DMM and Greater Turning

[Dancingdeath]

I KNOW this has been discussed before. I have a much better sense for it now though. In my games a Greater Turning attempt counts as 2 regular turning attempts. Same fuel, higher octane. The argument against allowing that to happen follows the same logic that either restricts or bans Nightstick usage. The rules clearly allow multiple Nightsticks to be used. Logic dictates that a Greater Turning is the same fuel just higher octane. It gets argued against however not because that is incorrect but because DMM Persist is powerful and many DMs do everything in their power to hit it with the nerf hammer.

Its not like you can't deal with a DMM Persisted Cleric anyway. They turn into an absolute combat beast, sure. Suddenly their are more traps and environmental damage elements to the story. They have to deal with more binary choices which can have catastrophic outcomes.

Learn, adapt, overcome.

This is how my games go. Feel free to hate that all you like.

[Darg]

If you follow the minimum caster level rule, DMM is actually on the level of other metamagics. RAW, as you admitted in your previous thread, doesn't allow for this interaction as it is a single turn attempt regardless. If this is how you want to play your game I don't see a reason why anyone would hate something that doesn't affect them.

[icefractal]

I mean that's an ok house rule, but does DMM really need the help?


Its not like you can't deal with a DMM Persisted Cleric anyway. They turn into an absolute combat beast, sure. Suddenly their are more traps and environmental damage elements to the story. They have to deal with more binary choices which can have catastrophic outcomes.About this though -
There are roughly two extremes on opposition balance, and neither one actually has a good reason to scale the power arbitrarily high.

1) Fixed Opposition - The world is what it is. If the beasts that make the southern desert uncrossable are stock Behirs, then that's what they are, regardless of the party's level or optimization. Maybe that means they have no chance and have to run away, maybe it means they can easily stroll through said desert facerolling any that attack. In that case, there will be an upper limit of power before the PCs exceed all opposition and can just narrate the epilogue they want.

2) Scaling Opposition - Foes are tailored to the party's strength, either by being selected accordingly or custom built. In this case, leveling and optimization are kind of "running in place". Given that, what is the benefit to pushing the power level so high that even the strongest stock foes are useless? I know some people enjoy custom-crafting every foe the party encounters, but I'm not one of them - not only is it time-consuming, but I find it makes me too vested in using them, which is bad for player agency.

And to be clear, I'm not anti-optimization. Optimization is fun. But yes, there is an upper limit where I'll just say - "Welp, nothing in the world can stop you now, what do you do?" and probably wrap up the campaign unless the players want to turn it into more of a collaborative setting-building thing.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The only argument against allowing that to happen that is needed is that Greater Turning is not Turn Undead. DMM explicitly requires the latter, so Greater Turning won't work.

You can houserule whatever you like, but in my games if i'm houseruling buffs i prefer to do so for things that actually need it. DMM doesn't.