Greater Turning and DMM

[Dancingdeath]

I think it should work this way, but I thought I'd check my logic with you fine people.

If you have access to a Greater Turning attempt and DMM I believe the Greater Turning should count as two regular turns contributed to DMM. My logic is that you are pouring more divine energy in, so it should count for more.

I realize this falls in the realm of "house rule", but it just makes sense. Plus my one Greater Turning from the sun domain is not that abuseable anyway.

Thoughts?

[Dancingdeath]

Turning and Greater Turning both draw divine power from the same source to fuel an effect. Greater Turning channels more power, therefore it produces an increased effect.

[Dancingdeath]

I am now in a tit for tat with my DM about this. Just sling some opinions. RAW may not support my theory, but RAI does.

[georgie_leech]

Does Greater Turning channel more power, or does it merely use what power it has in a different way?

[Dancingdeath]

It uses more power to accomplish a greater effect.

[dextercorvia]

Greater Turning from the Sun Domain? It lets one of your turn attempts be more effective at turning undead. It doesn't give you any additional turn attempts (or even things that can be misconstrued) for fueling divine feats.

This doesn't work by RAW, RAI, or any other acronym..

[Dancingdeath]

"Sun Domain
Granted Power
Once per day, you can perform a greater turning against undead in place of a regular turning. The greater turning is like a normal turning except that the undead creatures that would be turned are destroyed instead." 3.5 PHB

"Disciple of the Sun
You can destroy undead instead of merely turning them.
Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke undead, good alignment,
Benefit: You may spend two turn undead attempts when you turn undead instead of one. If you do then you get destroy the undead instead of turning them." Complete Divine

Look at the mechanics of these two features and tell me my logic is wrong now.

All greater turning does is give you essentially is give you the benefit of the Disciple of the Sun feat without use of the feat. It super powers a regular turning attempt.

[NOhara24]

"Sun Domain
It super powers a regular turning attempt.

Correct. Stronger Turning attempt does not equal more turning attempts. Quality of your turning attempts makes no difference as far as DMM goes.

RAI or RAW, it doesn't matter. It doesn't work.

[Dancingdeath]

It is not a seperate ability, as it applies added power to a regular turning attempt. Therefore it should qualify as applying two turning attempts into a DMM effect.

[Dancingdeath]

The obvious intent was to make a greater turning have the power of two regular turning attempts. The quotes I posted prove as much.

[NOhara24]

It is not a seperate ability, as it applies added power to a regular turning attempt. Therefore it should qualify as applying two turning attempts into a DMM effect.

You said it yourself. It super powers one turning attempt, it doesn't create another.



The obvious intent was to make a greater turning have the power of two regular turning attempts. The quotes I posted prove as much.

It proves nothing.

[Kuulvheysoon]

It is not a seperate ability, as it applies added power to a regular turning attempt. Therefore it should qualify as applying two turning attempts into a DMM effect.

You ask for people's thoughts, yet you seem to not want to listen to any of them?

+1 for dextercorvia's reply. I don't see any way, RAI or RAW, where this should work.

[Dancingdeath]

OH MY GOD!

Why does no one else see this. I honestly believe that people are disagreeing with the obvious logic here just because the DMM feat is already so powerful. It obviously uses the power of two regular turn attepmts for free as a domain power to accomplish the effect of Disciple of the Sun, which usually costs you two turn attempts to accomplish the same effect.

I call shenanigans. Fear of abuse is leading to the resistance of this painfully obvious truth.

[Dancingdeath]

OH MY GOD!

Why does no one else see this. I honestly believe that people are disagreeing with the obvious logic here just because the DMM feat is already so powerful. It obviously uses the power of two regular turn attepmts for free as a domain power to accomplish the effect of Disciple of the Sun, which usually costs you two turn attempts to accomplish the same effect.

I call shenanigans. Fear of abuse is leading to the resistance of this painfully obvious truth.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

To Turn Undead, you spend one turn attempt.

To power a divine feat, you spend one turn attempt.

Disciple of the Sun is a divine feat, so it costs a turn attempt to activate it. You use it with a regular turn undead, so that still has its normal cost of one turn attempt. This is why it costs you two turn attempts to use Disciple of the Sun, and it in no way implies that a Greater Turning is equal to two turning attempts.

Greater Turning uses cannot be spent on anything but an actual Greater Turning attempt. That's the only thing it can be used for, you cannot convert it to a different currency to pay for another ability. This game does not work that way, it was never intended to work that way, the rules do not even imply that it could be used that way, and your DM is absolutely right in not allowing you to do it.

[Dancingdeath]

He is absolutely not going to allow it. I no longer care about that. I'm simply trying to get other people to see the logic here. Not trying to be inflamatory.

You're right, the rules do not allow for this to be the case. Logic however does.

[NOhara24]

You're right, the rules do not allow for this to be the case. Logic however does.

RAW > Everything else.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

He is absolutely not going to allow it. I no longer care about that. I'm simply trying to get other people to see the logic here. Not trying to be inflamatory.

You're right, the rules do not allow for this to be the case. Logic however does.

I think I explained it pretty well.

Disciple of the Sun is a divine feat, which is why it costs an extra turn attempt to use it.

Greater Turning itself is not a turn attempt, it's a separate ability that can only be used with an attempt to turn undead. They have similar effects, but that does not in any way imply that the costs are equal.

The Domain Spontaneity feat in CD is a divine feat, and you pay a turn attempt to spontaneously convert a prepared spell into one of your domain spells. The Spontaneous Domain Casting ACF in PH2 allows you to do this absolutely free. The effects are identical, but the costs are completely different.

It doesn't matter how similar the effects are, it does not in any way imply that the costs of those two effects are related or even similar in any way.

[Dancingdeath]

Simply for the sake of argument, forget this is a game. Pretend you are a cleric, and instead of use the usual amount of divine power to contribute to an ability as fuel you instead use twice that much power because of a free boon your deity grants you (which is what a domain power is) to contribute to the same ability. Would you not expect it to go farther? Would it not be only logical to get more bang for your buck if you pay more? Because that is exactly what you are doing.

[erikun]

Expending Greater Turning attempts to power divine metamagic makes no more sense than expending Fire-Creature Turning, Plant Turning, or Hippo Turning to power it. Claiming that Greater Turning involves additional divine power means nothing, because all divine turning (not to mention all divine spells) involves expending divine power.

Your DM is free to allow Greater Turning attempts to power DMM, much as they are free to allow any turning to power it. However, Greater Turning by itself doesn't make any more sense than the others to power the feat.

Heck, a Greater Turning by itself doesn't even do anything!

[Edit]

Simply for the sake of argument, forget this is a game. Pretend you are a cleric, and instead of use the usual amount of divine power to contribute to an ability as fuel you instead use twice that much power because of a free boon your deity grants you (which is what a domain power is) to contribute to the same ability. Would you not expect it to go farther? Would it not be only logical to get more bang for your buck if you pay more? Because that is exactly what you are doing.
I generally take Greater Turning as a blessing from your deity, automatically destroying any undead it affects rather than the usual effects. This is why you could use a Greater Turning Rebuke to destroy undead, rather than "double" its power into a command.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Simply for the sake of argument, forget this is a game. Pretend you are a cleric, and instead of use the usual amount of divine power to contribute to an ability as fuel you instead use twice that much power because of a free boon your deity grants you (which is what a domain power is) to contribute to the same ability. Would you not expect it to go farther? Would it not be only logical to get more bang for your buck if you pay more? Because that is exactly what you are doing.

The Sun domain allows you to channel the power of the sun to destroy undead instead of merely turning them. That power cannot be used for anything but destroying undead.

The Disciple of the Sun feat allows you to spend twice the effort to achieve a similar effect, but those who have the Sun domain can do the same thing almost effortlessly.

[Dancingdeath]

:furious::furious::furious: Does no one see my point?! :furious::furious::furious:

[erikun]

:furious::furious::furious: Does no one see my point?! :furious::furious::furious:
That you want free additional turn attempts to power your DDM feat? Yes, I think everyone sees that quite clearly.

Do you see my point, in that having a Greater Turning is not like having an additional turn attempt?

Just because two thinks share one similarity does not mean that they share all similarities. My wizard can prepare Protection from Evil in his first-level spell slots, but that does not mean he has the ability to prepare any spell on his spell list like a cleric can.

[Aegis013]

:furious::furious::furious: Does no one see my point?! :furious::furious::furious:

I see your logic. The logic you are following makes some sense, but I don't think it would or should ever be allowed in a game (like everybody else). I'm also not entirely sure that your cleric is the one adding the divine energy to the turn attempt. It might be Pelor.

I do see your logic though, hope that's comforting.

[Dancingdeath]

No, he has already ruled on that topic. It ain't happening. I'm just trying to get someone to see my point. I'm arguing that they are different power levels of the exact same ability.

Juggling was used by gypsies to both entertain and distract so people would both pay to be entertained AND be distracted so they could be pick pocketed. Some of the gypsies became master jugglers and joined reputable businesses to just entertain. They got paid more for providing a better service.

Saying that greater turning doesn't apply a bigger effect is, to me at least, like saying that the master juggler can't get paid a higher wage from anyone because that was not his juggling's initial intended use. Basically like saying "no, that's not juggling because it's being used for a different purpose".

[erikun]

The logic you are following makes some sense, but I don't think it would or should ever be allowed in a game (like everybody else).
I'm not too sure that it should never be allow in a game. There are certainly a wide variety of games out there, and just the basic Sun Domain power granting a single additional spell level for Divine Metamagic is hardly overpowering. (Radiant Servant probably isn't either, given the popular recommendation of the Destroy Undead ACF.)

On the other hand, being an acceptable outcome and being a logically conclusive outcome are two different things. It is not overpowered to allow a monk to "dual-wield" Flurry of Blows, and thus attack with it twice a round as a full attack. That is quite different from saying it makes sense that "Flurry of Blows" is a weapon that can be wielded in each hand. Similarly, using Greater Turning attempts to power DMM may not cause problems, but that doesn't mean that Greater Turning attempt would logically power DMM uses.

[Dancingdeath]

I see your logic. The logic you are following makes some sense, but I don't think it would or should ever be allowed in a game (like everybody else). I'm also not entirely sure that your cleric is the one adding the divine energy to the turn attempt. It might be Pelor.

I do see your logic though, hope that's comforting.

God bless you sir. I don't think any of the cleric's abilities are actually powered by the cleric. All of his powers come from his deity.

[Dancingdeath]

On the other hand, being an acceptable outcome and being a logically conclusive outcome are two different things..

So you agree that my opinion is logically conclusive, but not an acceptable outcome?

[erikun]

So you agree that my opinion is logically conclusive, but not an acceptable outcome?
I can see what you are saying, even without the Disciple of the Sun example. I don't agree with the reasoning, but can see the logic you used to reach your conclusion.

[Aegis013]

I'm not too sure that it should never be allow in a game. There are certainly a wide variety of games out there, and just the basic Sun Domain power granting a single additional spell level for Divine Metamagic is hardly overpowering. (Radiant Servant probably isn't either, given the popular recommendation of the Destroy Undead ACF.)

On the other hand, being an acceptable outcome and being a logically conclusive outcome are two different things. It is not overpowered to allow a monk to "dual-wield" Flurry of Blows, and thus attack with it twice a round as a full attack. That is quite different from saying it makes sense that "Flurry of Blows" is a weapon that can be wielded in each hand. Similarly, using Greater Turning attempts to power DMM may not cause problems, but that doesn't mean that Greater Turning attempt would logically power DMM uses.

I'm not sure I fully understand your rebuttal. I'll explain further on my thoughts, and I ask as a courtesy that you do too.

I'm saying that the feat does with 2 turns what the domain power does with 1 turn. If we conclude that the outcome can be used to represent the inputs (there is no rules basis for this, but bear with it), and assume that the feat is the baseline for the value of the outcome, rather than the domain power, (an assumption with no grounds in rules or anything, but bear with it, as well) then the outcome could be valued at 2 turn attempts and thus used as such, if one follows the assumption and allows it.

I see that logic. It makes sense, I can see how someone might think that. I don't think it would fly in any game, really. There's no real rules basis for it.

[Dancingdeath]

I don't think I've ever worked harder in my life just to get someone to see my point. Good Lord you people can be stubborn. You don't have to agree with me. Just acknowledge that I have a valid point.

[Dancingdeath]

I'm saying that the feat does with 2 turns what the domain power does with 1 turn. If we conclude that the outcome can be used to represent the inputs (there is no rules basis for this, but bear with it), and assume that the feat is the baseline for the value of the outcome, rather than the domain power, (an assumption with no grounds in rules or anything, but bear with it, as well) then the outcome could be valued at 2 turn attempts and thus used as such, if one follows the assumption and allows it.

I see that logic. It makes sense, I can see how someone might think that. I don't think it would fly in any game, really. There's no real rules basis for it.

Yes. That's how I viewed it, and you explained it better in 9 lines than I did in 9 posts.

[Jasdoif]

The underlying conceit of divine feats is that they consume turn/rebuke attempts as a source of energy to power their effects. Energy conversions are rarely readily reversible; for example, burning wood to produce heat is a heck of a lot more feasible than trapping heat to produce wood.

In the same vein, I can understand why, on first glance, it might look like a greater turning attempt could be traded in for two (standard) turning attempt...but it doesn't make sense for the feat category.

To look at it another way...Glorious Weapons is also a divine feat, that allows you to spend a turn attempt to align all allies' (within 60-ft) melee weapons with good, for one round. If I were to accept that a greater turning attempt could be converted into two extra turning attempts, I would have to also accept that a cleric could gain an extra turning attempt each round that every ally within 60-feet has good-aligned melee weapons. And that makes no sense, to say nothing of balance ("Yeah, ol' Glowy-Dagger there is an odd one. Insists that everyone stays at least 60 feet away while he's in some sort of prayer-hour with his holy dagger....").

[Bakkan]

You have a valid point, given the assumption that the amount of "divine power" channeled is the only metric involved. However, if this assumption is not taken, your point may not be valid.

Explanation: Suppose normal Turn Undead attempts are blue. Suppose further that the Greater Turning ability of the Sun Domain changes one of your turn undead attempts from a blue attempt into a red attempt. It is still just one attempt and grants the same amount of "divine power" as far as DMM is concerned, it just uses it in a different way. Now the Disciple of the Sun feat gives you a machine into which you can put two blue Turn Undead attempts and it spits a red Turn Undead attempt out. This would not mean that you can turn one red attempt into two blue attempts, and thus your point would not hold under this model.

[dextercorvia]

I'm not sure I fully understand your rebuttal. I'll explain further on my thoughts, and I ask as a courtesy that you do too.

I'm saying that the feat does with 2 turns what the domain power does with 1 turn. If we conclude that the outcome can be used to represent the inputs (there is no rules basis for this, but bear with it), and assume that the feat is the baseline for the value of the outcome, rather than the domain power, (an assumption with no grounds in rules or anything, but bear with it, as well) then the outcome could be valued at 2 turn attempts and thus used as such, if one follows the assumption and allows it.

I see that logic. It makes sense, I can see how someone might think that. I don't think it would fly in any game, really. There's no real rules basis for it.

Even by this interpretive stretch, the use of Greater Turning shouldn't be valued at 2 attempts, since you have to spend one to activate it.

[Aegis013]

Even by this interpretive stretch, the use of Greater Turning shouldn't be valued at 2 attempts, since you have to spend one to activate it.

Which is why in the previous post, I said it never would or should be allowed in a game. I was simply trying to explain DancingDeath's logic as I understood it, to the best of my ability.

[Dancingdeath]

My reasoning really stems from the fact that it still functions off of a regular tun attempt. You simply apply the domain's power onto a regular turn, thus providing it with greater power. Yes from the domain power you'd get it for free instead of having to supply two turn attempts from the feat to do the exact same thing, but that's not OP.

It's not a different ability. It's a turn attempt, just more effective.

[erikun]

I'm not sure I fully understand your rebuttal. I'll explain further on my thoughts, and I ask as a courtesy that you do too.

I'm saying that the feat does with 2 turns what the domain power does with 1 turn. If we conclude that the outcome can be used to represent the inputs (there is no rules basis for this, but bear with it), and assume that the feat is the baseline for the value of the outcome, rather than the domain power, (an assumption with no grounds in rules or anything, but bear with it, as well) then the outcome could be valued at 2 turn attempts and thus used as such, if one follows the assumption and allows it.

I see that logic. It makes sense, I can see how someone might think that. I don't think it would fly in any game, really. There's no real rules basis for it.
The logical problem is that two processes with the same outcome (one similar variable) do not share all other similar variables.

To try to put it another way: I can burn wood for heat. I can burn coal for heat. However, it would be false to therefore think that I could use coal for other uses of wood because of it, or vice versa. Coal would make a terrible material for building something. Wood is not a drawing material. Even what remains after burning them is different.

Similarly, I could use two turning attempts to destroy an undead. I could use one turning attempt and one Greater Turning to destroy an undead. However, that does not mean that one Greater Turning could be used for other uses of turning attempts.

One similarity (burning for heat, destroying an undead) does not mean that both share all similarities, or even any others.


I don't think I've ever worked harder in my life just to get someone to see my point. Good Lord you people can be stubborn. You don't have to agree with me. Just acknowledge that I have a valid point.
There are two big problems you're running into.

One is the GM knee-jerk resistance to logical jumps made most players. A lot of us (a lot) have had that one player who makes one crazy leap of thought, defends it with their life, and refuses to back down. For me, it was the guy claiming he could see invisible creatures that weren't there because not seeing the invisible creatures counted as interacting with them, thus dispelling the illusion. Your insistence that you are right, and that others should agree with you, doesn't help any.

The other, for me at least, is that your conclusion is not logically sound. As pointed out earlier, one similarity does not imply other similarities. Claiming they both come from a divine source does not help either, and everything a cleric does comes from a divine source, but only specific abilities power Divine Metamagic.

[Dancingdeath]

You burn a log, you get X amount of fire. You burn two logs you get X amount of fire x2.

It doesn't matter if you provide one log and someone else provides a log. You'll still get the same amount of fire.

It doesn't matter if you burn birch, pine, or fir. You still get fire.

Doesn't matter where the turns come from, or how you get the greater turn. It should count for two. If you can draw upon turns from an item, then this isn't really a stretch. Power from a different source is power from a different source. No matter the source.

[Aegis013]

The logical problem is that two processes with the same outcome (one similar variable) do not share all other similar variables.

To try to put it another way: I can burn wood for heat. I can burn coal for heat. However, it would be false to therefore think that I could use coal for other uses of wood because of it, or vice versa. Coal would make a terrible material for building something. Wood is not a drawing material. Even what remains after burning them is different.

Similarly, I could use two turning attempts to destroy an undead. I could use one turning attempt and one Greater Turning to destroy an undead. However, that does not mean that one Greater Turning could be used for other uses of turning attempts.

One similarity (burning for heat, destroying an undead) does not mean that both share all similarities, or even any others.


I did my best to explain the major assumptions (just assumptions, with no rules basis), and did my best to clarify what they were, and that they had no rules basis (which is basically being grounded in Physics, realism, and/or practicality for your example). Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

[Dancingdeath]

Turning is a log. Greater turning is two logs, not coal. This is true because it says you have to use one of your turns to create the greater turn. It's impossible without it. You can't turn wood into coal.

[erikun]

You burn a log, you get X amount of fire. You burn two logs you get X amount of fire x2.

It doesn't matter if you provide one log and someone else provides a log. You'll still get the same amount of fire.

It doesn't matter if you burn birch, pine, or fir. You still get fire.

Doesn't matter where the turns come from, or how you get the greater turn. It should count for two. If you can draw upon turns from an item, then this isn't really a stretch. Power from a different source is power from a different source. No matter the source.
Problem: We are not talking about one cleric providing a turn attempt and another cleric providing a turn attempt. We are talking about one cleric providing a turn attempt and a Greater Turning ability.

If turn attempts are logs, then Greater Turning must be something other than logs. Otherwise, your example falls apart.

Also, I'd love to see you build a house out of willow.

[Dancingdeath]

Not true. The cleric does not supply a turn AND a greater turn. He simply uses his domain to turn ONE turn into a greater turn. It all comes through him from his deity. All the power is supplied from the same source, through the same vessel.

[georgie_leech]

Look at it this way. The Sun domain isn't adding extra divine oomph, it's replacing some of it with "Sun" energy, a.k.a. the stuff that flat out destroys most classic undead creatures. It's not more powerful per se, just more effective against undead (which you'd be using it on anyway). Does a Fireball become anymore powerful if cast against an ice creature? No. Does it cause more damage? Yes.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Problem: We are not talking about one cleric providing a turn attempt and another cleric providing a turn attempt. We are talking about one cleric providing a turn attempt and a Greater Turning ability.

If turn attempts are logs, then Greater Turning must be something other than logs. Otherwise, your example falls apart.

Also, I'd love to see you build a house out of willow.

*coughcough* wigwams *coughcough*.

But I see your point - and I'm in complete agreement.

[Dancingdeath]

ALL cleric turns destroy undead. I feel this has become cyclical. I'm done defending my argument. I feel I am right in my logic. Some of the problem may be that I look at how magic works differently than the rest of you.

[erikun]

*coughcough* wigwams *coughcough*.
I knew I was going to get into trouble with that last example. :smalltongue: I didn't have the time to search for willow construction to see how viable it is, though.

[Occasional Sage]

I see how you're thinking about this, and within a certain framework it makes sense. You've got to ignore too much to make your point correct, though.

[Slipperychicken]

:furious::furious::furious: Does no one see my point?! :furious::furious::furious:

{{scrubbed}}I see your rationale (super-turning = two turnings), but disagree with it. Greater Turning is an ability which costs a turn attempt to give a better outcome. Greater Turning somewhat increases the value of your turns, but doesn't give you more.


I think of it sort of like money. If a Trinket costs two dollars, that's non-negotiable: you need two green pieces of paper to buy it (an ability costs two turn attempts). But you only have one to spend on it (one turn attempt). Let's say that the currency market freaks out and that dollar's value doubles (you use Greater Turning). Is the dollar worth twice what it was before? Yes, it is. Does that mean you go back and buy the trinket with that one dollar? Not unless the store changes its prices, which it doesn't for whatever reason. The Trinket costs two dollars, irrespective of their value.


A dollar can grow infinitely in value, but it's still just one dollar. You can never buy a 2$ item with 1$, even if that 1$ can buy whole kingdoms.

[dextercorvia]

Since we're making metaphors --

Think of a Turn Undead attempt as a dollar note. The intended use (turning undead) is to buy an item that costs a dollar. Greater Turning, is therefore like a special offer that increases the purchasing power of your dollar. So you destroy instead of turning, or get a two dollar item for your dollar. Divine feats are like using the dollar notes as band-aids when you rip the universe a new one. Having a special two for one offer doesn't actually mean you have more band-aids.

[Dancingdeath]

Even though you might well be trolling, I'll bite. I see your rationale (super-turning = two turnings), but disagree with it. Greater Turning is an ability which costs a turn attempt to give a better outcome. Greater Turning somewhat increases the value of your turns, but doesn't give you more.


I think of it sort of like money. If a Trinket costs two dollars, that's non-negotiable: you need two green pieces of paper to buy it (an ability costs two turn attempts). But you only have one to spend on it (one turn attempt). Let's say that the currency market freaks out and that dollar's value doubles (you use Greater Turning). Is the dollar worth twice what it was before? Yes, it is. Does that mean you go back and buy the trinket with that one dollar? Not unless the store changes its prices, which it doesn't for whatever reason. The Trinket costs two dollars, irrespective of their value.


A dollar can grow infinitely in value, but it's still just one dollar. You can never buy a 2$ item with 1$, even if that 1$ can buy whole kingdoms.

That actually helps. Given that logic, I see your point.

[Voyager_I]

If the implications you assumed were true, you could make a similar argument that the Sun Domain power could be used to grant you an extra unmodified turning attempt instead of empowering one of you regular turning attempts, even though the rules clearly make no provision for this.

We all understand you logic, and the conclusion you have reached isn't irrational. It's just based on several assumptions that have no grounding in the actual rules of the game.

[eggs]

I think everyone sees your point, but that's very different from agreeing with it.

In a RAW sense, as has been hashed out previously, you're wrong.

In terms of the rules intended by the designers, RAW does not contradict any explicit discussion of intent, leaving no indication that you are right, and every indication that you're wrong.

In a metagame sense, two turn attempts are worth less than one greater turning (with the feat you cite, 2 normal turnings + some fraction of a feat slot = 1 greater turning). So from the game design perspective, you're also wrong.

And in terms of the in-game fiction, your argument is founded on assumptions that you cannot establish (namely, that one greater turning uses the same resource in the same quantity as two normal turnings, and whether that resource can be subdivided at all). In this case, there's no support that you're right, and the RAW again indicate that you're wrong.

So yes. I see what you're saying. And yes. I think it's very clear that you're wrong.

[Dancingdeath]

I think everyone sees your point, but that's very different from agreeing with it.

In a RAW sense, as has been hashed out previously, you're wrong.

In terms of the rules intended by the designers, RAW does not contradict any explicit discussion of intent, leaving no indication that you are right, and every indication that you're wrong.

In a metagame sense, two turn attempts are worth less than one greater turning (with the feat you cite, 2 normal turnings + some fraction of a feat slot = 1 greater turning). So from the game design perspective, you're also wrong.

And in terms of the in-game fiction, your argument is founded on assumptions that you cannot establish (namely, that one greater turning uses the same resource in the same quantity as two normal turnings, and whether that resource can be subdivided at all). In this case, there's no support that you're right, and the RAW again indicate that you're wrong.

So yes. I see what you're saying. And yes. I think it's very clear that you're wrong.

So what you're saying is that I'm wrong? Really, there have been several other people point out that thought. I was arguing my point from my own perspective. I had trouble seeing the logic behind why I was wrong. And if you'll notice I finally admitted that I understood a few posts above your response. Making the above quote redundant, and putting it squarely in the "beating a dead horse" category.

In summation, point taken. Let it go please.

Also I am not a troll, and hate the term as everyone seems to have their own definition of it. I was having an active online conversation with people debating the merits of a certain chain of logic which was later conclusively refuted. For future reference a troll is "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". Quoted from the official wikkipedia definition.

[Vishtarik]

Turning is a log. Greater turning is two logs, not coal. This is true because it says you have to use one of your turns to create the greater turn. It's impossible without it. You can't turn wood into coal.

Actually, coal is made from wood, burning wood in a low oxygen environment creates coal. So, if turn attempts are wood, Greater turns would be coal. Both can make fire, and fire made from coal would burn more efficiently; thus greater turning destroys undead yet regular turning does not.