Is this optimization trick valid - Gaining Turn undead as a wizard?

[Evoker]

Complete Champion contains the Domain Granted Power wizard Alternate Class feature, which allows you to 'Choose one cleric domain. If you worship a specific deity, the domain you choose must be one to which your deity grants access. You now can use that domain's granted power as a cleric does, but you do not gain access to its spells or extra spell slots. If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.' as a replacement for your bonus feat.
The Glory domain has the power: 'Turn undead with a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll.' Note that it does not read as 'your turning attempts gain a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll'.
Thus, as far as a RAW text reading goes, taking Domain Granted Power: Glory domain, grants you the ability to turn undead, as a cleric does, using your wizard level.
Divine Metamagic shenanigans: go.

Is there something I'm missing, or is this trick valid?

[Troacctid]

No. It gives a bonus to your existing turn undead ability, but it doesn't grant turn undead if you don't already have it.

[Evoker]

No. It gives a bonus to your existing turn undead ability, but it doesn't grant turn undead if you don't already have it.

I know that's a common sense reading of the ability, but compare Glory domain's granted ability to, say, Air domain's:


Turn or destroy earth creatures as a good cleric turns undead. Rebuke, command, or bolster air creatures as an evil cleric rebukes undead. Use these abilities a total number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. This granted power is a supernatural ability.

Turn undead with a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll.

Neither of those specify 'you gain the ability to', but Air domain is granting you the ability to turn or destroy earth creatures. So wouldn't a RAW reading of Glory domain imply the same thing re:granting an ability?

I know from a common-sense standpoint, many GMs would consider RAI to be that glory domain doesn't grant you the ability to turn undead if you lack it, but my question is more theoretical than practical.

[Zanos]

No. It gives a bonus to your existing turn undead ability, but it doesn't grant turn undead if you don't already have it.
It doesn't say it gives you a bonus to turn undead, though. It says that the granted power is to Turn Undead with a bonus. If the king grants you 40 acres of land with a mule and you just get a mule and were expected to provide your own 40 acres, that would be a bit silly.

Obviously not RAI but RAW seems clear to me.

[Inevitability]

Even if your interpretation is valid, why would it use your wizard level? The general rules for turning (which this underspecified ability force us to fall back on) only talk about cleric level, which would still be 0.

[Zanos]

Even if your interpretation is valid, why would it use your wizard level? The general rules for turning (which this underspecified ability force us to fall back on) only talk about cleric level, which would still be 0.
That might be a bit of an issue with domain granted power in general. It says you can use it "as a cleric does." One could assume that means that your wizard level equals your cleric level, but that's unclear. A large number of options are dysfunctional without that assumption, but we're in RAW land right now.

If you just want it to fuel other divine feats it doesn't matter, since cleric level is only used for turning damage and the HD of undead that you can affect. Attempts are just 3+cha mod. Doesn't really matter if you can't even turn a skeleton if you just want the attempts to fuel divine defiance or DMM.

[pabelfly]

Divine Metamagic shenanigans: go.

Is there something I'm missing, or is this trick valid?

You don't have divine spells

[Troacctid]

I know that's a common sense reading of the ability, but compare Glory domain's granted ability to, say, Air domain's:




Neither of those specify 'you gain the ability to', but Air domain is granting you the ability to turn or destroy earth creatures. So wouldn't a RAW reading of Glory domain imply the same thing re:granting an ability?

I know from a common-sense standpoint, many GMs would consider RAI to be that glory domain doesn't grant you the ability to turn undead if you lack it, but my question is more theoretical than practical.
Do you believe the Glory domain grants a new and entirely separate turn undead ability to a cleric who takes it, with the bonus only being granted to the new ability? If not, then why would it work that way for a wizard?

[Zanos]

You don't have divine spells
Southern Magician and Alternate Source Spell can get around this, but you're spending a lot of resources when you could just be a cleric or archivist or sha'ir.


Do you believe the Glory domain grants a new and entirely separate turn undead ability to a cleric who takes it, with the bonus only being granted to the new ability? If not, then why would it work that way for a wizard?
The text indicates it grants another instance of Turn Undead, so it would work however it works when you have multiple instances of an ability with the same name. I'm not that hip to the rules for multiple turning pools but if it stacks then sure.

Again, not how I'd run it, but the ability does not contain any text that indicates it's a modifier to the clerics basic turn undead ability.

[Darg]

Turning undead as something you do is separate from "Turn Undead" the ability.


Regardless of the effect, the general term for the activity is "turning."

[Curbludgeon]

The version of the Sun domain in DCS uses the wording "Turn or destroy undead as a good cleric. Use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3+ your Charisma modifier. This is a supernatural ability." One could argue the ACF doesn't apply to Mystic domains, of course.

[Rebel7284]

The other abilities all seem to list a number of uses. Glory domain does not.
This means that it either
- Grants you Turn undead, but with 0 uses (still useful for some prerequisites)
- Since it doesn't list a cap, grants you infinite uses
- You ASSUME that it's 3+Cha uses, which is not a clear assumption anywhere in the rules: see Binder and other classes having different Turn Undead frequency.

Anyway, if your DM allows this, go ahead. The forum general consensus is that this likely doesn't work.

HOWEVER, the Sacred Exorcist prestige class (Complete Divine p. 56) unambiguously gives arcane casters Turn Undead with very few prerequisites at level 1 of the prestige class while advancing casting. Just gotta wait a bit.

[Remuko]

Even if your interpretation is valid, why would it use your wizard level? The general rules for turning (which this underspecified ability force us to fall back on) only talk about cleric level, which would still be 0.

because of this: 'Choose one cleric domain. If you worship a specific deity, the domain you choose must be one to which your deity grants access. You now can use that domain's granted power as a cleric does, but you do not gain access to its spells or extra spell slots. If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.'

at least that seems to be the implication of the OP

[Inevitability]

- You ASSUME that it's 3+Cha uses, which is not a clear assumption anywhere in the rules: see Binder and other classes having different Turn Undead frequency.

The issue is that it kind of is a clear part of the rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead).


Times per Day

You may attempt to turn undead a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. You can increase this number by taking the Extra Turning feat.

This is part of the general turn undead rules, mind you! If you've got that ability, it defaults to 3 + cha.

Binders technically do not gain Turn Undead (the ability), they can turn undead (the action). (alternatively, you can assume it does default here in the case of binders, and they can turn undead 3 + cha times per day with an additional 'once every 5 rounds' limitation)

I'm not actually sure there's non-binder classes that grant different amounts of turning attempts.

[Rebel7284]

The issue is that it kind of is a clear part of the rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#turnOrRebukeUndead).
This is part of the general turn undead rules, mind you! If you've got that ability, it defaults to 3 + cha.


Huh, missed that part. Good catch. Still don't think this is intended of course, but I can see the rules being twisted in that direction now. :smallsmile:



I'm not actually sure there's non-binder classes that grant different amounts of turning attempts.

Factotum is 3+ Wis + "You gain one extra daily use of this ability at 10th level, 15th level, and 20th level."

[Evoker]

Factotum is 3+ Wis.

Factotum 'channels divine energy' 3(or 4 or 5)+wis times per day, which *can* be used to turn undead but isn't actually the ability 'Turn Undead'

[Oniyoru]

Agreed on Factotum.

Its like the Sneak vs Cunning Strike debate for requeriments and stuff.


Neither of those specify 'you gain the ability to', but Air domain is granting you the ability to turn or destroy earth creatures. So wouldn't a RAW reading of Glory domain imply the same thing re:granting an ability?


"Turn or destroy earth creatures as a good cleric turns undead."

That's the main point, it specify that it gives you something similar to another thing.

[Evoker]

"Turn or destroy earth creatures as a good cleric turns undead."

That's the main point, it specify that it gives you something similar to another thing.

Yes, and 'turn undead with a +2 bonus and +1d6 damage' doesn't *need* to specify that, because there are general rules as to how turn undead works but there's no general rules for turning earth creatures, so they had to specify. The statement 'as a good cleric turns undead' contains no text that specifies that you gain the ability, that is implicit in 'Turn or destroy earth creatures'.

[Zanos]

because of this: 'Choose one cleric domain. If you worship a specific deity, the domain you choose must be one to which your deity grants access. You now can use that domain's granted power as a cleric does, but you do not gain access to its spells or extra spell slots. If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.'

at least that seems to be the implication of the OP
Ah, the original text of Complete Champion doesn't include that line. It's in the errata document. So yes, OP is correct that it should use your wizard level.

[Fero]

I suspect that arguing Glory lets you turn undead will result in the DM throwing books.

If you want to turn undead as a wizard Sacred Exorcist (CD) is probably your best bet. If your dm allows dragon content Kin Mastery (Dragon Compendium) lets you rebuke 1/day. If you have any way to access non cleric domains, the Mystic's Sun and Necromantic both give turn/rebuke several times per day. A 1 level dip into cleric also lets you turn and gives several bonus feats and proficiencies.

[paladinn]

Just a suggestion.. there's a 3e/PF spell called Disrupt Undead. It's a wizard cantrip, but it wouldn't take much to make it into a leveled spell with more effect.

It's not full-blown turning, but it's something.

[Crake]

The grammar is written such that both interpretations are equally valid. It can both be read as “<thing you can already do> with a bonus” and “<new thing you can do> with a bonus”. They attempted to shorthand it, which made it ambiguous.

Trying to claim one is definitively RAW while the other is not is disingenuous at best, ultimately it ends up in the DM’s lap to decide, but in the absence of a DM, youd probably do better to use the very obviously RAI ruling.

[Inevitability]

Just a suggestion.. there's a 3e/PF spell called Disrupt Undead. It's a wizard cantrip, but it wouldn't take much to make it into a leveled spell with more effect.

It's not full-blown turning, but it's something.

The issue here isn't so much "How can my wizard hurt undead" which there are indeed a ton of spells for, but "Can I get in on all the turning-based shenanigans out there, as a wizard".

[ericgrau]

The grammar is written such that both interpretations are equally valid. It can both be read as “<thing you can already do> with a bonus” and “<new thing you can do> with a bonus”. They attempted to shorthand it, which made it ambiguous.

Trying to claim one is definitively RAW while the other is not is disingenuous at best, ultimately it ends up in the DM’s lap to decide, but in the absence of a DM, youd probably do better to use the very obviously RAI ruling.
Agreed. A lot of so called "RAW" is merely twisting ambiguous words and then your only recourse is RAI or some other way to rule it (probably not "whatever the player wants it to mean").

[Jay R]

It's a DM judgment call, and I suspect that most DMs would not allow that feat to give you the Turn Undead ability.

Here's a more complicated DM judgment call:

Suppose a Cleric 1 / Wizard 10 takes the Domain Granted Power with the Glory domain. She already has the Turn Undead ability, so it improves that. But the feat says that "If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level." Using that power is in fact based on her cleric level. So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?

[I don't think I'd allow this either, but I understand why some DMs might.]

[Gruftzwerg]

Turn undead with a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll.
The granted power doesn't give you the ability. It sole provides a +2 bonus on a possible turning check and +1d6 on the possible dmg. If you don't have the ability, it doesn't give you the ability.

It's the same as if you apply Bear's Endurance to an undead or construct with "CON: -".
While the magical effect applies legally to the target creature, it's effect doesn't have a valid target CON value to apply to. The undead/construct doesn't suddenly get an CON score and becomes alive.

Same here, no Turn Undead ability for you sadly..





Here's a more complicated DM judgment call:

Suppose a Cleric 1 / Wizard 10 takes the Domain Granted Power with the Glory domain. She already has the Turn Undead ability, so it improves that. But the feat says that "If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level." Using that power is in fact based on her cleric level. So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?

[I don't think I'd allow this either, but I understand why some DMs might.]

yes, because...

If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.
... is more specific than the general rules for Turning Undead and it's not even optional.

Thus the contrary Cleric 10 / Wizard 1 that takes a domain with a granted power that scales with cleric lvls, sole counts as 1st lvl for the ability...^^

[Crake]

yes, because...

... is more specific than the general rules for Turning Undead and it's not even optional.

Thus the contrary Cleric 10 / Wizard 1 that takes a domain with a granted power that scales with cleric lvls, sole counts as 1st lvl for the ability...^^

No, because nothing about the GLORY DOMAIN’s granted power is based on cleric level. It affects ANOTHER ability thats based on cleric level, but the glory domain’s ability itself is a static bonus, not based on anything.

[Gruftzwerg]

No, because nothing about the GLORY DOMAIN’s granted power is based on cleric level. It affects ANOTHER ability thats based on cleric level, but the glory domain’s ability itself is a static bonus, not based on anything.

Sorry if the post is maybe a bit misleading..

The post was meant sole to show at which effective lvl you would activate "a granted power that is based upon cleric level".
I didn't change my point of view that I excluded the Glory domain power (from being an scaling ability itself) in the first place. It's still just a bonus and not an ability that scales with Cleric lvl.

[Crake]

Sorry if the post is maybe a bit misleading..

The post was meant sole to show at which effective lvl you would activate "a granted power that is based upon cleric level".
I didn't change my point of view that I excluded the Glory domain power (from being an scaling ability itself) in the first place. It's still just a bonus and not an ability that scales with Cleric lvl.

I mean, you said “yes” to the question, which was specifically, “would changing the class which the glory domain scales on make the base turn undead scale at that level?”, so if yes was not your answer to that question, then your post was indeed misleading.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, you said “yes” to the question, which was specifically, “would changing the class which the glory domain scales on make the base turn undead scale at that level?”, so if yes was not your answer to that question, then your post was indeed misleading.


So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?

yes, because...

Do you get it know? As said, I already excluded the glory domain power from being an active ability in the first place. It's sole a bonus.

The "yes" was sole meant to explain at which lvls a scaling ability would be used.
That is why I also included the counter example into my post with Cleric 10/Wiz 1.

[Crake]

Do you get it know? As said, I already excluded the glory domain power from being an active ability in the first place. It's sole a bonus.

The "yes" was sole meant to explain at which lvls a scaling ability would be used.
That is why I also included the counter example into my post with Cleric 10/Wiz 1.

Okay, you seem to be saying one thing and then saying something counter to it.

To the question “Does she turn undead at 10th level” you said yes. Then later you said that you admit that glory is a static bonus that doesn’t scale, so which is your assertion? Does a wizard10/cleric 1 with the glory domain turn as a 10th level or 1st level in your mind?

[Gruftzwerg]

Okay, you seem to be saying one thing and then saying something counter to it.

To the question “Does she turn undead at 10th level” you said yes. Then later you said that you admit that glory is a static bonus that doesn’t scale, so which is your assertion? Does a wizard10/cleric 1 with the glory domain turn as a 10th level or 1st level in your mind?

Let me quote what I said:



Turn undead with a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll.
The granted power doesn't give you the ability. It sole provides a +2 bonus on a possible turning check and +1d6 on the possible dmg. If you don't have the ability, it doesn't give you the ability.

It's the same as if you apply Bear's Endurance to an undead or construct with "CON: -".
While the magical effect applies legally to the target creature, it's effect doesn't have a valid target CON value to apply to. The undead/construct doesn't suddenly get an CON score and becomes alive.

Same here, no Turn Undead ability for you sadly..


I denied that the glory domain could possibly give you the Turn Undead ability.



Then I tried to provide the effective lvl for Turning Undead (in general) as a Wizard who has access to TU otherwise, since that was the assumption in the quote I was replying to...

...
Suppose a Cleric 1 / Wizard 10 takes the Domain Granted Power with the Glory domain. She already has the Turn Undead ability, so it improves that.
...
So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?


yes, because...

If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.
... is more specific than the general rules for Turning Undead and it's not even optional.

Thus the contrary Cleric 10 / Wizard 1 that takes a domain with a granted power that scales with cleric lvls, sole counts as 1st lvl for the ability...^^
The "yes" was aimed at the sole question at the end of the quote: "So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?"

Then I provided the counterexample for Cleric 10/ Wizard 1.

Try paying some attention to the quotes I'm replying to (and what others are contributing to the topic), instead of going onto a witch-hunt in my responses ;)

edit: I dunno, but maybe you are struggling with this here (?):
The granted ability of the Glory domain is a "rider"-effect. Which means, it can't be used alone and is altering another ability (Turn Undead). The wizard ACF is sole asking if the ability is "based upon cleric levels", not if it "scales with cleric levels". Thus a "bonus to effective cleric levels" still qualify as "based upon cleric levels". Thus the "rider"-ability from the Glory domain now alters TU to be based upon Wizard lvls.
Dunno if that was/is the point which wasn't clear enough?

[Crake]

Let me quote what I said:

I denied that the glory domain could possibly give you the Turn Undead ability.

Right, we both agree on this point, and I'm not disputing that statement, so we can move on from that.




Then I tried to provide the effective lvl for Turning Undead (in general) as a Wizard who has access to TU otherwise, since that was the assumption in the quote I was replying to...

Correct, and I'm with you there.


The "yes" was aimed at the sole question at the end of the quote: "So does she Turn Undead as a 10th level?"

And now this is where you lose me. For your answer to be yes, you need to presume that the glory domain power scales with cleric levels, which you stated here:


I didn't change my point of view that I excluded the Glory domain power (from being an scaling ability itself) in the first place. It's still just a bonus and not an ability that scales with Cleric lvl.

That the glory domain ability does not scale with cleric level. If it does not scale with cleric level, then how is it affecting turn undead such that it is granting you 10th level cleric turning?


Try paying some attention to the quotes I'm replying to (and what others are contributing to the topic), instead of going onto a witch-hunt in my responses ;)

I am paying attention, you're just saying two contradicting statements.


edit: I dunno, but maybe you are struggling with this here (?):
The granted ability of the Glory domain is a "rider"-effect. Which means, it can't be used alone and is altering another ability (Turn Undead).

No, it's not a rider effect, it's a bonus. A rider effect is something that happens in addition to the regular effect.


The wizard ACF is sole asking if the ability is "based upon cleric levels", not if it "scales with cleric levels".

The ability in question is a bonus to turn undead. It is not based upon anything. The ability it affects is based upon cleric levels, but the glory domain ability itself is not. This is what I stated in my post here:


No, because nothing about the GLORY DOMAIN’s granted power is based on cleric level. It affects ANOTHER ability thats based on cleric level, but the glory domain’s ability itself is a static bonus, not based on anything.

Which you then replied with the above quote where you yourself stated that the glory domain's ability was not an ability that scaled with cleric levels. So you can see how I was confused how you came to the conclusion that 1+1=3.


Thus a "bonus to effective cleric levels" still qualify as "based upon cleric levels". Thus the "rider"-ability from the Glory domain now alters TU to be based upon Wizard lvls.
Dunno if that was/is the point which wasn't clear enough?

You're going ignoring a whole degree of separation here. There's two abilities: The glory domain power, and turn undead. The glory domain power is not based upon cleric levels, but it affects an ability which IS based on cleric levels. However, the wizard ACF does not say "abilities which affect abilities based on cleric level are now based on wizard level" it simply says "abilities based on cleric level are now based on wizard level". Since we have both agreed that the glory domain power is not based upon cleric levels, you can again, see how I might be confused when you come to the conclusion "but yes, it's affected by the ACF"

[redking]

Agreed. A lot of so called "RAW" is merely twisting ambiguous words and then your only recourse is RAI or some other way to rule it (probably not "whatever the player wants it to mean").

Or dumpster diving for irrelevant text in other sourcebooks for supporting evidence. And a good deal of RAW debates are just people with poor comprehension thinking they've struck a loophole goldmine.

I'd say that the Glory domain is unambiguous, when taken in context.


GLORY DOMAIN
Granted Power: Turn undead with a +2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll.

Turn undead is not granted, but if you already had turn undead or obtain it later through class feature, magic item or some other manner, then you get the "+2 bonus on the turning check and +1d6 to the turning damage roll".

There is nothing to scale here.

[Gruftzwerg]

*sniped the part where we agree upon*

And now this is where you lose me. For your answer to be yes, you need to presume that the glory domain power scales with cleric levels, which you stated here:



That the glory domain ability does not scale with cleric level. If it does not scale with cleric level, then how is it affecting turn undead such that it is granting you 10th level cleric turning?



I am paying attention, you're just saying two contradicting statements.



No, it's not a rider effect, it's a bonus. A rider effect is something that happens in addition to the regular effect.
"A Bonus effect is something that happens in addition to the regular effect!"
The effect of the bonus is altering the regular effect.
A bonus is exactly doing what you are asking here for.
A) Normal: You use Turn Undead
b) Use Glory Domain Power as rider effect to alter the regular effect of Turn Undead

Remind you that "rider" ain't specifically defined 3.5 term, as such I may use the word as it is common in the English language. And for that it is fitting as I have showed you. I just used it to describe what is mechanically happening here with the rules.



The ability in question is a bonus to turn undead. It is not based upon anything. The ability it affects is based upon cleric levels, but the glory domain ability itself is not. This is what I stated in my post here:

It's a bonus to effective "cleric level" for turning undead. It qualifies since it's effect is based/consists of "Cleric Levels". The "target" is a part of what it is based upon. Adding a "bonus" (defined) on a "base" (undefined) seems logical to me. Where do you see the problem here?

You are trying to interpret it as "scales with cleric level". That is a legit option for "being based upon cleric levels", but not the sole option here. The limitation you are implying is not presented by the rules here.



You're going ignoring a whole degree of separation here. There's two abilities: The glory domain power, and turn undead. The glory domain power is not based upon cleric levels, but it affects an ability which IS based on cleric levels. However, the wizard ACF does not say "abilities which affect abilities based on cleric level are now based on wizard level" it simply says "abilities based on cleric level are now based on wizard level". Since we have both agreed that the glory domain power is not based upon cleric levels, you can again, see how I might be confused when you come to the conclusion "but yes, it's affected by the ACF"

As said, the ability can't be used alone since it is a rider effect, which is targeting and altering "Turn Undead".
Lets reread the requirement we are looking for:

If the granted power is based upon cleric level
It doesn't ask if the sole the effect of the power is based upon cleric level. It asks if the "entire power" is based upon cleric levels. And the target of the power is as valid part to qualify for that requirement. There is no reason to sole look at the effect of the ability. Again you see limitations that imho aren't there.

[Crake]

"A Bonus effect is something that happens in addition to the regular effect!"
The effect of the bonus is altering the regular effect.
A bonus is exactly doing what you are asking here for.
A) Normal: You use Turn Undead
b) Use Glory Domain Power as rider effect to alter the regular effect of Turn Undead

Remind you that "rider" ain't specifically defined 3.5 term, as such I may use the word as it is common in the English language. And for that it is fitting as I have showed you. I just used it to describe what is mechanically happening here with the rules.


It's a bonus to effective "cleric level" for turning undead. It qualifies since it's effect is based/consists of "Cleric Levels". The "target" is a part of what it is based upon. Adding a "bonus" (defined) on a "base" (undefined) seems logical to me. Where do you see the problem here?

You are trying to interpret it as "scales with cleric level". That is a legit option for "being based upon cleric levels", but not the sole option here. The limitation you are implying is not presented by the rules here.




As said, the ability can't be used alone since it is a rider effect, which is targeting and altering "Turn Undead".
Lets reread the requirement we are looking for:

It doesn't ask if the sole the effect of the power is based upon cleric level. It asks if the "entire power" is based upon cleric levels. And the target of the power is as valid part to qualify for that requirement. There is no reason to sole look at the effect of the ability. Again you see limitations that imho aren't there.

Nah, you gotta be trolling.

[redking]

It doesn't ask if the sole the effect of the power is based upon cleric level. It asks if the "entire power" is based upon cleric levels. And the target of the power is as valid part to qualify for that requirement. There is no reason to sole look at the effect of the ability. Again you see limitations that imho aren't there.

I've got no idea what you are trying to say.

Does -

1. A 10th level wizard with the glory domain have uses of turn undead? Can this wizard turn undead even if it doesn't have uses of turn undead?

2. What is the effective cleric level of a wizard 9 with the glory domain that later picks up 1 level of cleric for purposes of turning? Is it 9? 10? Or 1?

[Gruftzwerg]

Nah, you gotta be trolling.
I'm serious here. This was no joke.

But I try to not be bitter serious here to lighten up the mood a bit ;)
It doesn't help if we unnecessary heat up the discussion.


I've got no idea what you are trying to say.

Does -

1. A 10th level wizard with the glory domain have uses of turn undead? Can this wizard turn undead even if it doesn't have uses of turn undead?

2. What is the effective cleric level of a wizard 9 with the glory that later picks up 1 level of cleric for purposes of turning? Is it 9? 10? Or 1?

1. The original example was a Cleric 1/Wizards 10. I also added the counterexample of Cleric 10/ Wiz 1. Single class wizard has already been agreed by the participants as far as I am aware (that it lacks the TU ability and doesn't get it).

2. This would be effectively the same as the Cleric 1 / Wiz 10 example. In your example the effective turning lvl would be 9 (Wiz 9 /Cleric 1).

[redking]

How did you reach this conclusion -


2. This would be effectively the same as the Cleric 1 / Wiz 10 example. In your example the effective turning lvl would be 9 (Wiz 9 /Cleric 1).

When you say this?




1. The original example was a Cleric 1/Wizards 10. I also added the counterexample of Cleric 10/ Wiz 1. Single class wizard has already been agreed by the participants as far as I am aware (that it lacks the TU ability and doesn't get it). .

If the ability to turn undead is not granted, how does that build get 9 effective turning levels?

[Gruftzwerg]

How did you reach this conclusion -



When you say this?



If the ability to turn undead is not granted, how does that build get 9 effective turning levels?

I have explained already everything in detail here if you reread my posts. But I'll try to sum it up again..

1. The wizard ACF asks for "If the granted power is based upon cleric level" and not if it scales with cleric levels.
2. It also asks the granted power (the entire ability) and not sole its effect, if it is based on cleric level. Even if the Glory domains power is a passive one, it still is a granted power!
3. The "target" of a bonus where it applies to is "effective cleric lvl for Turning Undead). A target of an ability is part of it and thus the ability is based upon it (consists it).
4. You can't use the granted power of the Glory domain by itself. It's a rider affect altering its target: Turn Undead
5. When you make use of the granted power of the Glory domain (even if passively as a bonus), your ACF kicks in and alters the lvls to be based upon wizard lvls.

This is cause by the nature of the Glory domain power. Since it is not a standalone ability but a rider effect on Turning Undead, the changes made to it by the ACF carry over to TU.

To give you a visual example:
T = Turn Undead
G = Glory Domain Power
A = ACF of the wizard

When you want to use G, it automatically becomes "G+A" due to ACF.
But you can't use G by itself and can sole use it passively when using T in the first place.
Thus we end up with T+G+A
Which results in you Turning Undead with your wizard lvls instead of your cleric lvls.

[Crake]

To give you a visual example:
T = Turn Undead
G = Glory Domain Power
A = ACF of the wizard

When you want to use G, it automatically becomes "G+A" due to ACF.
But you can't use G by itself and can sole use it passively when using T in the first place.
Thus we end up with T+G+A
Which results in you Turning Undead with your wizard lvls instead of your cleric lvls.

Actually, I'm glad you went to the formula level, because here we can visualise where your logic is being completely lost. Your formula is woefully incomplete here.

The proper formula should be something more like this:

W = wizard level
C = cleric level
T= Turn undead
TC = Turn undead level coefficient = C (the power of this ability is equal to your cleric level)
G = Glory Domain power
GC = Glory Domain level coefficient = 1 (this ability does not scale at all with level)


The proper formula would be something like this:

G*GC+T*TC which simplifies to G+T*C

The wizard ACF changes any value of C in the glory domain's coefficient to a W, but since the glory domain's coefficient is 1, the wizard domain power does nothing. What the wizard ACF does not affect is the turn undead coefficient.

Now, if the glory domain was instead "adds +1 to your turning check and +1d6 turning damage per cleric level" then you would get some value out of it, as the glory domain coefficient would change from 1, to C, and then that C would change by the ACF to a W, in which case the formula would look like this:

G*GC+T*TC which would now simplyfy to G*W+T*C

However, notice that even here, the turning level is still based on the cleric level, because the ACF does not affect TC, it only affects GC.

[Gruftzwerg]

Actually, I'm glad you went to the formula level, because here we can visualise where your logic is being completely lost. Your formula is woefully incomplete here.

The proper formula should be something more like this:

W = wizard level
C = cleric level
T= Turn undead
TC = Turn undead level coefficient = C (the power of this ability is equal to your cleric level)
G = Glory Domain power
GC = Glory Domain level coefficient = 1 (this ability does not scale at all with level)


The proper formula would be something like this:

G*GC+T*TC which simplifies to G+T*C

The wizard ACF changes any value of C in the glory domain's coefficient to a W, but since the glory domain's coefficient is 1, the wizard domain power does nothing. What the wizard ACF does not affect is the turn undead coefficient.

Now, if the glory domain was instead "adds +1 to your turning check and +1d6 turning damage per cleric level" then you would get some value out of it, as the glory domain coefficient would change from 1, to C, and then that C would change by the ACF to a W, in which case the formula would look like this:

G*GC+T*TC which would now simplyfy to G*W+T*C

However, notice that even here, the turning level is still based on the cleric level, because the ACF does not affect TC, it only affects GC.

You are trying to make 2 steps (stacks) here while using a single formula...

You use Turn Undead in a single moment where all effects land on the "stack" (sorry for using trading card game language here, but imho it fits). You are free to change the order of application to your benefit but you can't resolve 2 "stacks" if you sole have one. There is no stopping point. You try to make it look like 2 things that happen one after the other, but they all happen in the same instant. You may sole chose the order of application for that instant moment as said.

[Crake]

You are trying to make 2 steps (stacks) here while using a single formula...

You use Turn Undead in a single moment where all effects land on the "stack" (sorry for using trading card game language here, but imho it fits). You are free to change the order of application to your benefit but you can't resolve 2 "stacks" if you sole have one. There is no stopping point. You try to make it look like 2 things that happen one after the other, but they all happen in the same instant. You may sole chose the order of application for that instant moment as said.

You can choose order of application only when something is happening to the same thing. This is a case of a bonus to a bonus. Like how natural armor is a bonus, but you can have an enhancement bonus to the natural armor. It's a bonus to the bonus, and will stack with enhancement bonuses to armor, because they're enhancement bonuses to two differnet bonuses. The wizard ACF is affecting the bonus, not the whole ability.

By your logic, since "everything is one stack" if you had an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus, and an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus, they wouldn't stack, because it's all one giant stack on your AC, but they DO stack, because its NOT the MTG stack mechanic.

In a hypothetical scenario, if rogues had a special ability that gave you +5 to hit when sneak attacking, and there was a fighter ACF that let you get rogue special abilities, but if that special ability is based on rogue levels, it is instead based on fighter levels, and you were a level 10 fighter/level 1 rogue, you would still do 1d6 sneak attack damage, with a +5 to hit, because the special ability is +5 to hit, and is not based on rogue level. You would NOT get +5 to hit AND 5d6 sneak attack "because sneak attack is based on rogue levels".

[redking]

The only way that wizard levels = cleric levels for turning undead is if turning undead is actually granted.

[Crake]

The only way that wizard levels = cleric levels for turning undead is if turning undead is actually granted.

This is correct

[redking]

The elemental domains, such as Air, would appear to grant turning or rebuking.


Air Domain
Granted Powers: Turn or destroy earth creatures as a good cleric turns undead. Rebuke or command air creatures as an evil cleric rebukes undead. Use these abilities a total number of times per day equal to 3 + Cha modifier.

It even says how many times a day you can turn. This should be keyed of the wizard level for this ACF.

[Gruftzwerg]

You can choose order of application only when something is happening to the same thing. This is a case of a bonus to a bonus. Like how natural armor is a bonus, but you can have an enhancement bonus to the natural armor. It's a bonus to the bonus, and will stack with enhancement bonuses to armor, because they're enhancement bonuses to two differnet bonuses. The wizard ACF is affecting the bonus, not the whole ability.

By your logic, since "everything is one stack" if you had an enhancement bonus to your armor bonus, and an enhancement bonus to your natural armor bonus, they wouldn't stack, because it's all one giant stack on your AC, but they DO stack, because its NOT the MTG stack mechanic.

In a hypothetical scenario, if rogues had a special ability that gave you +5 to hit when sneak attacking, and there was a fighter ACF that let you get rogue special abilities, but if that special ability is based on rogue levels, it is instead based on fighter levels, and you were a level 10 fighter/level 1 rogue, you would still do 1d6 sneak attack damage, with a +5 to hit, because the special ability is +5 to hit, and is not based on rogue level. You would NOT get +5 to hit AND 5d6 sneak attack "because sneak attack is based on rogue levels".
Neither the Glory domain power nor the wizard ACF do require a separate action to use. They all are in effect at the same instant as you use Turn Undead. Thus you sole have a single "stack" to resolve and not two.
If either the Glory domain power or the wizard's ACF would require a free/swift action to use, you would be totally right. But that is not the case here. We have a single action, a single instant and thus a single "stack" to resolve.

Regarding your enhancement bonus example. They have different target they apply to and are not part of the same calculation. Further the AC components have their own calculations, since depending on the needed AC type (AC; touch AC; flatfooted AC..) you have different calculations. And these AC values are ongoing always passive effects.
This ain't the same as an use-limited ability (activation) that comes with 2 passive rider effects. The rider effects can't have a calculation unless you use Turn Undead in the first place.





The only way that wizard levels = cleric levels for turning undead is if turning undead is actually granted.
The domain granted power is a rider effect for Turn Undead and can sole be used along it.
And the wiz ACF is a rider effect that can sole be used along the domain granted power.
Thus the ACF alters the domain power to alter Turn Undead at the instant you use TU.

[Crake]

Neither the Glory domain power nor the wizard ACF do require a separate action to use. They all are in effect at the same instant as you use Turn Undead. Thus you sole have a single "stack" to resolve and not two.
If either the Glory domain power or the wizard's ACF would require a free/swift action to use, you would be totally right. But that is not the case here. We have a single action, a single instant and thus a single "stack" to resolve.

Regarding your enhancement bonus example. They have different target they apply to and are not part of the same calculation. Further the AC components have their own calculations, since depending on the needed AC type (AC; touch AC; flatfooted AC..) you have different calculations. And these AC values are ongoing always passive effects.
This ain't the same as an use-limited ability (activation) that comes with 2 passive rider effects. The rider effects can't have a calculation unless you use Turn Undead in the first place.





The domain granted power is a rider effect for Turn Undead and can sole be used along it.
And the wiz ACF is a rider effect that can sole be used along the domain granted power.
Thus the ACF alters the domain power to alter Turn Undead at the instant you use TU.

For the last time, glory domain is not a rider effect, it is a bonus. And the wizard ACF is affecting only the bonus, just like how the enhancement bonus to natural armor is a bonus to a bonus. The only difference is that the wizard ACF is a bonus to a variable that is not used in the calculation.

Just take the L here, nobody is gonna agree with your interpretation, and maybe you gotta reevaluate your logic, because it just straight up doesnt make sense.

Consider it like an apple pie with cream.

The apple pie is turn undead. The cream is the glory domain power. Cleric is apples, wizard is strawberries. The wizard ACF says to replace any apples with strawberries in the domain power’s ability. There are no apples in the cream, so you dont change the cream. You dont, however, change the apples in the pie into strawberries, because the wizard ACF only said to make the change to the cream.

[redking]

Just take the L here, nobody is gonna agree with your interpretation, and maybe you gotta reevaluate your logic, because it just straight up doesnt make sense.


Interpretation? Isn't he just quoting rules, using Primary Source Rules and 'specific trumps general' as a guideline?

[Gruftzwerg]

For the last time, glory domain is not a rider effect, it is a bonus. And the wizard ACF is affecting only the bonus, just like how the enhancement bonus to natural armor is a bonus to a bonus. The only difference is that the wizard ACF is a bonus to a variable that is not used in the calculation.

Just take the L here, nobody is gonna agree with your interpretation, and maybe you gotta reevaluate your logic, because it just straight up doesnt make sense.

Consider it like an apple pie with cream.

The apple pie is turn undead. The cream is the glory domain power. Cleric is apples, wizard is strawberries. The wizard ACF says to replace any apples with strawberries in the domain power’s ability. There are no apples in the cream, so you dont change the cream. You dont, however, change the apples in the pie into strawberries, because the wizard ACF only said to make the change to the cream.
Again, "RIDER" is undefined and I use it to describe the mechanical process here.
We have a bonus altering a base, which is imho a perfectly fitting scenario for a "rider". A rider is something that can't be used alone and needs a base to either add an extra effect or alter the base effect. You are trying to narrow down an undefined word and have no permission for that. I may use the full extend of "rider" and not how "rider" is used/defined in game XYZ.

And no matter how I call it, We have a single instant where all effects are simultaneously in effect.
Everything starts with the use of Turn Undead and ends with the use of it. This activates the Glory domain power, which in automatically activates the ACF in the same instant.
You can't resolve a singe action (Turn Undead) multiple times just because multiple effects are affecting it.

To give you an example what you are effectively doing:
That is like resolving your TWF and PA penalties separately and not adding em together because they are separate effects. You are effectively denying that these 2 rider effects (on the normal attack as base) interact with each other to finally alter the base together in the same instant.


Interpretation? Isn't he just quoting rules, using Primary Source Rules and 'specific trumps general' as a guideline?

Thx for conforming that I try to stick to the rules for my interpretation here and that I'm not trying to bluff my way out here (I'm not implying that others do it here. No ill intentions here. Just confirming that I am not bluffing here.)

[Crake]

Again, "RIDER" is undefined and I use it to describe the mechanical process here.
We have a bonus altering a base, which is imho a perfectly fitting scenario for a "rider". A rider is something that can't be used alone and needs a base to either add an extra effect or alter the base effect. You are trying to narrow down an undefined word and have no permission for that. I may use the full extend of "rider" and not how "rider" is used/defined in game XYZ.

You're conflating rider and bonus. I'm not using some special term from another game, I'm using the common english words. A rider effect cannot, by definition, be an adjustment to the base effect, it is it's own effect that is distinct from the base effect, but "rides" on the base effect for it's application. What you're essentially saying is "The rider on a horse is part of the horse". The glory domain is a bonus to the horse, it's augmenting the horse, it's making the horse stronger, it is not a different effect that is riding in on the horse.


And no matter how I call it, We have a single instant where all effects are simultaneously in effect.
Everything starts with the use of Turn Undead and ends with the use of it. This activates the Glory domain power, which in automatically activates the ACF in the same instant.
You can't resolve a singe action (Turn Undead) multiple times just because multiple effects are affecting it.

You're trying to apply MTG resoltion mechanics to dnd, but even THEN, you're still wrong, because each element in an MTG stack is resolved IN ORDER, in first in last out order. So, first, you need to resolve what the magnitude of the glory domain's bonus is. It is at this step, and ONLY this step, where the wizard ACF applies, because the wizard ACF ONLY applies to the glory domain power. Once you have resolved what the glory domain power is, THEN you apply it to the turn undead ability.

In MTG mechanics, this would be 3 cards. The turn undead spell (which would probably be a sorcery), which, for the purposes of this discussion, let's say it applies a -1/-1 to all undead in play for each white land you have in play.

Then, you have the glory domain, which, let's say it's an instant, and has the domain tag. It says something like "Target turn undead spell applies an additional -1/-1".

Then, you have the wizard ACF, which, lets say, is an enchantment, and IT says "Any time you play a domain spell, if the card's effect is based on white land in play, it is instead based on blue land in play".

So, you play your turn undead sorcery, which does NOT have the domain tag, so the wizard ACF enchantment doesn't apply to it. Then you play the glory domain instant, which increases the turn undead's power by -1/-1. The wizard ACF enchantment STILL doesn't apply, because the glory domain instant is not based on white mana.

Now, there might be other domain cards that ARE based on white mana, like say, a destruction domain spell which applies -1/-1 for each white mana in play to target creature, and the wizard ACF enchantment would change that to -1/-1 for each blue mana in play, but the glory domain simply would recieve no effect from the wizard ACF enchantment


To give you an example what you are effectively doing:
That is like resolving your TWF and PA penalties separately and not adding em together because they are separate effects. You are effectively denying that these 2 rider effects (on the normal attack as base) interact with each other to finally alter the base together in the same instant.

This is not at all analoguous to my argument and I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.

[Zarvistic]

@Gruftzwerg
Do you feel like all domain powers are "based on cleric level"? For example, is the evil domain? Being a level 1 or level 20 cleric doesn't change it right, same for the glory domain?

[Crake]

@Gruftzwerg
Do you feel like all domain powers are "based on cleric level"? For example, is the evil domain? Being a level 1 or level 20 cleric doesn't change it right, same for the glory domain?

his logic is that, because it affects something ELSE that is based on cleric levels, that the effect is somehow transitive.

[Gruftzwerg]

@Gruftzwerg
Do you feel like all domain powers are "based on cleric level"? For example, is the evil domain? Being a level 1 or level 20 cleric doesn't change it right, same for the glory domain?
&

his logic is that, because it affects something ELSE that is based on cleric levels, that the effect is somehow transitive.

1. "base" has no specific definition in 3.5
2. The "base" of a "bonus" is the "target" where the bonus applies to.
3. The glory domain power's base is Turn Undead and not itself, since it is not a stand alone ability.
4. Not all domain powers are "based" on cleric levels:

PLEASURE DOMAIN

Granted Power: You are immune to any effect that damages or drains your Charisma.

[Crake]

&


1. "base" has no specific definition in 3.5
2. The "base" of a "bonus" is the "target" where the bonus applies to.
3. The glory domain power's base is Turn Undead and not itself, since it is not a stand alone ability.
4. Not all domain powers are "based" on cleric levels:

I see you completely ignored my mtg analogy that describes how it all functionally works.

[Darg]

I see you completely ignored my mtg analogy that describes how it all functionally works.

TBF, not everyone plays MTG. I myself haven't played but once since probably 6-12 months prior to the pandemic and the rules are starting to get fuzzy.

[Crake]

TBF, not everyone plays MTG. I myself haven't played but once since probably 6-12 months prior to the pandemic and the rules are starting to get fuzzy.

Yeah, but gruft was using mtg mechanics to argue his point earlier, so I gotta assume he understands mtg mechanics.

I’m pretty over this discussion though, gruft’s logic makes 0 sense to me, he seems to be pulling notions out of nowhere that are never stated in any books that everything is translatative always.

By his logic, if you had an ability that stated “Any feat you have that is based on your ranks in tumble, it instead is based on your ranks in balance.” And then you got skill focus tumble, you would then forevermore use your balance ranks for all tumble checks ever, because skill focus is applying a bonus to tumble, and tumble checks are based on tumble ranks, so by translation, now all tumble checks are based on balance ranks, even though the feat itself was never actually based on tumble ranks, it simply provided a bonus to tumble checks.

[Zarvistic]

&


1. "base" has no specific definition in 3.5
2. The "base" of a "bonus" is the "target" where the bonus applies to.
3. The glory domain power's base is Turn Undead and not itself, since it is not a stand alone ability.
4. Not all domain powers are "based" on cleric levels:

If passion domain isn't based on cleric levels, would you say the same about the evil domain or glory domain or similar granted powers? I am curious why you think yes or no.

[Crake]

If passion domain isn't based on cleric levels, would you say the same about the evil domain or glory domain or similar granted powers? I am curious why you think yes or no.

Actually, this is a good example. Evil domain, +1 CL to evil spells. Does this mean that cleric spells cast with this would be cast at wizard CL+1? By grufts logic it would

[redking]

Actually, this is a good example. Evil domain, +1 CL to evil spells. Does this mean that cleric spells cast with this would be cast at wizard CL+1? By grufts logic it would

Gruftzwerg will have to present his case for or against that. I'd like to see it either way.

What are your thoughts on a domain wizard with the air domain, that is also a cleric? Does air rebuking stack or not?

[Crake]

Gruftzwerg will have to present his case for or against that. I'd like to see it either way.

What are your thoughts on a domain wizard with the air domain, that is also a cleric? Does air rebuking stack or not?

I don't think they interact at all. If you pick up the air domain with the wizard ACF, any cleric levels you have is entirely irrelevant. You turn/rebuke earth/air creatures based on your wizard level, and having cleric levels or not won't affect that at all.

Now, if you ALSO had the air domain on your cleric, there could be an argument for your level stacking there, but only if you had the air domain as both a wizard and a cleric. That would be, to me, functionally the same as having two different classes with turn undead, which normally stacks in levels.

[redking]

Now, if you ALSO had the air domain on your cleric, there could be an argument for your level stacking there, but only if you had the air domain as both a wizard and a cleric. That would be, to me, functionally the same as having two different classes with turn undead, which normally stacks in levels.

I was thinking the same thing. Good to have confirmation.

[Gruftzwerg]

I see you completely ignored my mtg analogy that describes how it all functionally works.
I'm sorry that I didn't addressed it in detail. But imho the example did confuse you more than it helped. I was referring to the "single stack created that gets resolved once and not twice". Not how MTG resolves the stack. Since 3.5 has its own rules for resolving that stack. In the absence of an "order" dictated by the rules (or opposed actions), you have the freedom to pick the most favorable order. Something completely different from the way MTG resolves it stacks.
Further, each MTG card on the stack is an action by itself, while the several effects in 3.5 are not all actions by themselves. This is another reason why you can't resolve 3.5 "stacks" like in MTG.
My intention here was sole to showcase that a single stack is resolved once and not split up.

You are narrowing down the ACF to sole work with domain power that scale themselves with cleric levels, while the rules sole expect that the ability is "based" on cleric levels. (see my response to Zarvistic for more details on this).



If passion domain isn't based on cleric levels, would you say the same about the evil domain or glory domain or similar granted powers? I am curious why you think yes or no.
The evil & glory domain powers are not standalone abilities. They are bonuses that apply to a "base".

As such they qualify for the requirement the ACF has to turn it into based on Wizard lvls. Because cleric levels are part of its base.

Remind you that "base" is undefined. And imho a non-standalone ability is not its own "base". The base is the target where the "non-standalone ability" applies to.

"A bonus is applied to a base" is imho a legal use of the general English definition for "base".

So, if you ask if the glory domain power is based upon cleric levels:
- it looks up its "base" (Turn Undead)
- checks for cleric lvls there
- find out that the base consists of cleric lvls.

Same for the Evil domain power. It's "base" are "evil cleric spells". Since you need cleric lvls for your caster lvls here, it's based upon cleric lvls.

Turn/Rebuke XXX always rely upon the general Turn/Rebuke Undead mechanics. And TU is based upon cleric lvls. Thus any specific version of it is also a legal target for the wizard ACF to change it to be based upon wizard lvls.




Now, if you ALSO had the air domain on your cleric, there could be an argument for your level stacking there, but only if you had the air domain as both a wizard and a cleric. That would be, to me, functionally the same as having two different classes with turn undead, which normally stacks in levels.

I don't think that it would stack. We have no permission to stack em.
And if we have a closer look at the ACF:

If the granted power is based upon cleric level, it becomes instead based upon your wizard level.
This is not optional. You have to take Wizard lvls if possible. You may not add you cleric lvls, nor ignore this ACF in favor of using your cleric lvls.

At it seems you are stuck to use the ACF. Even if you don't want to.

[Crake]

You are narrowing down the ACF to sole work with domain power that scale themselves with cleric levels, while the rules sole expect that the ability is "based" on cleric levels. (see my response to Zarvistic for more details on this).

Your confusion appears to be arising from the fact that you arent treating the glory domain as it’s own ability. Just because the ability solely applies to another ability, does not make it such that it is no longer it’s own ability. Plenty of abilities are simply just bonuses to other abilities, but when something refers to them, it refers only to the ability providing the bonus, not the base ability that is being augmented.

Your logic appears to be that, since the glory domain applies to turn undead, and that turn undead is cleric level based, then that property is somehow transitive, and your glory domain bonus is now cleric level based, but thats just not true.

However, I have just realised that there IS a case where your argument would apply, and that is the sun domain power. This power would actually allow you to use a cleric turn at your wizard level, because while it uses a turn undead charge, it REPLACES the turn undead effect with a greater turn undead effect, and since it is replacing the whole effect, the effect itself is now based on your wizard levels instead of cleric levels.

This does not apply to the glory domain, which does not replace the turn undead effect, it merely applies a bonus to it.

Edit:

Okay, so I can kinda understand what your logic is now with this:


The evil & glory domain powers are not standalone abilities. They are bonuses that apply to a "base".

As such they qualify for the requirement the ACF has to turn it into based on Wizard lvls. Because cleric levels are part of its base.

Remind you that "base" is undefined. And imho a non-standalone ability is not its own "base". The base is the target where the "non-standalone ability" applies to.

"A bonus is applied to a base" is imho a legal use of the general English definition for "base".

So, if you ask if the glory domain power is based upon cleric levels:
- it looks up its "base" (Turn Undead)
- checks for cleric lvls there
- find out that the base consists of cleric lvls.

Same for the Evil domain power. It's "base" are "evil cleric spells". Since you need cleric lvls for your caster lvls here, it's based upon cleric lvls.

Turn/Rebuke XXX always rely upon the general Turn/Rebuke Undead mechanics. And TU is based upon cleric lvls. Thus any specific version of it is also a legal target for the wizard ACF to change it to be based upon wizard lvls.

However, let me explain why this reading is problematic.

Firstly, let me explain that, while your interpretation of the common english language here is TECHNICALLY correct, it is NOT the only way to interpret this. "Based on" doesn't exclusively mean "what the base is". This becomes very clearly problematic when you realise that a melee attack roll's base is BAB, it's literally in the name, BASE attack bonus. However, a melee attack roll is not considered bab based, it's considered strength based, even though strength is not the foundation upon which the attack roll is calculated.

This becomes further problematic, because now, for your logic to be consistent, a paladin's smite damage is not paladin based, it is strength based, a rogue's sneak attack damage is not rogue level based, it is strength based, will saves are not wisdom based, they are base will save based, and, to link it back to the topic at hand, the destruction domain's damage bonus is not cleric based, it is based on whatever the damage roll is being based on.

Thus, you can start to see why, declaring that a bonus must be based on the "base's base" begins to be something that's problematic. A bonus can be "based on" something, while still being applied to a "base" that is "based on" something that's not even it's "base". Because "based on" doesn't actually need to mean (and clearly doesn't mean in this context) the foundation upon which something is built. In the context of dnd "based on" is usually used to describe something in particular about a power.

To summarise, for your logic to be consisent:

A paladin's smite damage bonus is not paladin level based.
A rogue's sneak attack damage bonus is not rogue level based
A destruction cleric's destruction smite bonus damage is not cleric level based
An evil domain's cleric's bonus to evil spells IS cleric based ONLY when it's cast by cleric levels, but NOT otherwise.
The glory domain's bonus to turn undead is cleric level based ONLY when used by a cleric.


So now you have things that are clearly based on class levels, but by your defintion are not, and you have other things that are based on differing things each time they're used, and thus cannot be applied consistently.

I hope you can start to see how problematic your interpretation becomes in this case. Or, you can interpret it such that "based on" means "the variable upon which this ability changes most consistently with". Which is also a valid interpretation of the common english language.

[redking]

However, I have just realised that there IS a case where your argument would apply, and that is the sun domain power. This power would actually allow you to use a cleric turn at your wizard level, because while it uses a turn undead charge, it REPLACES the turn undead effect with a greater turn undead effect, and since it is replacing the whole effect, the effect itself is now based on your wizard levels instead of cleric levels.

Actually, its not clear to me that it does require expending a use of turn undead.

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.

I added the additional bold parts. The last sentence could imply a use of turn undead, but just as easily it could just means that steps to turning undead are the same, except that the creatures are destroyed instead (and it can be done once per day).

[Crake]

Actually, its not clear to me that it does require expending a use of turn undead.

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.

I added the additional bold parts. The last sentence could imply a use of turn undead, but just as easily it could just means that steps to turning undead are the same, except that the creatures are destroyed instead (and it can be done once per day).

Hmm, maybe, but in any case, it would still function at your wizard level, because the effect itself is being entirely produced by the sun domain.

[redking]

Hmm, maybe, but in any case, it would still function at your wizard level, because the effect itself is being entirely produced by the sun domain.

I agree. The Sun domain could provide one greater turning a day at the wizard level.

[Darg]

You still have to spend a turn attempt to use greater turning. No turn attempts = no greater turning. If it meant to not take up a turning attempt the text " in place of" is wholly unnecessary and superfluous. Even if we say that it's just saying that the power is used instead of a regular turning, it doesn't mean it doesn't follow all the rules for regular turning except for the stated exceptions which do not state that it doesn't use up one of your attempts. It does say that it's like a normal turning after all

[Gruftzwerg]

Your confusion appears to be arising from the fact that you arent treating the glory domain as it’s own ability. Just because the ability solely applies to another ability, does not make it such that it is no longer it’s own ability. Plenty of abilities are simply just bonuses to other abilities, but when something refers to them, it refers only to the ability providing the bonus, not the base ability that is being augmented.
Sorry, but imho your confusion arises from interpreting "base" as itself. But as you edit shows, you seem to have get where I was coming from here. So lets skip this for the meanwhile and get to the remaining stuff..^^

Note, that while I don't quote your entire post, I did read it in full length.



Edit:

Okay, so I can kinda understand what your logic is now with this:



However, let me explain why this reading is problematic.

Firstly, let me explain that, while your interpretation of the common english language here is TECHNICALLY correct, it is NOT the only way to interpret this. "Based on" doesn't exclusively mean "what the base is". This becomes very clearly problematic when you realise that a melee attack roll's base is BAB, it's literally in the name, BASE attack bonus. However, a melee attack roll is not considered bab based, it's considered strength based, even though strength is not the foundation upon which the attack roll is calculated.

....
..

1. Remind you that "base" is still undefined
2. You have no permission to narrow the general english definition as long as it doesn't create obvious dysfunctions.
3. Something can be "based" upon multiple things!

There is no reason to assume that a "melee attack roll" is sole STR-based or sole BAB-based. It is based upon both.
Think about a roof that is based on multiple columns.
There is no reason to assume that the ACF requires it to be "sole based upon cleric levels".


While this might look like cheesy reading, imho the outcome is fully balanced and in line with the fluff of the ability.
It is imho also fully RAW, since you would need to unnecessary narrow down general English definitions without any permission by the rules to come to a different outcome.

Imho, if it is not broken, full functional RAW and in line with the fluff, why not use it?

[Crake]

3. Something can be "based" upon multiple things!

This is not consistent with your argument of “something is based on whatever its theoretical base is”

Its also not consistent because it can be applied to turning based on other classes, which then fundamentally changes the ability rather than being self resolving.

[Gruftzwerg]

This is not consistent with your argument of “something is based on whatever its theoretical base is”

Its also not consistent because it can be applied to turning based on other classes, which then fundamentally changes the ability rather than being self resolving.

I don't get where you are seeing the problem here?
Maybe I should have mentioned it first to prevent logical misunderstanding?

1. Something can be "based" upon multiple things.
2. A bonus is applied to a base

(2) is just one valid example for a base, while (1) explains, that something can have multiple bases.
I don't see any contradiction here. You have to allow all possible interpretation if they don't create a obivious dysfunction. And I don't create any obvious dysfunctional oui
If you do, pls try to reformulate you intent. I don't seem to get what you mean here.

[Crake]

I don't get where you are seeing the problem here?
Maybe I should have mentioned it first to prevent logical misunderstanding?

1. Something can be "based" upon multiple things.
2. A bonus is applied to a base

(2) is just one valid example for a base, while (1) explains, that something can have multiple bases.
I don't see any contradiction here. You have to allow all possible interpretation if they don't create a obivious dysfunction. And I don't create any obvious dysfunctional oui
If you do, pls try to reformulate you intent. I don't seem to get what you mean here.

So basically you’re performing mental gymnastics to justify using both interpretations at once, got it.

[Gruftzwerg]

So basically you’re performing mental gymnastics to justify using both interpretations at once, got it.

No, I'm sole using all valid interpretations, since RAW doesn't define or narrow down "base" in any way. The interpretations can sole coexist without causing any weird dysfunctions.
Sorry but it's the other way around for RAW. You have to show me where the rules narrow it down to a single interpretation of "base".
If there are no specific limitations what is a "base" by RAW, it (RAW) falls back to the full extend of the general english definition.
You are preferring "one valid option" while "ignoring other valid options" without any permission by the rules to do so. And those valid options can coexist if no dysfunction is created by that.

Your are basically arguing here that a melee attack is either STR based or BAB based and can't be based on both, because that would be requiring "mental gymnastics" as you said..
Imho a melee attack is based on both, STR and BAB. And this seems to be fully functional interpretation if you ask me. Doesn't cause any weird outcomes where the melee attack either ain't STR based or not "Base Attack Bonus" based...

You are seeing limitations that are not represented by RAW. You don't have the permission to narrow down definitions as you like. No matter if it is a specific 3.5 definition or a general English definition. You have to take the extend as presented by the rule text. And the rule text doesn't limit you to a single interpretation of "base".

[redking]

All About Clerics (Part Three) by Skip Williams (https://web.archive.org/web/20140912190513/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050412a)


When a domain gives the cleric a special turning ability (such as the ability to affect certain elemental creatures), his daily uses of that ability are in addition to any undead turning he can use for the day. He can use the Extra Turning feat to gain extra uses of both his special turning ability and his ability to affect undead (see the Extra Turning feat description). For example, if you have a cleric with a Charisma score of 14 and the Air domain, he can effect undead five times a day (3 + his Charisma modifier of +2) and he can affect earth or air creatures five times a day. If he takes the Extra Turning feat, he can affect undead nine times a day and he can affect earth or air creatures nine times a day. The greater turning ability from the Sun domain isn't an extra turning attempt (it simply changes how the cleric's undead turning ability works), and it's not subject to the Extra Turning feat.

I'd say that puts any questions about the Sun domain to rest permanently.

[Darg]

All About Clerics (Part Three) by Skip Williams (https://web.archive.org/web/20140912190513/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050412a)



I'd say that puts any questions about the Sun domain to rest permanently.

Don't you know that RAW arguments don't care about outside statements? Take how hideous blow works for example. It's an invocation that on its face requires a standard action to cast and then another standard action to use. The author has spoken out that the intent was for it to be just a single special standard action, not cast at all. The FAQ takes it the opposite direction and says it's a single standard action cast with all the negatives that brings. If we take into account that RAW blast shapes modify eldritch blast the statement "as a standard action" must be a modification as it's very unique in that no other invocation has a statement about the action it takes to activate (other than eldritch glaive, but that is a later addition modeled after hideous blow.) Invocations already have a cast time of a standard. Being a "friendly reminder" and being the only one is reasonably suspect as the evidence points more to what ever an invocation says modifies the blast; it's the point after all.

[redking]

Don't you know that RAW arguments don't care about outside statements?

I understand about RAW arguments, but the way the Sun domain works is already RAW and this explanatory text merely upholds it.