Command Undead

[nersxe]

So, one of my players is a Dread Necromancer. He is under the impression that the class feature command undead (that is, the greater version of rebuke, not the spell Command Undead) is permanent. The description does not give a duration, but something about command undead being permanent does not quite feel right to me. I don't want to completely render command undead useless, since that's a feature that is core to his class, but nor do I want command undead to be able to be used once, just once, and the commanded undead is under your command forever.

But nersxe, you may ask, why is this such a problem? One of the players, the most martially powerful one, has died, and the dread necromancer player has raised him as an undead creature. That's a lot of power for one PC to have in addition to his own spellcasting, and I feel there should be a cost beyond one command undead use.

What do you think, Playgrounders?

[eggynack]

It looks like an infinite type thing. What's he using to make the melee guy into an undead, though? The specifics might decrease its power some.

[nersxe]

It looks like an infinite type thing. What's he using to make the melee guy into an undead, though? The specifics might decrease its power some.

I allowed the spell Create Greater Undead to turn the melee into a corpse creature (BoVD185). It seemed to be a reasonable idea at the time.

[eggynack]

I allowed the spell Create Greater Undead to turn the melee into a corpse creature (BoVD185). It seemed to be a reasonable idea at the time.
Well, the monster description does specifically call out create undead as a potential source for corpse creatures, so it makes some sense. It doesn't seem like that unreasonable of a thing to have a commanded powerful melee guy by level 16, especially because it's necessarily taking up his entire command pool. Still, it could be a bit problematic. You should probably let him have it for awhile, because it's probably not the biggest possible issue, and then send a cleric to command it when it'd make logical sense for that to happen. You could also kill the thing, as long as you do it fairly.

Edit: To be more precise about the power level, it's possibly among one of the more powerful things he can do at that level, but it's certainly nowhere close to being one of the more powerful things that can be done at that level.

[Matticussama]

I would judge it based on the relative power level of the group, not the most powerful thing possible at that level. Does letting this character permanently control their undead drastically unbalance the group in his favor, to the detriment of the rest of the players? Then give it a limited duration. Are the other players able to keep up? Then keep it as an unlimited duration.

[eggynack]

I would judge it based on the relative power level of the group, not the most powerful thing possible at that level. Does letting this character permanently control their undead drastically unbalance the group in his favor, to the detriment of the rest of the players? Then give it a limited duration. Are the other players able to keep up? Then keep it as an unlimited duration.
I don't think it's too logical to nerf rebuke for this reason. Having minions that are permanent, rather than temporary, is basically necromancy's entire shtick (unless you're wizarding). I don't even know if making an undead fighting guy is necessarily better than his other options at that level.

[Silva Stormrage]

Welcome to necromancy.

Command undead is indeed permanent, thats how the ability works. And corpse creatures are supposed to be able to be animated by either create or create greater undead anyways so thats normal really. If you feel that its problematic make it so that he has to spend 1 rebuke undead attempt each day to keep the creature under control. (Also how is he commanding a 16th level PC ally. If he is only level 16 then he can only command 8 HD creatures. Unless he has built his character around boosting rebuking level.)

[Zanos]

This seems alright to me. The Dread Necromancer's entire set of class feature's is basically built around creating and summoning undead. It's not an awakened zombie hydra, so it's damage output shouldn't be that much. As a frontline fighter it also should have hurt for him to have lost his con mod. I guess if he used a desecrated altar + undead mastery + corpsecrafter to make this thing it's not really relevant, though.

Using rebuke to command undead is permanent as far as I understand. You can only use rebuke to command undead of HD equal to your caster level however, so he can't use rebuke to command anymore. I think you misintepreted the results though. Only undead who would be destroyed by turning are commanded, which requires you to have twice their level.

[Mnemnosyne]

I would judge it based on the relative power level of the group, not the most powerful thing possible at that level. Does letting this character permanently control their undead drastically unbalance the group in his favor, to the detriment of the rest of the players? Then give it a limited duration. Are the other players able to keep up? Then keep it as an unlimited duration.
I think that unless the player was informed ahead of time that one of his core class features would not work by the written rules, there should definitely be no changes made to the ability itself - commanding an undead creature places it permanently under the control of the cleric/dread necromancer involved.

That said, fairly removing the creature from his control is doable. When it makes sense, put him up against a cleric with the Sun domain and have him eat a Greater Turning and the problem should be solved handily.

Although yes, do be sure that the rules for command undead are being followed and such; the cleric's level for the purposes of rebuking must be at least twice the HD of the undead in question. It does sound a little odd that an undead made out of a fellow party member could be easily commanded, although it's possible he's optimized his level for the purposes of rebuking high enough to allow him to do this. If it turns out a mistake was made, talk to him, explain you allowed him to command the undead when you shouldn't have, and then come up with a quick deus ex machina to remove the thing from play.

I would suggest consulting the Necromancer Handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872726/Revised_Necromancer_Handbook) since you seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with a few of the key concepts, and it's good to properly understand all the abilities of your players.

[eggynack]

Yeah, I forgot about the fact that you can only command undead that you could otherwise destroy. More accurately, I remembered that there was something like that, but it was listed under evil turning, but not directly under command, which is where I checked. This seems to be a thing that does not work.

[Zanos]

Do remember that he can use the spell command undead to command it for days per caster level, but because a bone creature is an intelligent undead it does get a saving throw and may not take too kindly to being commanded.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So, one of my players is a Dread Necromancer. He is under the impression that the class feature command undead (that is, the greater version of rebuke, not the spell Command Undead) is permanent.

Well the command function of rebuke undead is permanent the same applies to clerics. The part I think your missing is for him to command an undead(via rebuke) he has to have twice as many levels or more then the undead has hit dice. He could never use it to command the 16th level fighter to being with. (unless he has somehow boosted his rebuking level to 32). He also has a control limit from rebuking equal to his own hit dice which is quite limiting.

The ability to command undead via rebuking is rather weak because of this, by the time you can actually command the undead in question its not really that useful with the exception of course is for certain incorporeal undead like shadows.

[nersxe]

Well the command function of rebuke undead is permanent the same applies to clerics. The part I think your missing is for him to command an undead(via rebuke) he has to have twice as many levels or more then the undead has hit dice. He could never use it to command the 16th level fighter to being with. (unless he has somehow boosted his rebuking level to 32). He also has a control limit from rebuking equal to his own hit dice which is quite limiting.

The ability to command undead via rebuking is rather weak because of this, by the time you can actually command the undead in question its not really that useful with the exception of course is for certain incorporeal undead like shadows.

Since this seems to be a recurring thing, I'll address it before anyone else jumps in: he has boosted his level to the appropriate amount. He used a lot of permanent items, and a lot of temporary items to get it there, but it is there. I did not goof and let him have an undead of a level higher than he should be able to.

[eggynack]

Since this seems to be a recurring thing, I'll address it before anyone else jumps in: he has boosted his level to the appropriate amount. He used a lot of permanent items, and a lot of temporary items to get it there, but it is there. I did not goof and let him have an undead of a level higher than he should be able to.
So, his rebuking level was actually twice his HD? I don't think that commanding this undead permanently was where the problem is coming from. If he's not doing this, he's able to pull off other things of approximately this level. Meanwhile, if the dead melee guy is of a lower level than him, that seems to be even less of an issue.

[nersxe]

So, his rebuking level was actually twice his HD? I don't think that commanding this undead permanently was where the problem is coming from. If he's not doing this, he's able to pull off other things of approximately this level. Meanwhile, if the dead melee guy is of a lower level than him, that seems to be even less of an issue.

Yes, it actually was of an appropriate level. No, he is not able to pull off other things of approximately this level. It's just this one thing. And the dead melee guy is not of a lower level than him.

[eggynack]

Yes, it actually was of an appropriate level. No, he is not able to pull off other things of approximately this level. It's just this one thing. And the dead melee guy is not of a lower level than him.
What I meant was that this isn't necessarily the best undead option for its HD. Therefore, if he's able to command this guy, then his other choices will tend towards pretty powerful. In the meantime, it seems like he put a lot of investment into rebuking, so it seems rather unfair to nerf it afterwards, rather than beforehand. What's he using to pull it off, anyways?

[The Grue]

The problem here is not that he's commanding an undead creature indefinitely. The problem is that you allowed him to double his effective HD for the purposes of commanding undead.

As has been pointed out, a 16th level melee PC is far, far from the most powerful thing he could be doing with 16 command HD. EDIT: Mariliths, for example, are 16 HD.

EDIT: Hey playgrounders, what's the nastiest 16 HD non-outsider creature you can think of?

[Zanos]

Have you run an encounter with him commanding this yet?

The entire Dread Necro class is built around commanding and creating undead minions, so I'm actually a bit surprised that level 16 is the first time this has been an issue. The level 16 fighter might be a bit of a powerhouse, yes, but it should be a tad squishier than a living fighter.

EDIT: He doubled his effective HD for rebuking undead. Those are very, very different things. If he couldn't have cranked up his rebuking level he could have cast command/control undead while he was creating the thing. If it made it's save he could just cast it again, making sure it had no access to weapons while it was forming. Gaining control over a created undead is trivial for a Dread Necro.

[Mnemnosyne]

If he has actually invested enough resources to be able to command something of his own HD at this point, then, well, he pretty much should be able to pull off doing this, because the cost of doing so has been significant and a major focus of his character, and frankly questionably worthwhile, in my opinion. That is to say, the resources he put into this could have made him even stronger in other ways if they had been applied differently. So at this point I'm not really seeing the problem.

[nersxe]

Have you run an encounter with him commanding this yet?

The entire Dread Necro class is built around commanding and creating undead minions, so I'm actually a bit surprised that level 16 is the first time this has been an issue. The level 16 fighter might be a bit of a powerhouse, yes, but it should be a tad squishier than a living fighter.

EDIT: He doubled his effective HD for rebuking undead. Those are very, very different things. If he couldn't have cranked up his rebuking level he could have cast command/control undead while he was creating the thing. If it made it's save he could just cast it again, making sure it had no access to weapons while it was forming. Gaining control over a created undead is trivial for a Dread Necro.

It's, ah, actually a frenzied berserker. Also, the question isn't really how he got his command undead level that high. It's whether or not command undead permanent. It seems the Playground has spoken, and it is.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to answer the first question. No, I have not run an encounter with this situation, yet.

[eggynack]

It's, ah, actually a frenzied berserker. Also, the question isn't really how he got his command undead level that high. It's whether or not command undead permanent. It seems the Playground has spoken, and it is.
It may not be the question you asked, but it is still probably a question that should be answered. That's a heck of a lot of rebuke undead optimization he's throwing around, so I'm surprised that getting a frenzied berserker pet would be so atypical. How is he pulling it, anyways? I'm not as familiar with the complexities of rebuke undead optimization as I am with some other things.

[Zanos]

It's, ah, actually a frenzied berserker. Also, the question isn't really how he got his command undead level that high. It's whether or not command undead permanent. It seems the Playground has spoken, and it is.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to answer the first question. No, I have not run an encounter with this situation, yet.
Ah. Well. Frenzied Berseker changes things. I am not surprised they're dead. And undead are immune to the nonlethal damage. And the fatigue. And the control removes the turn on party aspect of frenzy.

I can see how this could be an issue now. Yeah, I would keep a close eye on that. The lack of a good con mod makes their fort saves considerably lower than a regular fighter, so some well placed disintegrates could remove the issue without it seeming like you're particularly targeting the player.

[olentu]

Eh, is a frenzied berserker really that big a deal. You can kill basically anything with normal charge multiplying so except in a few cases it's wasted overkill damage.

[Zanos]

Eh, is a frenzied berserker really that big a deal. You can kill basically anything with normal charge multiplying so except in a few cases it's wasted overkill damage.
Depends on the optimization of the campaign. I'm guessing probably Tier 3's, so yeah, rage/frenzying without most of the notable drawbacks is pretty significant.

EDIT: Supreme power attack can get super nasty as well, and he may have 10 levels in frenzied berserker if he was level 16.

[olentu]

Depends on the optimization of the campaign. I'm guessing probably Tier 3's, so yeah, rage/frenzying without most of the notable drawbacks is pretty significant.

Eh, I suppose in a lower powered game the encounters might stretch for long enough that avoiding fatigue and what not could be a factor. Though now that I think about that, it probably get counteracted to some degree by the duration loss from null constitution.

[nersxe]

It may not be the question you asked, but it is still probably a question that should be answered. That's a heck of a lot of rebuke undead optimization he's throwing around, so I'm surprised that getting a frenzied berserker pet would be so atypical. How is he pulling it, anyways? I'm not as familiar with the complexities of rebuke undead optimization as I am with some other things.

I'm rechecking that now, actually.


Ah. Well. Frenzied Berseker changes things. I am not surprised they're dead. And undead are immune to the nonlethal damage. And the fatigue. And the control removes the turn on party aspect of frenzy.

I can see how this could be an issue now. Yeah, I would keep a close eye on that. The lack of a good con mod makes their fort saves considerably lower than a regular fighter, so some well placed disintegrates could remove the issue without it seeming like you're particularly targeting the player.

The casters are very deliberately warned not to optimize. Not sure what tier we count as. And yes, the undead thing takes away the reasons not to frenzy. Hence why it's a concern.

[Spuddles]

If your necromancer is causing problems because his pets are running over encounters too easily, just add more monsters for him to fight, and make the monsters tougher.

If his pets are outperforming other party members, just give them double WBL via magic weapons/armor, or an artifact level whatsit. That is the best way, imo, to make melee competitive with most pets a caster may want to use.

If the necromancer's pets are better because they have ridiculous abilities that aren't just hitting things, maybe explain to him what he is doing isn't nice and to chill out?



Ah. Well. Frenzied Berseker changes things. I am not surprised they're dead. And undead are immune to the nonlethal damage. And the fatigue. And the control removes the turn on party aspect of frenzy.

I can see how this could be an issue now. Yeah, I would keep a close eye on that. The lack of a good con mod makes their fort saves considerably lower than a regular fighter, so some well placed disintegrates could remove the issue without it seeming like you're particularly targeting the player.

At least without a con mod there's only 3 rounds of rage/frenzy available per use, and you can only rage/frenzy once an encounter.

Of course, the REAL issue with frenzied berserker is the supreme power attack abilities. Frenzy is more of a drawback than a boon, really.

[Zanos]

If your necromancer is causing problems because his pets are running over encounters too easily, just add more monsters for him to fight, and make the monsters tougher.

If his pets are outperforming other party members, just give them double WBL via magic weapons/armor, or an artifact level whatsit. That is the best way, imo, to make melee competitive with most pets a caster may want to use.

If the necromancer's pets are better because they have ridiculous abilities that aren't just hitting things, maybe explain to him what he is doing isn't nice and to chill out?




At least without a con mod there's only 3 rounds of rage/frenzy available per use, and you can only rage/frenzy once an encounter.

Of course, the REAL issue with frenzied berserker is the supreme power attack abilities. Frenzy is more of a drawback than a boon, really.
Frenzy has very few drawbacks as an undead, and I mentioned suprememe power attack in my last post. I find it rare that a combat at level 16 lasts for more than three rounds anyway.

[Spuddles]

Frenzy has very few drawbacks as an undead, and I mentioned suprememe power attack in my last post. I find it rare that a combat at level 16 lasts for more than three rounds anyway.

Frenzy still maintains the biggest drawback, even as undead, though- you still go berserk on your party members. Taking a piddling amount of nonlethal damage a round or being fatigued after is hardly that important.

[eggynack]

Frenzy still maintains the biggest drawback, even as undead, though- you still go berserk on your party members. Taking a piddling amount of nonlethal damage a round or being fatigued after is hardly that important.
I think he was at least partially referring to the ability of the cleric to command the berserker as a standard action, thus stopping his attacks on the party. I'm not sure if commanding necessarily overrides the frenzy, but it might.

[Spuddles]

I think he was at least partially referring to the ability of the cleric to command the berserker as a standard action, thus stopping his attacks on the party. I'm not sure if commanding necessarily overrides the frenzy, but it might.

I'm of the opinion that command over frenzied creatures fails to work, but I will admit there's no RAW to really support it.

[BowStreetRunner]

There are two entries in the rules that I believe may be worth considering. First, under the Evil Clerics and Undead section (PH 159 or SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead)) it states "An evil cleric makes the equivalent of a turning check." I have always taken this to mean that the rules listed under Turning Checks are used except where explicitly altered by the Evil Clerics and Undead section. This becomes significant when you read under Turning Checks that "you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away". So the question arises, what happens when a commanded undead travels further than 60 ft away?

Also, the Turning Checks rule states that turned undead "flee for 10 rounds (1 minute)." Of course, destroyed undead are still destroyed at this point, but what happens when a commanded undead reaches the minute mark?

I will admit, the rules are clear as mud on the issue of duration for commanding undead. However, I think a reasonable DM might conclude that undead cannot be commanded for more than a minute and only while they remain within 60 ft.

[Cheiromancer]

However, I think a reasonable DM might conclude that undead cannot be commanded for more than a minute and only while they remain within 60 ft.

Any such ruling would severely constrain a DM's ability to have a BBEG with an undead army. Or even an undead bodyguard. It would also be an unfair nerf to the Dread Necromancer character. I think that if his command of the PC is a problem (i.e., if it is not used just to prevent the character from turning on the party in a frenzy), then the player of the frenzied berserker should roll up a new character.

[Deophaun]

Turning Checks that "you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away". So the question arises, what happens when a commanded undead travels further than 60 ft away?
The same thing that happens when a turned undead travels further than 60 ft away. IE: Nothing.

Command Undead is simply the act of putting the undead under your control. Once they are under your control, you no longer need to use Command Undead to make them follow your orders.

[StreamOfTheSky]

There are two entries in the rules that I believe may be worth considering. First, under the Evil Clerics and Undead section (PH 159 or SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead)) it states "An evil cleric makes the equivalent of a turning check." I have always taken this to mean that the rules listed under Turning Checks are used except where explicitly altered by the Evil Clerics and Undead section. This becomes significant when you read under Turning Checks that "you can’t turn undead that are more than 60 feet away". So the question arises, what happens when a commanded undead travels further than 60 ft away?

Also, the Turning Checks rule states that turned undead "flee for 10 rounds (1 minute)." Of course, destroyed undead are still destroyed at this point, but what happens when a commanded undead reaches the minute mark?

I will admit, the rules are clear as mud on the issue of duration for commanding undead. However, I think a reasonable DM might conclude that undead cannot be commanded for more than a minute and only while they remain within 60 ft.

...What?

Turn/Destroy and Rebuke/Command are completely different rules, so comparing them doesn't mean anything.

But sure, let's compare them. Command is analogous to DESTROY. Not Turn. Destroy. You need double the HD of the undead in level to do it. So I will simply ask you:

What is the "duration" of destroying undead? Do they re-form after 1 minute? If you walk more than 60 ft away from a destroyed undead, does it re-appear, laughing at you (or trying to, but lacking in the vocal chords to do so)?

[Lord Vukodlak]

I'm of the opinion that command over frenzied creatures fails to work, but I will admit there's no RAW to really support it.
There's no raw to support that commanding a frenzied creature to stop will work either.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So if the bad guy used dominate person on a human FB and ordered him to stop attacking him (and the FB failed his 2nd save as well), would you say the command does not stop the FB?

[Octopus Jack]

There's no raw to support that commanding a frenzied creature to stop will work either.


Personally, though admittedly it's now RAW as I doubt this ever came up in writing, I'd rule that the Necromancer in question would have to make a new rebuking roll to re-command the undead to end the frenzy or cast command undead and the berzerker to fail it's save.

I'm not sure who'd agree with me but I feel that the act of frenzying would temporarily break necromantic control much like frenzying whilst alive breaks most of the control a player has over their character and I like the imagery of the Necromancer straining to keep control of their minion as it goes into a complete battle fury.

Then again that's purely what I'd rule.

[Spuddles]

So if the bad guy used dominate person on a human FB and ordered him to stop attacking him (and the FB failed his 2nd save as well), would you say the command does not stop the FB?

Yeah, I would say that the command wouldnt work. Charm Person work in a "I'm going to kill you last" sort of way and suggestion would work in a "I swear that boulder is actually an enemy".

But I dont think mental control over frenzy works directly. Actually I would rule that creatures under control (dominate, commanded, etc) cannot frenzy unless control is relinquished.

Wait what about order of effects?

Like a dominated creature cannot frenzy, but dominate would end a frenzy?

I just dont know. Fear effects cause a similar problem. I'd be tempted to make it so frenzy makes you immune to attempts to control you. Like protection from evil and a mindblank.

[Deophaun]

There's no raw to support that commanding a frenzied creature to stop will work either.
Considering that the character can choose to end the frenzy (although it requires a Will save), it's entirely within the scope of command undead for a necromancer to order the undead to attempt that save to end the frenzy.

That said, you could always house-rule that frenzy is a mind-affecting effect, and thus something undead cannot do.

EDIT:

So if the bad guy used dominate person on a human FB and ordered him to stop attacking him (and the FB failed his 2nd save as well), would you say the command does not stop the FB?
Frenzy says that you must attack those you perceive as enemies, and then attack others when there are no enemies left. You could dominate a frenzied berserker, but your order not to attack would have no effect because not attacking you is simply not an option (being dominated does not change allegiances). The only thing you can do is order the Will save to snap out of it.

[nersxe]

Thank you for your feedback. I reviewed exactly how he got his commanding level to 32, and it turns out he was creatively interpreting the rules on one of his items. It said it lowered turning resistance, and he told me it was lowering HD for the purpose of rebuke/command. The explanation he gave went something like, "if it says it's lowering turning resistance, what it's actually doing is lowering the HD". The original explanation was just that it lowered HD. I looked at the item myself, and it just lowers turning resistance.

Fascinating discussion on command/dominate and the effects it may or may not have on frenzy, by the way.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Considering that the character can choose to end the frenzy (although it requires a Will save), it's entirely within the scope of command undead for a necromancer to order the undead to attempt that save to end the frenzy.
You entirely missed the point, the concern brought up was that by dominating the FB he could be forced to stop attacking bypassing the saving throw.(the controller is an ally). My point was the same as yours he can't command the FB to stop attacking because the frenzy doesn't leave that as an option.


Thank you for your feedback. I reviewed exactly how he got his commanding level to 32, and it turns out he was creatively interpreting the rules on one of his items. It said it lowered turning resistance, and he told me it was lowering HD for the purpose of rebuke/command. The explanation he gave went something like, "if it says it's lowering turning resistance, what it's actually doing is lowering the HD". The original explanation was just that it lowered HD. I looked at the item myself, and it just lowers turning resistance.
Well it really wasn't that creative it was actually perfectly logical and both RAW and RAI.
Turn resistance applies to rebuke undead. The item your talking about is the Rod of Defiance correct? Well undead within 30ft of the rod have -4 turn resistance. There is nothing to indicate an undead can't have negative turn resistance which would make it more vulnerable to turning. A 16HD undead with -4 Turn resistance would resist a turn or rebuke attempt as a 12HD undead. The updated version from the Magic Item Compendium simply says undead within 30ft while you hold the rod are treated as if they had 4 fewer hit dice.(minimum 1). Which makes the intentions quite clear.

I would however enforce this, the rod only functions while held. So if he puts it down or the undead moves out of range he can no longer command it because its to powerful for his HD limit.

[nersxe]

Well it really wasn't that creative it was actually perfectly logical and both RAW and RAI.
Turn resistance applies to rebuke undead. The item your talking about is the Rod of Defiance correct? Well undead within 30ft of the rod have -4 turn resistance. There is nothing to indicate an undead can't have negative turn resistance which would make it more vulnerable to turning. A 16HD undead with -4 Turn resistance would resist a turn or rebuke attempt as a 12HD undead. The updated version from the Magic Item Compendium simply says undead within 30ft while you hold the rod are treated as if they had 4 fewer hit dice.(minimum 1). Which makes the intentions quite clear.

I would however enforce this, the rod only functions while held. So if he puts it down or the undead moves out of range he can no longer command it because its to powerful for his HD limit.

He wasn't actually holding the rod. He had it in his backpack. I thought to myself, "no, rods have to be held" at the time, but did not say anything. So, he's borked on all counts.

[Gullintanni]

I would however enforce this, the rod only functions while held. So if he puts it down or the undead moves out of range he can no longer command it because its to powerful for his HD limit.


This is, unfortunately, irrelevant. By RAW, Command Undead checks an undead creature's HD only once; when it is used. After that point, the undead is either Commanded ad infinitum, or it resists the check. What happens to the undead's HD after that is irrelevant.

It wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to house rule that a cleric must maintain his augmented command level in order to maintain control of the undead, but undead also tend to be weak for their HD so nerfing command/rebuke undead may be uncalled for.

Proceed however it makes sense for your game, but by RAW, once commanded, always commanded.


He wasn't actually holding the rod. He had it in his backpack. I thought to myself, "no, rods have to be held" at the time, but did not say anything. So, he's borked on all counts.

This; however, has great material weight. An illegal command ought to be questioned :smallamused:

[Lapak]

Proceed however it makes sense for your game, but by RAW, once commanded, always commanded.Actually, this is not true per the SRD, and the rod wouldn't allow him to do this in the first place as far as I can tell. The rules for HD limits are a separate line that has absolutely nothing to do with the max-level-affected of the turning check:

Commanded
A commanded undead creature is under the mental control of the evil cleric. The cleric must take a standard action to give mental orders to a commanded undead. At any one time, the cleric may command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level. He may voluntarily relinquish command on any commanded undead creature or creatures in order to command new ones.The HD check is a direct comparison, has nothing to do with your turning result, and is an always-on comparison. If "at any one time" the undead under your control gain HD or you lose turning levels somehow, you can no longer control them by my reading.

But again, the real killer is that this isn't tied to the 'max level affected' result on the Turning check. It's a separate rule. You can get a Command result on the turning table, but if the undead has too many HD you still can't control it by RAW, in the same way that if a Good Cleric gets a Destroy result on his check when he's facing off against 60 1-HD skeletons he's still only going to destroy 2d6+Level+CHA modifier of them. Or (even more applicably) if he is able to Destroy something only because its Turn Resistance is lowered, but rolls too low on the 2d6+mods to reach its actual Hit Dice, it's not going anywhere.

[Gullintanni]

Actually, this is not true per the SRD, and the rod wouldn't allow him to do this in the first place as far as I can tell. The rules for HD limits are a separate line that has absolutely nothing to do with the max-level-affected of the turning check:
The HD check is a direct comparison, has nothing to do with your turning result, and is an always-on comparison. If "at any one time" the undead under your control gain HD or you lose turning levels somehow, you can no longer control them by my reading.

But again, the real killer is that this isn't tied to the 'max level affected' result on the Turning check. It's a separate rule. You can get a Command result on the turning table, but if the undead has too many HD you still can't control it by RAW, in the same way that if a Good Cleric gets a Destroy result on his check when he's facing off against 60 1-HD skeletons he's still only going to destroy 2d6+Level+CHA modifier of them. Or (even more applicably) if he is able to Destroy something only because its Turn Resistance is lowered, but rolls too low on the 2d6+mods to reach its actual Hit Dice, it's not going anywhere.

This is partially correct. The condition for ending control is specifically this:

"At any one time, the cleric may command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level."

Emphasis mine. What this means in RAW, is that if the Cleric in question has less HD than the controlled undead, he loses control.

Therefore, if a Cleric boosts his turn level to 32, commands a 16 HD undead, and then his turn level drops to 16, he retains control, as he still does not have fewer effective turning levels than the creature he controls has HD. If the Cleric in question drops to 15 HD, then he absolutely loses control of the 16 HD undead.

But, as set out in RAW, the condition is explicit. Only in the event that the Cleric's HD are reduced to below the HD of the controlled undead, does he lose control.

This is the only restriction placed on maintenance of established control.

[Lapak]

This is partially correct. The condition for ending control is specifically this:

"At any one time, the cleric may command any number of undead whose total Hit Dice do not exceed his level."

Emphasis mine. What this means in RAW, is that if the Cleric in question has less HD than the controlled undead, he loses control.

Therefore, if a Cleric boosts his turn level to 32, commands a 16 HD undead, and then is turn level drops to 16, he retains control, as he still does not have less HD than the creature he controls. If the Cleric in question drops to 15 HD, then he absolutely loses control of the 16 HD undead.

But, as set out in RAW, the condition is explicit. Only in the event that the Cleric's HD are reduced to below the HD of the controlled undead, does he lose control.
Ah, your post here is entirely correct; I mixed up the level limit on Commanding with the Command effect itself. So we were both half-right. The Turn only checks Command/Rebuke once, at time of the turn check; it DOES check the limit continuously but the limit is rather lower.

[Gullintanni]

Indeed, I was a little off. I actually debated coming back to complete my post, but I defaulted to laziness. It's friday, after all :smallredface:

Ended up having to finish my explanation anyway. Can't let someone continue being wrong on the internet after all. That would be wrong! :smalltongue: