You may appeal to a deity, but unlike the reliability to turn on special abilities like Turn Undead, the deity may choose not answer. This is very different from an always-on invokable ability having no effect. Invoke: Convenience is like the opposite of fun to me, especially since religions and faith are some of my favorite roleplaying topics.

Assuming D&D, I'd let the PC trade a spell slot to cast light.

Quote from: Orpheo;674855Assuming D&D, I'd let the PC trade a spell slot to cast light.

Yeah, that's reasonable,  too.  But I would probably wait for the player to suggest it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;674716Uh... Yeah. It does.

I don't have the book handy, but I thought light was too low level to dispel darkness.

Quote from: Patrick;674395I think i would allow it- it seems to fit within a sun god's portfolio, and doesn't seem like a game breaker.  Now, if the darkness was summoned by an evil cleric or monster, I would have the Sun cleric roll for it!  
What was the ruling on the field?

Very much this...

Quote from: Doom;674659Yeah, he's the Cleric of Light, and I get the rationalizations...but why wouldn't such a cleric have some sort of Light spell memorized as given?

The cleric was out of spells.

He was attempting to expend a resource to perform a reasonably plausable action that fit the character in a manner that was far from game breaking.

Assuming turning undead at will being lost until the gm restored it is of some value, the chance to banish a darkness spell is probably less valulable.

Assuming one cares about the equitability.

Well, just to argue the other side for a second, I think I would've taken 'out of spells' into account.  Assuming you had already exerted x, y, and z control over the session thus far via spells, it doesn't seem fair to give out more.

Still, it was a really minor request, in the way I would have ran it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;674897Well, just to argue the other side for a second, I think I would've taken 'out of spells' into account.  Assuming you had already exerted x, y, and z control over the session thus far via spells, it doesn't seem fair to give out more.

Still, it was a really minor request, in the way I would have ran it.

It was not really 'more' if he would lose turn undead.

Some might even consider turn undead to be equivilent to a powerful at will spell.

It would depend entirely on what had already been established as plausible in the game.

In my Dark Albion campaign, for example, this would never work.

In Arrows of Indra, it would probably require a Divine Intervention check.

I think this is a tougher call than it looks. I'm a believer in actions having consequences and if the PC has fired off all his resources and then finds himself in a situation where he wishes he hadn't then it's hard luck.

Turn undead seems unrelated to the cause (in the edition I play)I think I'd probably stick with the PC having to use a light spell. If the PC was out of slots to trade then I'd maybe allow him to gain a use of the spell for some other sacrifice, maybe a temporary 1d3 Con or Wis loss. this could represent the character stretching himself physically or mentally to draw down that excess of divine power. It also gives the player food for thought as to whether it's worth it.

Quote from: Bill;674386You are gming dnd (version might not matter here)

Player of a cleric that worships a Sun god encounters an area of total supernatural darkness (An actual darkness spell, but the character may not know exactly what it is)

The character says "As a cleric if the sun god, I try to banish the darkness!!"
The player asks the gm "Can I expend my turn undead power to try and banish the darkness?"


What would you do, as a gm, in this situation?

I think the "correct" answer is, "no". Is darkness undead? No. It's simply a supernatural lack of light.  There's nothing to banish.

However, although it's more appropriate to ask the player to pray for and use a "light" or "dispel magic" spell, as GM I'd be inclined to allow it as a retconned special power, if it didn't ruin the plot.

Sounds like storygaming to me.

I'm serious! This is exactly what conflict resolution systems set out to achieve. Rather than creating precise subsystems that model different activities like combat or magic, PCs just have a bunch of traits like Disciple of the Sun God or whatever and players can apply them against problems as they see fit. So you get stuff like using your Hate Zombies ability to fight better against zombies, using your Mongol Upbringing to ride a horse more quickly than anyone else, and using your Apprentice Blacksmith ability to find the weak spot in the enemy death knight's mithril armour.

Quote from: Bill;674885The cleric was out of spells.

Well, then, again the "strict" answer is, ok, you're out of spells, you're out of miracles. Even deities get tired of running around after their priests all day. God says, I'm tired of your lack of faith. Handle this one on your own, kiddo. You should have saved a spell slot (i'm assuming that a priest of a sun god would be able to freecast "light.")

Trying to use "turn undead" is really, really stretching it IMHO.

Quote from: talysman;674607My answer is: Clerics Without Spells. I explicitly eliminate or reduce clerical spell casting that works like M-U spellcasting and use a test of faith instead, with Turn Undead (actually, the reaction roll, which is the same thing in OD&D) as the basic mechanic.

You need to roll a Good reaction or better when asking for a miracle. Roll 2d6 and add double the cleric's level, subtract double the spell level equivalent to the miracle asked for.

I used a similar mechanic in my homebrew system, except it involved rolling under your current divine favour with d10 + miracle magitude, with each invocation costing one point of favour, as the old fighting fantasy "test your luck" mechanic. Fails meant your prayer was ignored, botches meant your god decides to smite you with some punishment for your lack of faith/constant whining. Spent divine favour could of course be re-earned by various acts of piety.

In D&D, I would rule no, as significant house rules like this should be set either before the game or after the session. It's an interesting house rule, to use the turning table for deity specific spell effects, but even still I'd say it depends how active the deities are in the setting. Note that I said using the turning undead table and 'not' trading the turn undead ability - I'd suggest that the two concepts are sufficiently different and that makes.it sound to metagamy for my D&D.

Also, I think that the narrative impact is irrelevant here. It doesn't matter whether dispelling the darkness is a game changer at this junction - it's a matter of settng-physics as it were. You say "But it isnt a big deal so c'mon"  Maybe it's not a game breaker now but next time should the DM say "well, this time it is a big deal so no, you can't use it".