The first would be fine. The second would be great. But even with just a list of spell names I can see if I retain more 2.0 spells whose effects etc I already have.
It isn’t just a matter of individual campaigns it’s that the rules assume that level X characters will have access to Y amount of magic items. The Y amount just happens to be a little much for my personal taste. I had a hard time with this when I tried to run a low level Ravenloft 3.0 game a few years back. The threat ratings of the creatures are built in with the idea that the PCs will have access to various weapons and armor of + whatever plus other miscellaneous items. So it required a bit of extra work on my part to make sure that the challenge rating of the bad guys fit the group.
Marc
Of course, turning undead becomes useless if the campaign doesn’t feature undead enemies, so 3.5 has added feats that clerics can take that allow them to spend turn undead uses to power other abilities that are useful in other situations.
And if a campaign does feature undead, you have to use a feat to get more turning. So by using a slot that could have been used for something else, you can now do more of what used to be unlimited.
The hypertext SRD has all the core spells.
It’s perfectly legal to use.
An awesome book to get, though, is the Spell Compendium.
ETA: Oops, saw that you did have the core spells. Sorry I can’t be of help.
This may be addressed somewhat in 4.0. From what I’ve seen over on the official boards, many of the abilities that can currently be used #times/day are going to instead be usable #times/encounter.
Interesting. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a 3.x cleric run out of turn undead uses for the day, and I’ve been playing 3.0 since the week it was released on an almost weekly basis.
Daniel
Lest ye think me a munchkin, I’d like to say that starting from 0 level with these characters, we’ve fought undead once (maybe twice, there may have been some zombies). The current campaign is viking themed and undead didn’t figure heavily in the bestiary. My cleric could lose his turning ability altogether and not have it make much difference.
I object on principle. First, to me turning undead is a demonstration of the connection which is always present between cleric and deity. Unlike the spells which are a specific call for aid, turning is the showing of something that is always present. The cleric just has to concentrate. Second, unlike a paladin’s healing ability, I don’t see unlimited turning as disrupting game balance. It’s useful only when dealing with undead, only when those undead are of low enough level, and only when you roll well. While running out of turning could be fatal, I don’t see how unlimited turning is bad for the game.
De Gustibus* etc. I GM so I can have a use for all the maps and characters I’d have created anyway. Mapmaking and populating cities is* fun*.
Hello, everyone, my name’s Quartz and I’m an RPer.
Well, not for over a year now, but I’m active on ENWorld.
I’m looking forward to 4E. 3E has got too diverse, too complex. All those feats, all those special abilities, all those prestige classes, all combining in wierd and wonderful ways of which the original designers never dreamed. It’s time for someone to gather all the threads together and weave a new tapestry.
While I don’t particularly like WotC, I’ll be happy with DnD4 if they open up the system a bit, and don’t try to nail everything down to a very limited, predictable play experience. IMHO,the great fun of gaming is in the things you never expected to happen.
If a cleric must roll a die to turn an undead, then in an unlimited number of rolls, he’ll eventually succeed no matter what the odds. I guess they were trying avoid the inevitable win?
Maybe so — but an optional tool that makes those activities smooth and painless for others can only serve to expand the player base to a potential audience who has not yet learned to appreciate the joys of re-drawing a battle grid because you put the secret door in the wrong place. 
Except that, IIRC, you only get one attempt per encounter.
Maybe — but how do you define encounter? That’s the big question I have about D&D 4.0, if they plan to change X/day or X/round into X/encounter.
According to notes on ENworld, encounters will be redefined as a scene; “could be talking to a town guard, could be defending a town gate, could be traversing the mountainside to enter the shrine of Asmodeus.” 3.5 defines an encounter in the mechanics as consisting of creatures of traps, but I’ve lately taken the broader view that an encounter is some type of challenge to overcome that doesn’t necessarily have to be combative, and that seems to be what 4.0 is aiming for as well.
Nope. You can only turn three times a day, plus your charisma modifier, but there’re no other limits on how often you can use them per encounter.
And I liked that not all clerics are as good at turning as other clerics of the same level. Grabbing a feat to get extra attempts indicated a priest who was especially good a turning undead. I thought it was cool that you could specialize like that, even though, like LHoD, I’ve never seen a situation where a cleric ran out of turning attempts either.
I was referring to 2.0 as was the poster I was replying to. You’re talking about 3.5
What you describe–unlimited attempts per day, only once per encounter–would be both a fine house rule and a ridiculously easy house rule to implement. The de facto 3.x scenario is that you have limited attempts per day, but you can blow them once/round. The in-game rationale could easily be that you’re directly channeling your deity’s energy, and that the ability to channel that much holy energy is limited by the sheer strength of your presence in the world (i.e., your charisma); at some point, your own personality threatens to become overwhelmed by the god’s, and you can’t do that awesome trick any more.
It’s pretty easy to justify most 3.x rules in-game (with the exception, IMO, of 3.0 druid weapon restrictions). That was definitely not the case for me with 2.0 rules.
Daniel
:dubious:
Place me in the skeptical camp as well. I would absolutely love to see that rule, because I really think you’re misremembering, but I can most certainly quote you rules that say the exact opposite.
Oh, it became increasingly common as they kept adding feats that let you accomplish some task in exchange for one of your turn checks. Clever, that.