Turn Undead

I can't remember now where I saw it mentioned -- here or on S-G? -- that the Beta version of the cleric lets him actually turn undead as opposed to, y'know, not being able to do that thing. Which is an improvement!

That said, I'm a little bothered by the new form it's taken. "A number of mindless undead equal to your level" seems to really hamstring the cleric and prevent the classic turn-the-vampire-with-your-holy-symbol trope. However, without monster levels, it's not so easy to quickly differentiate between various gradations of undead without GM fiat ("Well, no, the vampire lord obviously isn't turned, no, but those skeletons, yeah, they cower and back off").

What about using the one defensive monster stat that still remains -- Hit Points -- as the basis for accomplishing something like this? It seems like doing this could also recall how Turn Undead works in AD&D, too.

For example:
When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith, roll+Cha. Compare the Hit Point total of every nearby undead being to the total of your roll. If  an undead's HP total is less than your roll, the undead is destroyed. If an undead's HP total is greater than your roll but less than twice your roll, it cowers at your power. If an undead's HP total is twice your roll or greater, it is unaffected.

Now, look. I know I like rolling dice, and tend to insert dice-rolling into DW in places where maybe other people wouldn't like it. But this strikes me as consistent with the core mechanic and more fun than the guaranteed certainty of number = level. And you get to make skeletons explode just by shouting at them.

Having played a cleric for the first time on Saturday and having run into a ghost for which Turn Undead was useless, I agree that something should change about that power. I hesitate to climb on-board with all the additional mechanics and dice-rolling, but I think there should be some effect on all undead.

I'm not experienced enough in the game to know what a balanced alternative would look like. I'd at least like to have the power to ask the undead questions (if it's not mindless) before it savages me.

When you hold forth your holy symbol as a show of faith all undead that can see you immediately freeze. If they're mindless undead that's it, they stay frozen so long as you hold forth your holy symbol. If they're intelligent they pause for a few moments before regaining their wits.

Sage, is that how the power is intended? Iserith was a player in my game and when the situation came up I went with RAW.

That's a rewrite. What do you think?

I might add that for as long as you hold forth your holy symbol in faith, you have leverage over them.

I might add that for as long as you hold forth your holy symbol in faith, you have leverage over them.

I like that. Synergy! Makes it possible for you to Parley with them, which means they might flee before you.

I think we want to avoid ever saying something is leverage. Leverage is a plain-english word that has to be interpreted at the table.

How about this:

When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith undead who can see you are held at bay. Mindless undead cannot deliberately come closer to you. Intelligent undead can come closer if they choose, but take 1d8 damage per your level. This effect lasts until your show of faith stops, but an intelligent undead can only take damage once per turning.

Or maybe this:

When you hold forth your holy symbol in a show of faith roll+Wis. On a 10+ all undead that can see you must flee your presence (once they leave they can return freely). On a 7-9 undead that can see you cower for a few moments doing nothing but groveling.

I think the stun lock potential is too high right now. I'm liking the idea of fleeing and a roll. To me that feels like it really is turning, and it's a big deal, but it's not so huge that intelligent undead are boned.

Have you considered stepping away from the "area effect" way of thinking and making it a bit more like Going Aggro on a particular undead creature?

I like both of those options, Sage, but prefer the second, I think.

Here's what prompted me to post about it in the first place: I'm making a magic item that makes good clerics better at turning undead. That was the idea, anyway. But when I read the description of the move again, there was nothing there I could really hook into, mechanically speaking, except the cleric's level determining the number of undead affected. So then I got to thinking about AD&D's take on it and etc.

Thus, for the purposes of my thing, adding in a little mechanical "rigor" makes coming up with a magic item that's relevant to the move easier, or at least more intuitive.

The term "leverage", while plain English, does seem to be a repeated bone of contention. It's quite broad, but I've noticed that players seem to initially interpret it quite narrowly. Perhaps a discussion in the rules with some non-obvious examples (such as this one) might be in order?

Yup, that's what the moves discussion chapter is for. "Avoiding your deity's wrath as channeled through your holy symbol" is totally leverage.

Sage,

I like the second one, it feels more like what I think of when I think of Turning.

To your point about leverage though, leverage in any other context is simple to understand but as a prerequisite to a move it becomes something a little more difficult to parse. If I were to confront you with a sword or magic I would assume I have leverage over you but in DW swords and magic are common place so leverage becomes a bit more iffy.

That's exactly why I think invoking the word "leverage" works in this case. To Parley, you have to have leverage over the other guy. "I can channel the power of a god in a way that you won't enjoy" seems like pretty good leverage to me.

It feels like, if the rules are going to be specific that you need leverage, they should also be clear about what counts as leverage. Including leverage in the text of aproriate moves just makes sense. Saying, if it does then it does, puts the one and only social option directly in the hands of GM fiat and I am very uncomfortable with that.