You 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?
In the versions of D&D that I run, there is nothing to expend.
Clerics also have access to spells that can do this type of thing.
I 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?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674393In the versions of D&D that I run, there is nothing to expend.
Clerics also have access to spells that can do this type of thing.
In this case rules would be bent. The player was asking to essentially 'use up' his ability to tun undead for a time to attempt to dispel the darkness.
He did not have any spells remaining, so Light was not an easy option.
Yes, with Caster level being the HD/Undead TYpe difficulty.
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?
I was the player, and the gm said 'no' with little explanation. The gm did not want the darkness dispelled because it would have made it easier to defeat his villain.
If I had been the gm, I would have allowed it; my thoughts are the same as yours. Not remotely game breaking, fits the theme of the character, and would have been 'paid for' by no turning undead until the gm restored that power.
In 3E isnt there a domain power for this sort of thing. Ideally the system has some other mechanism in place to deal with it. I would likely follow the rules in this case. If the player didnt take light, I would not be inclined to give it to him on the spot or rewire the turn undead spell on the spot. I would be totally cool with houserules hammered out before hand that enabled preists to have clearly defined abilities related to their gods of area of interest. But i think I would adhere to the rules in this case and tell people if they want to talk about house rules after the game to deal with the situatoin, they can (though really a player who is a sun god priest should take light if he wants to banish the darkness in the name of his god IMO). Generally i get a bit annoyed when peope reskin abilities that central to the game during play.
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'd inform the Player that use of his turn undead power in this way would be allowed, it may not be effective, and that he may lose the power temporarily. I would then let him roll a d20 and try to roll under his level for it to work, he could use his Wisdom bonus as a negative die modifier for this to work. Whether it works or not, the cleric would have to roll again in the same manner to determine if he retained his turn undead power, however many points by which he failed his roll would be how many hours his power was unavailable if he failed.
Quote from: Bill;674400I was the player, and the gm said 'no' with little explanation. The gm did not want the darkness dispelled because it would have made it easier to defeat his villain.
OK, I can understand this. However, I like it when my Players are creative and immersed in the game.
Quote from: Bill;674400I was the player, and the gm said 'no' with little explanation. The gm did not want the darkness dispelled because it would have made it easier to defeat his villain.
.
I do not think the GM should have done it to protect his villain, but I do think doing it to maintain consistent application of the rules is okay.
Some versions of D&D allowed clerics to trade off spells for healing; this wouldn't seem to be any more 'broken' than that. Essentially the player is asking to trade off one use of turning undead for a Dispel Magic spell, which isn't over-powered at all. Clerics cast that spell all the time.
Now I'm trying to recall what the limits were on turning undead... if the character could do it 'at will' then he's not really trading anything off here, so to speak. If it's something he can only do so many times a day, then that's a resource he's actually giving up.
In other words... I'd need a little more info to make that call.
(But the way the GM made his ruling, he comes off looking like a serious tool.)
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;674416Some versions of D&D allowed clerics to trade off spells for healing; this wouldn't seem to be any more 'broken' than that. Essentially the player is asking to trade off one use of turning undead for a Dispel Magic spell, which isn't over-powered at all. Clerics cast that spell all the time.
Now I'm trying to recall what the limits were on turning undead... if the character could do it 'at will' then he's not really trading anything off here, so to speak. If it's something he can only do so many times a day, then that's a resource he's actually giving up.
In other words... I'd need a little more info to make that call.
(But the way the GM made his ruling, he comes off looking like a serious tool.)
In this example, the player requested to 'lose' his turn undead power to 'pay' for the dispel.
Quote from: Bill;674386What would you do, as a gm, in this situation?
I think I would probably roll with it.
Magical darkness is probably 3 HD (same as a Shadow).
I would probably allow it remind the player that the bad guys get similar abilities so opening that can of worms is their choice. Not in a punitive way but that If I suddenly come up with a cool way for a bad guy to nix the players abilities in a similar vein (fitting the style and domain of his abilities and using up resources.) I will feel fine to use it. Bending the rules goes both ways.
Much the same way I keep players from Power gaming. I am better at it than the players so doing so equals me doing so, BETTER. Sort of the Nuclear deterrent method of gaming, luckily my players are grown up and not into any of the stuff most people have issues with their players.
I have and run lots of systems were doing something like that is expected and cool. D&D has a paradigm and rules, you agree to play you agree to live somewhat within them.
But again Fun is Fun. :)
My thoughts
My first reflex would be to rule as Exploderwizard would. I don't require pre-memorization of cleric spells in my games (have gone back and forth on this over the years, but it's how I currently roll), so they have lots of flexibility. Used all your spell slots? Too bad; has nothing with making the encounter too easy, them's the rules.
However, there are some really compelling answers that go the other way in this thread, enough for me to say I'd be open to discussing it.
But this makes me think...why not use the turn undead table as a granted powers table (a few folks have already done this in their answers, I know)? So a sun god's cleric could use it to do stuff like dispel magical darkness, a cleric of a god of death might be able to animate or speak with dead, etc. That'd be a cool use of the mechanic.
Great thread, this has me thinking. Thanks.
From pure mechanical standpoint I can understand GM's decision at least when talking 3e, where Darkness is counterable with either Dispel spells or Ultravision.
I would have personally been ok with it; it's clever, and seems consistent with a Sun cleric. I guess it depends on the GM, though.
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?
First - I detest cookie-cutter approaches to Clergy. So by default, I tend to make sure there are mechanical differences to the emphasis of respective churches (one of the reasons I *LOVED* Faiths and Pantheons. I did not allow "Clerics" into the game - you *had* to be a Specialty Priest of your particular faith).
That said - I would have no problem allowing PC/NPC clerics to use their "turn" ability to do something within the province of their own deities sphere of influence. By and large - I like it when my players try to get a little creative, but I make sure they understand if I'm okay with it - they're establishing a precedent that could have downstream effects. If they're cool with it - so am I. Play on!
I would probably split the difference, actually. My response would be something like...
"Okay, so you draw upon (the sun god)'s power to attempt to dispel the darkness. Your holy symbol glows brilliantly, but the surrounding darkness claws at the light like a vile mist. You can see pretty well in a small sphere around you, in your own square, but that's about it."
Like for like. A cool idea gets a cool game result, but it takes actual spells and class powers to go beyond that.
Hm. That's an interesting question. Since turn undead can also work at high levels to banish evil from the lower planes (in First Ed, in any case), it would make sense for a cleric of a Sun deity to banish darkness.
I might allow a roll using the level of the caster of the original darkness spell as the Undead's HD, or less, perhaps mitigated by the weakness/strength of the spell itself, and it would count as the Cleric's attempt to Turn in this particular situation. Like Mcbobbo, I'd probably use the Holy Symbol as a source of light repelling the darkness around the Cleric on a success (same range as Undead kept at bay in such a fashion).
If the darkness is not supernatural (spell), then I'd rule as the deity would think of it. Is it a waste of time and energy from the deity's standpoint? Divine power is not something you use lightly. If all it takes to banish the darkness is to hold a torch against it, you'd probably better do that instead.
Quote from: mcbobbo;674487A cool idea gets a cool game result, but it takes actual spells and class powers to go beyond that.
I would have done something similar. When trying to adjudicate unique rule requests like this, I try to split the difference between the opposing sides. So in this case, the darkness would have been dispelled, but only temporarily. This way, the player's goal was partially achieved, but the big-bad, although discovered, would still have been able to leverage his advantage.
You prayer was heard and a brilliant light burst forth from your holy symbol, pushing the darkness to the edges of the room. As your eye's start to adjust, you spot a figure standing in front of you. But just as your eyes can focus, and you notice a look of great displeasure on his face, the darkness takes root again and rushes over you as he curses your god...
I would have allowed it. No reason not to, it fits the character and is not some game breaking advantage. I would have just had you roll as if turning some mid tier undead.
If the darkness was powered by Negative Energy (4e Necrotic Energy) and the Turn Undead channels Positive Energy (4e Radiant Energy) then I would probably allow a Turn attempt against it, yup. If it wasn't clear whether the Darkness was caused by a Negative Energy effect I'd roll a d6, on 1-3 answer is 'yes'.
Quote from: S'mon;674512If the darkness was powered by Negative Energy (4e Necrotic Energy) and the Turn Undead channels Positive Energy (4e Radiant Energy) then I would probably allow a Turn attempt against it, yup. If it wasn't clear whether the Darkness was caused by a Negative Energy effect I'd roll a d6, on 1-3 answer is 'yes'.
Gotta love magic 8 ball rulings. :)
I adhere to the belief that no unreasonable request should be unreasonably denied.
He's the DM, it's his ruling. But a good DM would have a reasonable explanation as to why. If the reason is because he didn't want his big baddie to lose an advantage? Tough. Put on your big boy DM pants and be fair. If his ruling is that the cleric's god didn't empower the cleric to do that? Fine.
After all, we've all been there. I remember as a DM in a 1e campaign one of the final bad guys ended up failing his saving throw against a rope of entanglement. Sort of anti-climatic, but it's not fair for me as a DM to fudge or change the rules.
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?
I agreed with the above. I will add if the darkness had a caster I would use the Turn Undead Chart with the level or HD of the caster to determine which column to use.
Dispel Magic is a 3rd level spell. Per the rules it takes the expenditure of that resource to dispel magical darkness. In addition, in some editions, if the caster of darkness is significantly higher level, even that might not do the trick.
Question for Bill: was your cleric high enough level to cast dispel magic?
If not, I have to agree with the DM ruling, not for the reason stated but because it isn't fair to able to trade a resource you have (a turning attempt) for one that the character is not yet entitled to.
In previous games with very active God's I've often allowed characters to call for miracles in dire situations. Starting with a 1% chance and being modified by the worthiness of the cause, the worthiness of the character, and any promised sacrifices, oaths, etc.
So in this case we would start with the base 1% chance.
The situation does not seem especially dire so no modifier there.
The character is a cleric and more particularly a cleric of the sun God, So I might let him add half his level.
The character is offering a sacrifice of his turning abilities so I would probably add a few percentage points to the roll for that.
In addition the character could have sacrificed something on the spot, promised to build a shrine, promised to dedicate a temple, convert the heathens, etc. For more points.
Anyway, it's always a longshot because the gods are fickle and not amused by your petty requests.
And of course you can fumble. :D
Quote from: Bill;674386The 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?"
Seems reasonable. Since it's an unusual application of their abilities, I'd probably require some sort of check. For OD&D, that would be a prime requisite check. For 3E, a Spellcraft or Religion check.
But I'd also note that it won't work on more "mundane" darkness spells: Like, if a wizard just casts a darkness spell the cleric isn't gaining the ability to spontaneously dispel it.
I can understand why the GM said no, though. I'm already seeing all kinds of problems from opening up this can of worms.
In my actual 3E game, I allow clerics to spontaneously cast their domain spells (instead of getting a domain spell slot). This would largely sidestep this issue.
Quote from: Piestrio;674524In previous games with very active God's I've often allowed characters to call for miracles in dire situations. Starting with a 1% chance and being modified by the worthiness of the cause, the worthiness of the character, and any promised sacrifices, oaths, etc.
So in this case we would start with the base 1% chance.
The situation does not seem especially dire so no modifier there.
The character is a cleric and more particularly a cleric of the sun God, So I might let him add half his level.
The character is offering a sacrifice of his turning abilities so I would probably add a few percentage points to the roll for that.
In addition the character could have sacrificed something on the spot, promised to build a shrine, promised to dedicate a temple, convert the heathens, etc. For more points.
Anyway, it's always a longshot because the gods are fickle and not amused by your petty requests.
And of course you can fumble. :D
Hasn't RuneQuest, before it went Setting - lite, had rules regarding this? The divine intervention I mean.
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?
"You hold aloft your holy symbol and recite aloud from the Book of Nerts.
Nerts to the Darkness! Nerts to it, by Jove!
Yet nothing seems to happen."
Quote from: Bill;674396In this case rules would be bent. The player was asking to essentially 'use up' his ability to tun undead for a time to attempt to dispel the darkness.
He did not have any spells remaining, so Light was not an easy option.
Quote from: Bill;674400I was the player, and the gm said 'no' with little explanation. The gm did not want the darkness dispelled because it would have made it easier to defeat his villain.
If I had been the gm, I would have allowed it; my thoughts are the same as yours. Not remotely game breaking, fits the theme of the character, and would have been 'paid for' by no turning undead until the gm restored that power.
I wouldn't actually allow it, since it was a Darkness spell.
Yet I would let you think and attempt whatever you like. We'd roleplay and have some fun, but the bottom line is this: You can waste as much time on that Darkness as you want, but until you cast Light on it it's nerts to you.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;674411I do not think the GM should have done it to protect his villain, but I do think doing it to maintain consistent application of the rules is okay.
This is where I'm at.
We had this happen once not long ago - Lareth the Beautiful in 1st Ed. Lareth got the short end as the players managed to deal with the moathouse guards pretty well, but as far as they know there is STILL a Continual Darkness spell cast just inside the hidden moathouse entrance.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674521Dispel Magic is a 3rd level spell. Per the rules it takes the expenditure of that resource to dispel magical darkness. In addition, in some editions, if the caster of darkness is significantly higher level, even that might not do the trick.
Question for Bill: was your cleric high enough level to cast dispel magic?
If not, I have to agree with the DM ruling, not for the reason stated but because it isn't fair to able to trade a resource you have (a turning attempt) for one that the character is not yet entitled to.
I think I was lower than level 5, so I could not cast dispel magic.
However, I think the actual impact of the action and the logic of it, are more important.
It's only unfair if someone is negatively impacted by it, right?
Quote from: Blackhand;674532"You hold aloft your holy symbol and recite aloud from the Book of Nerts.
Nerts to the Darkness! Nerts to it, by Jove!
Yet nothing seems to happen."
I wouldn't actually allow it, since it was a Darkness spell.
Yet I would let you think and attempt whatever you like. We'd roleplay and have some fun, but the bottom line is this: You can waste as much time on that Darkness as you want, but until you cast Light on it it's nerts to you.
This is where I'm at.
We had this happen once not long ago - Lareth the Beautiful in 1st Ed. Lareth got the short end as the players managed to deal with the moathouse guards pretty well, but as far as they know there is STILL a Continual Darkness spell cast just inside the hidden moathouse entrance.
I don't think light spells are the only meathods in the cosmos to counter darkness spells. But your logic seems sound.
Quote from: Bill;674537I think I was lower than level 5, so I could not cast dispel magic.
However, I think the actual impact of the action and the logic of it, are more important.
It's only unfair if someone is negatively impacted by it, right?
Would you have a problem with a 3rd level pyromaniac magic user who wants to trade in a magic missile slot for a fireball because its more in line with his theme?
This doesn't mean that the DM wasn't a tool for giving that explanation.
Oh yeah, btw, I'd be cool with the DM just saying "nope, doesn't work." I can see how some will find it problematic.
It is interesting to see the split on this question and how different GMs would handle it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;674546It is interesting to see the split on this question and how different GMs would handle it.
This appears to be mainly a split between "To RAW or not to RAW"
Quote from: Exploderwizard;674539Would you have a problem with a 3rd level pyromaniac magic user who wants to trade in a magic missile slot for a fireball because its more in line with his theme?
This doesn't mean that the DM wasn't a tool for giving that explanation.
Two reasons I would not be likely to allow that:
Theme of 'I blow stuff up with fire' is not a theme I would support
Losing turning ability for an indefinate time period is probably way better than a magic missile spell. Unless there are no undead in the area :)
Quote from: Bill;674418In this example, the player requested to 'lose' his turn undead power to 'pay' for the dispel.
Were you in an area where you were particularly likely to encounter undead? Because if not, being able to turn undead is much less valuable as a "trade".
Concept seems reasonable, though. As a GM, I'd say "yes" in an undead-infested area, and "no" if I knew there weren't any. "Maybe, roll some dice" if there was a way I could add some later on...
Quote from: Ladybird;674586Were you in an area where you were particularly likely to encounter undead? Because if not, being able to turn undead is much less valuable as a "trade".
Concept seems reasonable, though. As a GM, I'd say "yes" in an undead-infested area, and "no" if I knew there weren't any. "Maybe, roll some dice" if there was a way I could add some later on...
I can't recall if there were undead in the area, but I agree it could be 'unbalanced'
I am not sure it has to be a fair trade though if the actual effect on the game is negligable.
Quote from: Ladybird;674586Were you in an area where you were particularly likely to encounter undead? Because if not, being able to turn undead is much less valuable as a "trade".
Concept seems reasonable, though. As a GM, I'd say "yes" in an undead-infested area, and "no" if I knew there weren't any. "Maybe, roll some dice" if there was a way I could add some later on...
Careful. Clever players will use your reaction to the request as a detect undead spell. :p
Quote from: Bill;674400The gm did not want the darkness dispelled because it would have made it easier to defeat his villain.
Did the referee tell you this directly, or is that your butthurt talking?
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?
My answer is: Clerics Without Spells (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2011/05/clerics-without-spells.html). 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. On 9+, the miracle succeeds. On a 2, God is angry; no more miracles until you've atoned for your impiety. I might modify this for multiple miracle requests in a single turn or on the same day, but there's no "expend your turn undead ability in trade"; you just get to do that, period.
For dispelling the darkness, I might actually judge it a little differently. Light is a 1st level spell, Continual Light is 3rd level, and Dispel Evil is 5th level. I'd roll once, but check for all three results and give you the best one that succeeds: so, you might get a flickering little torchlight, a bright globe equivalent to sunlight, or the thick darkness will be permanently swept away, depending on how good the roll is.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;674604Did the referee tell you this directly, or is that your butthurt talking?
Fair question.
It was obvious, but not stated.
But I admit I was dissapointed at his call.
So my butthurt served to at least make it memorable.
Quote from: Bill;674612Fair question.
It was obvious, but not stated.
But I admit I was dissapointed at his call.
So my butthurt served to at least make it memorable.
I can understand you mate, I had some bad calls from GMs I played under myself lately. The crowning one was that flanking issue in WFRP.
Quote from: 1e AD&D DMG, p. 66, "Evil Areas"You may wish to establish areas where evil has made special power bases, i.e., an evil shrine, temple, or whatever. Such areas must be limited, of course - the shrine to perhaps a 10" by 10" area, the temple to twice that area. Such areas will automatically reduce the chance of any cleric affecting undead or other creatures within their precincts by a previously stipulated factor - perhaps 1 or 2 in the shrine area, 3 or 4 in the temple area. This power can be destroyed only by desecration of the evil, i.e. breaking of the evil altar service, pouring of holy water upon the altar, blessing and prayers, and whatever other actions you, as DM, deem sufficient.
If I included an area of supernatural darkness in a dungeon or such, the method for dispelling the darkness would be already determined in advance in similar fashion.
In any case, I would be unlikely to extend the cleric's turning undead ability on the fly to cover this, not because it's a bad idea - it's not - but because the cleric already has the means to deal with magical darkness and part of the game is planning for such contingencies.
Quote from: Rincewind1;674614I can understand you mate, I had some bad calls from GMs I played under myself lately. The crowning one was that flanking issue in WFRP.
Seems like everyone has a story about a gm freaking out when a rogue sneak attacks.
"What!? You can..Do Damage!? to my ...PRECIOUS... NPCS!?"
Quote from: Bill;674386Player 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 could try, but would fail in this case. However, if the supernatural darkness was not caused by a spell but by some type of "demonic"/evil supernatural power, I would allow a successful turn roll (against the "level" of the creator of the effect) to dispel, or at least lessen, the darkness.
Quote from: talysman;674607My answer is: Clerics Without Spells (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2011/05/clerics-without-spells.html). 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. On 9+, the miracle succeeds. On a 2, God is angry; no more miracles until you've atoned for your impiety. I might modify this for multiple miracle requests in a single turn or on the same day, but there's no "expend your turn undead ability in trade"; you just get to do that, period.
For dispelling the darkness, I might actually judge it a little differently. Light is a 1st level spell, Continual Light is 3rd level, and Dispel Evil is 5th level. I'd roll once, but check for all three results and give you the best one that succeeds: so, you might get a flickering little torchlight, a bright globe equivalent to sunlight, or the thick darkness will be permanently swept away, depending on how good the roll is.
I would greatly prefer Clerics to work your way. Their spell casting is way too 'wizard like' for my taste.
Quote from: Bill;674612It was obvious, but not stated.
The lament of whiny players everywhere.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;674621The lament of whiny players everywhere.
Just as much as an excuse of poor GMs. "It's not my fault, it's always those whining players."
As per the magic missile question, I would again bend that request back towards the rules.
"Sure, your Magic Missile can be a Fire Missile instead, so long as everything else about it stays the same."
Quote from: Rincewind1;674622Just as much as an excuse of poor GMs. "It's not my fault, it's always those whining players."
I don't think I know any whiny players. I have seen a few asshat players, but they did not whine.
Quote from: mcbobbo;674633As per the magic missile question, I would again bend that request back towards the rules.
"Sure, your Magic Missile can be a Fire Missile instead, so long as everything else about it stays the same."
That sort of change I like as part of the character creation process. A wizard with a fire theme would have magic missile as fire, not force, with reasonable trade offs.
Quote from: Piestrio;674524In previous games with very active God's I've often allowed characters to call for miracles in dire situations. Starting with a 1% chance and being modified by the worthiness of the cause, the worthiness of the character, and any promised sacrifices, oaths, etc.
So in this case we would start with the base 1% chance.
The situation does not seem especially dire so no modifier there.
The character is a cleric and more particularly a cleric of the sun God, So I might let him add half his level.
The character is offering a sacrifice of his turning abilities so I would probably add a few percentage points to the roll for that.
In addition the character could have sacrificed something on the spot, promised to build a shrine, promised to dedicate a temple, convert the heathens, etc. For more points.
Anyway, it's always a longshot because the gods are fickle and not amused by your petty requests.
And of course you can fumble. :D
Oh, crap, THIS is the proper call. There's even a rules section on it in the DMG, totally forgot about it.
Good post.
Quote from: KenHR;674641Oh, crap, THIS is the proper call. There's even a rules section on it in the DMG, totally forgot about it.
Good post.
It's a good call, and a reasonable call in my opinion.
I personally would use the sacrifice as the main limiting factor and have a higher chance to succeed, but its a great call.
Quote from: Bill;674573This appears to be mainly a split between "To RAW or not to RAW"
Hm no. I wouldn't
quite put it like that. Some of us are thinking in specific terms and just adjudicating the action thinking it might make sense from the world's standpoint, starting from an attitude of "what's not specified by the rules may be possible, but you got to make it work with the rest of the framework", whereas others are thinking in terms of basically opening Pandora's door, and what that could do with players who keep spamming custom effects like this all the time in play.
Where do you stop? If you allow that thing with the darkness, why wouldn't another Cleric of the God of Persuasion be able to change people's minds with a "turning attempt"? How about Paladins of the God of Truth turning liars in this way? I suspect the people who say "no" on this thread are worried about the domino effect this might have, and opt to just refuse in an attempt to not open Pandora's door.
I don't think it's that simple, however, and that basically defaulting to "no" all the time changes the dynamic from "what the rules don't spell out may be attempted" to "what the rules don't spell out CAN'T be attempted", which is a major landmark in an evolution towards the Cult of RAW and "if the feat doesn't say you can then you can't" type game play.
Quote from: Benoist;674651Hm no. I wouldn't put it like that. Some of us are thinking in specific terms and just adjudicating the action thinking it makes sense and go from an attitude of "what's not specified by the rules may be possible, but you got to make it work with the rest of the framework", whereas others are thinking in terms of basically opening Pandora's door, and what that could do with players who keep spamming custom effects like this all the time in play.
Where do you stop? If you allow that thing with the darkness, why wouldn't another Cleric of the God of Persuasion be able to change people's minds with a "turning attempt"? How about Paladins of the God of Truth turning liars in this way? I suspect the people who say "no" on this thread are worried about the domino effect this might have, and opt to just refuse in an attempt to not open Pandora's door.
I don't think it's that simple, however, and that basically defaulting to "no" all the time changes the dynamic from "what the rules don't spell out may be attempted" to "what the rules don't spell out can't be attempted", and that's putting the finger into a vicious cycle that may end up with a fall for the Cult of RAW.
Sure looks like Raw Good, not Raw Bad.
But anyway,
Somehow, I have not had a Pandora's box problem in 30+years, so I am not concerned about that.
Quote from: Benoist;674651Hm no. I wouldn't put it like that. Some of us are thinking in specific terms and just adjudicating the action thinking it makes sense and go from an attitude of "what's not specified by the rules may be possible, but you got to make it work with the rest of the framework", whereas others are thinking in terms of basically opening Pandora's door, and what that could do with players who keep spamming custom effects like this all the time in play.
Where do you stop? If you allow that thing with the darkness, why wouldn't another Cleric of the God of Persuasion be able to change people's minds with a "turning attempt"? How about Paladins of the God of Truth turning liars in this way? I suspect the people who say "no" on this thread are worried about the domino effect this might have, and opt to just refuse in an attempt to not open Pandora's door.
I don't think it's that simple, however, and that basically defaulting to "no" all the time changes the dynamic from "what the rules don't spell out may be attempted" to "what the rules don't spell out CAN'T be attempted", which is a major landmark in an evolution towards the Cult of RAW and "if the feat doesn't say you can then you can't" type game play.
I'd say though that it isn't THAT far away from, for example, giving a Thief character knowledge of seedy taverns and merchants in a city where he was before - those (little) bonuses that allow a character to shine.
For me I'd just go with the flow to reward RP and "story coolness" for the lack of a better word - if this was a final confrontation and the cleric had a lot of build up regarding to really devoting his past deeds to defeating this guy, I'd allow a roll here as god granting special favour for special time. After all, the gods grant Clerics spells, so I'd wrap this up under "active gods" part of the world. I'd not actually be outside of granting such one time favour to, say, a very religious Fighter or Thief, who earned said Sun God's favour.
One advantage of bennies/Fate Points/Karma mechanics is that they kind of/sort of wrap around such ideas mechanically. And also disadvantage of them.
Quote from: Piestrio;674524In previous games with very active God's I've often allowed characters to call for miracles in dire situations. Starting with a 1% chance and being modified by the worthiness of the cause, the worthiness of the character, and any promised sacrifices, oaths, etc.
So in this case we would start with the base 1% chance.
The situation does not seem especially dire so no modifier there.
The character is a cleric and more particularly a cleric of the sun God, So I might let him add half his level.
The character is offering a sacrifice of his turning abilities so I would probably add a few percentage points to the roll for that.
In addition the character could have sacrificed something on the spot, promised to build a shrine, promised to dedicate a temple, convert the heathens, etc. For more points.
Anyway, it's always a longshot because the gods are fickle and not amused by your petty requests.
And of course you can fumble. :D
This is a cool post. I like divine intervention attempts like this too.
But is the result of even the slipperiest of slopes a big enough problem to say 'no'?
So your Truth Cleric can detect lies if he performs a 'turning'. Is that as much of a problem as telling the player no? Especially when you can always reign it in later, 'mea culpa'?
It's a personal question, answerable through your own GM style.
If this was PF, my inclination would be "No, it doesn't work that way." There are already at least 3 different counters (Light, Dispel Magic, Continual Flame/Light, and Light is a cantrip so no excuse for not having it), tossing in an extra counter is unreasonable.
Yeah, 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?
"To protect the NPC" is an interesting rationalization, and I can see that being a bit annoying. On the other hand, if the players start getting their stuff countered in ways that really shouldn't work ("the NPC has a hare lip, and constantly spits, forcing your spellcasters to make concentration checks every round), there'd be some pretty righteous complaining.
Now, in OD&D, I'd give him a roll based on the source of the darkness (1,000 year old Continual Darkness, or just cast by a Balrog), and if he failed, "darkness enters your heart", giving him a penalty on his next Turn Undead roll or two.
In this particular case, I would've allowed it simply because it was cool and would've added to the fun of the situation.
However, as a GM you have to be careful not to allow everything like this because then powers and differences between classes mean nothing if you can apply anything to any situation. There have to be limits.
Quote from: Benoist;674651Where do you stop? If you allow that thing with the darkness, why wouldn't another Cleric of the God of Persuasion be able to change people's minds with a "turning attempt"? How about Paladins of the God of Truth turning liars in this way? I suspect the people who say "no" on this thread are worried about the domino effect this might have, and opt to just refuse in an attempt to not open Pandora's door.
In regards to the above portion of your post, I should clarify that a Cleric losing the ability to turn undead for an indeterminate time might be a reasonable trade off for a chance to determine if an individual is lying.
The gm just has to prevent craziness, like "I mind control the Illithid city! bwa ha ha!"
Quote from: Doom;674659If this was PF, my inclination would be "No, it doesn't work that way." There are already at least 3 different counters (Light, Dispel Magic, Continual Flame/Light, and Light is a cantrip so no excuse for not having it), tossing in an extra counter is unreasonable.
Yeah, 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?
"To protect the NPC" is an interesting rationalization, and I can see that being a bit annoying. On the other hand, if the players start getting their stuff countered in ways that really shouldn't work ("the NPC has a hare lip, and constantly spits, forcing your spellcasters to make concentration checks every round), there'd be some pretty righteous complaining.
Now, in OD&D, I'd give him a roll based on the source of the darkness (1,000 year old Continual Darkness, or just cast by a Balrog), and if he failed, "darkness enters your heart", giving him a penalty on his next Turn Undead roll or two.
In Pathfinder, light does not dispel darkness. Just sayin. :)
Like the darkness entering your heart; that has potential!
I'm recalling an example from being a parent. It's the difference between...
May I stay up to finish the movie?
And
Why do I need a bedtime?
It's discretion.
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?
*DING!*
3E says...
QuoteOther Uses for Positive or Negative Energy
Positive or negative energy may have uses other than affecting undead. For example, a holy site might be guarded by a magic door that opens for any good cleric who can make a turning check high enough to affect a 3-HD undead and that shatters for an evil cleric who can make a similar check.
So there's some leeway for fiddling with the RAW here. Though it makes me uneasy. If I started fiddling with the rules whenever something was off I'd never stop.
If you were playing with Action Points (unearthed arcana) you could do it by 'emulate feat' to get Divine Metamagic, then boosting the level of a light cantrip with Heighten Spell until it equals the darkness spell's level (which would cost them 1 turn undead use +1 per spell level added). Not that anyone uses action points.
Quote from: Bill;674664In Pathfinder, light does not dispel darkness. Just sayin. :)
Uh... Yeah. It does.
In the D&D I run the Priest either has spells for this, or we chose together a specialty priest class/kit to handle situations like this.
Deity bestowed powers upon the class are specified ahead of time, not "Invoke: Convenience."
Quote from: Opaopajr;674766In the D&D I run the Priest either has spells for this, or we chose together a specialty priest class/kit to handle situations like this.
Deity bestowed powers upon the class are specified ahead of time, not "Invoke: Convenience."
That said, in settings where deities are very active, I'd say that some "divine interventions" are warranted - not even a domain of priests. As I said, a zealous warrior could perhaps invoke god of Suns name as well, if he has done favours for him.
Quote from: Rincewind1;674773As I said, a zealous warrior could perhaps invoke god of Suns name as well, if he has done favours for him.
Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
Quote from: Opaopajr;674766Deity bestowed powers upon the class are specified ahead of time, not "Invoke: Convenience."
I see it more as "invoke roleplaying fun".
I think my response would be "do you want to permanently trade Turn Undead for Dispel Supernatural Darkness?"
Quote from: The_Rooster;674785Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
Well, as we all know, Crom is one of those gods who'd actually NOT provide that, seeing how he cared little sitting upon the pile of skulls, but granted a newborn Cymmerian all he needed in life - strength and courage.
;)
In my OD&D game, I have let clerics use "Turn Undead" for various actions that would please their god (aka, if the foe/trouble is in direct opposition), but in general, that's why gods grant spells.
And if the god does grant an extra boon, the cleric better repay their god back with much reward and sacrifice.
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 (http://9and30kingdoms.blogspot.com/2011/05/clerics-without-spells.html). 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".
I'd let a player get away with this, because it does sort of sound like what a sun god should do - bringing light to dark places and so forth.
What you're basicaly asking is for your deity to bend the rules and norms of what it typically does - it doesn't have to, but it might if your prayer is suitably impassioned or desperate.
With a cost, you might wind up with an interesting and inconvenient Geas which you have to follow or lose your powers until you do, or a specific quest to advance the cause of that deity. (Convert 100 heathens to your faith - that's a good one).
"You can do it, but it will cost, and I'm not going to tell you about it in advance." Would be my response to a playr trying that, whereupon they would probably try something else.
Quote from: Rincewind1;674399Yes, with Caster level being the HD/Undead TYpe difficulty.
Mu thoughts, exactly.
Sheesh. It's just a darkness spell. People going all apeshit over how it breaks the rules and sets a precedent for doing whatever you want, blah, blah.
It's. A. Darkness. Spell.
Dude used a Turn Undead to do the equivalent of a 1st-level spell effect. It was in character, in theme, and it persisted the flow of the game.
Honestly, making a big deal out of nothing. When the priest wants to use Turn Undead like a Wish spell, THEN you have a legitimate reason to get all cranky about it.
Quote from: Bill;674885The cleric was out of spells.
Then tough titties.
Quote from: Bill;674885He 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.
"He" wasn't attempting to do anything.
You were trying to find away around the rules which are part of the implied setting of the game.
Stop trying to make yourself sound like this put-upon roleplaying genius. You're just another wanker who got told 'no' by the referee and decided to whine about it on the intrewebs.
Quote from: The_Rooster;675338Sheesh. It's just a darkness spell. People going all apeshit over how it breaks the rules and sets a precedent for doing whatever you want, blah, blah.
It's. A. Darkness. Spell.
Dude used a Turn Undead to do the equivalent of a 1st-level spell effect. It was in character, in theme, and it persisted the flow of the game.
Honestly, making a big deal out of nothing. When the priest wants to use Turn Undead like a Wish spell, THEN you have a legitimate reason to get all cranky about it.
It's a question regarding tactical - resource game of D&D and adherence to it, something that's hard to argue about as it's well, taste. For me, the answer was rather simple, as I adhere to an idea that if I want people to roleplay, I shall reward said roleplaying.
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?
That is simple, no you cannot, your timing is horrible.
If you want to be able to expend turn undead to banish darkness/bring light, then that is something you should have mentioned at character generation or during downtime when your cleric is studying and researching more ways of devoting himself to the sun god's cause. I would work with you if it was a flavorful something you actually wanted to craft your character around.
But just wanking it out in the middle of the field for a temporary bonus to whatever you happen to be doing? Nah.
Quote from: Benoist;674497Hm. That's an interesting question. Since turn undead can also work at high levels to banish evil from the lower planes (in First Ed, in any case), it would make sense for a cleric of a Sun deity to banish darkness.
I might allow a roll using the level of the caster of the original darkness spell as the Undead's HD, or less, perhaps mitigated by the weakness/strength of the spell itself, and it would count as the Cleric's attempt to Turn in this particular situation. Like Mcbobbo, I'd probably use the Holy Symbol as a source of light repelling the darkness around the Cleric on a success (same range as Undead kept at bay in such a fashion).
Take the example of the cleric of a Healing god. If I have expended all my spells should I be able to heal someone becuase that is the sort of thing healing gods do? Cleric of a god of lighting? etc
If the darkness is not supernatural (spell), then I'd rule as the deity would think of it. Is it a waste of time and energy from the deity's standpoint? Divine power is not something you use lightly. If all it takes to banish the darkness is to hold a torch against it, you'd probably better do that instead.
I would run it like this. If the darkness was supernatural then turn versus the caster's level as HD. If its not then god would prefer you light a torch.
It is a cool effect but my problem with it would be how does it fit into the wider space. Letting a PC do something cool that relates to their class and background sounds good but if there are skills that cover it or spells that cover it a bit of me thinks you should have saved a spell or argued for the power at character inception.
So I guess I would have hoped that during the charcter's design we could have come up with some cool Sun god type effects and powers and one of those would fit in exchange for something else maybe some combat power.
In the end I would probably allow the roll and see how the party coped when the wights that were hiding in the darkness attacked :) (kiddin......)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;675372Then tough titties.
"He" wasn't attempting to do anything. You were trying to find away around the rules which are part of the implied setting of the game.
Stop trying to make yourself sound like this put-upon role playing genius. You're just another wanker who got told 'no' by the referee and decided to whine about it on the intrewebs.
You don't know me very well, so I suppose it is not completely irrational to make that assumption.
I don't give a rats ass about finding my way around rules.
I role play; the only good rule is one that fades into the background.
I have never claimed, or intended to suggest I am a role playing genius.
If asked, I would say I am average at role play.
I did not even need to admit I was the player.
I posted this because I wanted to hear peoples opinions on the matter.
Quote from: Old One Eye;675472That is simple, no you cannot, your timing is horrible.
If you want to be able to expend turn undead to banish darkness/bring light, then that is something you should have mentioned at character generation or during downtime when your cleric is studying and researching more ways of devoting himself to the sun god's cause. I would work with you if it was a flavorful something you actually wanted to craft your character around.
But just wanking it out in the middle of the field for a temporary bonus to whatever you happen to be doing? Nah.
Why put a negative spin on it?
Anyway, it is obviously was not a bonus on anything the character happens to doing. It was super limited and specific.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;675372Then tough titties.
"He" wasn't attempting to do anything. You were trying to find away around the rules which are part of the implied setting of the game.
Stop trying to make yourself sound like this put-upon roleplaying genius. You're just another wanker who got told 'no' by the referee and decided to whine about it on the intrewebs.
Exactly, if the guy's out of spells, the guy's out of spells. This is all just player rationalization, too much of which lets spellcasters go nuts.
Imagine a fighter, almost out of hit points, gets hit in the face with a 2h battleaxe wielded by a minotaur...
"But I'm a fighter, I should be able to take blows, so I should be able to survive this no prob..."
Imagine a thief, who's already tried and failed to pick a pocket on the vampire before it turns gaseous...
"But I'm extra sneaky, I should get an extra chance to pick that pocket..."
Imagine a cleric, who's already out of spells, trying to morph some other ability into a spell...
"But I'm cleric of goodness and light I should have an extra way to do that...."
Nah, OD&D allows for such things, but if you're 3.0 or later, you're in a rules heavy system. If you want to play a game where you can imagine all sorts of stuff not on your character sheet, pick a game where your character sheet doesn't look like something off of Excel....
Quote from: Doom;675685Exactly, if the guy's out of spells, the guy's out of spells. This is all just player rationalization, too much of which lets spellcasters go nuts.
Imagine a fighter, almost out of hit points, gets hit in the face with a 2h battleaxe wielded by a minotaur...
"But I'm a fighter, I should be able to take blows, so I should be able to survive this no prob..."
Imagine a thief, who's already tried and failed to pick a pocket on the vampire before it turns gaseous...
"But I'm extra sneaky, I should get an extra chance to pick that pocket..."
Imagine a cleric, who's already out of spells, trying to morph some other ability into a spell...
"But I'm cleric of goodness and light I should have an extra way to do that...."
Nah, OD&D allows for such things, but if you're 3.0 or later, you're in a rules heavy system. If you want to play a game where you can imagine all sorts of stuff not on your character sheet, pick a game where your character sheet doesn't look like something off of Excel....
I don't think the examples you gave are in the same catagory.
All players are not powergaming asshats either.
A fighter ignoring wounds is much more over the top than a cleric of a sun god losing turn undead to try and dispel darkness.
Quote from: Bill;675675Why put a negative spin on it?
Anyway, it is obviously was not a bonus on anything the character happens to doing. It was super limited and specific.
The rules and intent behind D&D are that any magical effect is specifically spelled out. Banishing the darkness is a magical effect, so the character must have something that specifically says it has that magical effect. It is not a game where you make up open ended magical abilities on the fly by using anything that makes sense from your character concept.
I'm going to make a Cleric of the god of victory...
Quote from: Planet Algol;675764I'm going to make a Cleric of the god of victory...
Awesome! The power to Invoke: Win! will always come in handy. Think of the roleplay potential.
:p
(The god is based on Charlie Sheen, right?)
Quote from: Old One Eye;675756The rules and intent behind D&D are that any magical effect is specifically spelled out. Banishing the darkness is a magical effect, so the character must have something that specifically says it has that magical effect. It is not a game where you make up open ended magical abilities on the fly by using anything that makes sense from your character concept.
You are putting negative spin on it, and vastly overemphasizing the impact of the action.
This is a rare event at best. Far, far from 'anything that makkes sense for the character'
Quote from: Planet Algol;675764I'm going to make a Cleric of the god of victory...
Not remotely the same.
But funny :)