour perspective.  Turning no longer seems to be an ability that concern itself undead except incidentally.  Tactically, both the negative and positive versions present tactical challenges if you don't want to either harm or allies or heal your enemies, which hopefully balances the change a little.

I like it on paper... seems to broaden the utility of the cleric, if a bit coarsely.

In play... I've run a few games and due to circumstances, haven't really seen it effectively deployed. I think I need some more actual play to decide if I like the new dynamic.

I'm really not sure if I've ever truly liked ANY version of "turning", in any edition.

Thing is, I'm not sure how it could be done really right.
The basic reasoning is a good one: that the cleric should have power of faith to affect the Undead.
The downside is that in every edition I've looked at, when you actually apply it in actual play, the power of turning is either useless or encounter-wrecking, with very little sweet spot in between.
How to make it neither gimped nor broken?

RPGPundit

The Pathfinder version is an improvement. It allows the damage to add to the efforts of other party members. Further, defeating a powerful undead no longer hinges on a single save. It also makes clerics more useful against high HD undead.

The evil cleric killing a down is pretty much a non-issue. 1d6 won't actually kill a village, although it might take out a commoner or two permanent-like. A 5th level cleric with his 3d6 is pretty weak compared to the area of effect of a fireball.

Pathfinder still has Turn Undead and Command Undead available as feats.

Quote from: pawsplay;342406Pathfinder still has Turn Undead and Command Undead available as feats.

And to compare them to the class feature and older rules versions, here the quotes from the PRD:

QuoteTurn Undead
Calling upon higher powers, you cause undead to flee from the might of your unleashed divine energy.

Prerequisites: Channel positive energy class feature.

Benefit: You can, as a standard action, use one of your uses of channel positive energy to cause all undead within 30 feet of you to flee, as if panicked. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your cleric level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their save flee for 1 minute. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each round to end the effect. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures).

QuoteCommand Undead
Using foul powers of necromancy, you can command undead creatures, making them into your servants.

Prerequisites: Channel negative energy class feature.

Benefit: As a standard action, you can use one of your uses of channel negative energy to enslave undead within 30 feet. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your caster level + your Charisma modifier. Undead that fail their saves fall under your control, obeying your commands to the best of their ability, as if under the effects of control undead. Intelligent undead receive a new saving throw each day to resist your command. You can control any number of undead, so long as their total Hit Dice do not exceed your cleric level. If you use channel energy in this way, it has no other effect (it does not heal or harm nearby creatures). If an undead creature is under the control of another creature, you must make an opposed Charisma check whenever your orders conflict.

Core 3.5 turning was fine on paper but was useless at high levels because of the way undead turning resistance scaled. WotC released patches in the form of overpowered feats and PrCs that improved the odds at high levels *AND ALSO* gave Clerics new options for non-undead fighting.
 
From this mishmash of rules the so-called "CoD" (Cleric of Doom!!1!) was born. A street-legal character that could out fight a fighter and do Cleric stuff. The CoD was invoked in every 'is teh fietor underpoward?' thread to ever haunt the net.
 
Late publications nerfed the CoD on several fronts. Liber Mortis extra turning rods were expunged, the cost in Turns for metamagic was increased, and non-CoD PrCs were made more attractive. But rather than alienate CoD fans by completly outlawing CoD, WotC left CoD as a viable option.
 
CoD stayed popular despite the nerfs which was taken as retroactive proof that players cried whenever their Cleric finished an adventuring day with unused Turns.
 
I haven't played PF, but if I dropped it into a 3.x game it would have fixed all those problems. That said, I would miss having a power that turns undead.

One thing that clerics in Pathfinder have going against them is that they have a few fewer spells than a normal 3.5 cleric.

This is the first major house rule I've needed in Pathfinder.

Clerics, including evil clerics, can perform the normal healing burst.

Evil clerics with the ability to channel their energy into a melee strike can still channel negative energy.

Even positive energy has no effect on undead.

By using up a channeling for the day, a cleric can turn or rebuke undead as they could in 3.5