Against the new cleric turning

[TackW5]

I do not look at the proposed change to turning as a nerf. However, I dislike it simply because it is going to take away a really fun experience from many new players. When I took my first cleric into Heyton's Rest on normal, hit TU, rolled well, and saw a skellie crumple to the ground tinged with white flame, it was just cool. And it remains cool. The turning visual, animation, and effect make it remain one of my favorite abilities to use at low levels. So, I think it is a mistake to limit the destruction effect to players who take a particular domain. I get that changes are needed at high levels, but I would hate for people to miss out on something I think is just fun. So, I would suggest one of the following:

1) Add the damage mechanic for everyone over the current TU for everyone. Thus, you solve the problem of binariness.
2) Have the new TU be destroy on a failed save, damage and stun on a successful save. Again, you solve the problem of binariness and bring TU in line with other abilities like FoD or Wail. If they fail, they die. If they succeed, they are softened up.
3) Make sure the crit multiplier for the new TU damage is enough so that people running at level, normal content can sometimes insta-kill with the damage.

Of course, maybe I am just overly enamored with flaming skeletons.

[SirValentine]

I dont need to ascribe the motives of those people. I can literally measure them with datamining.

You can measure people's actions all day. And then you can try to guess at the motives behind them.

If you claim most people want X, and datamining shows most people gravitate to Z, while the least people gravitate to X, then your claim would be incorrect, and shown objectively to be so.

Except that's not the what's going on. We're talking about 2 different situations, and you trying to ascribe motives in one situation based on actions in another situation, which is totally fallacious.

I think the current enhancement system in general worse for the game than completing the old enhancement system would have been. I thought it was bad when they proposed it, and I spoke up against it. I think the game would have been better without it, or with a much different version of it. Yet your data-mining shows that I spend my Action Points. Yes, I do. Because, though I would have preferred a different situation, it's part of the situation now. You can try to pretend that you can measure my motives and claim that the fact that I spend my Action Points proves something, but it doesn't. My desire not to be in a situation does not preclude me from adapting to the situation if it comes about. My adapting to a situation does not in any way invalidate that I would have honestly preferred not to be in that situation.

[nat_1]

They should hand this out as a survey in part of the data mining, apart where you ask loaded questions which have not been definitively answered yet. RE: The part where they have repeatedly stated numbers and values WILL change, and even state already HAVE changed.

As I said, I referred to them as proposed changes.

The answers for the red questions invoke the false dichotomy fallacy by only allowing a yes or no answer, while at the same time using ONLY and then the very next word invoking interpretation. Essentially you are leaving out the vast majority of the data as to why it would not be a nerf, but you clearly explain why later on in your post when you refer to scaling, which makes it not work at all in specific spaces (epics and legendary on high difficulty settings, for example).

You did not answer the questions. You did what someone losing an argument does: stop arguing about the topic and start arguing about arguing, just don't answer the questions because they prove you wrong.

I posed 6 questions and gave my proposed answers. You clearly see that my answers are right yet if you agree then you lose the point you have been so vocally defending. I will take the fact that you switched to attacking the questions as an admission that you understand how wrong you have been.

Taking something which doesnt work in a given space, but doesnt have an immunity, and making it work in that given space sometimes, but some immunities apply, cannot be interpreted as a nerf. In order for it to be a nerf in that space it would have needed to be more effective in that given space before the change than it is after the change. Something that has zero effectiveness in that space could not possibly be made less effective.

Well, let's think about this. I'll use your word, "effectiveness." Currently something stopping TU from being effective is a lack of HD on the cleric's side. Hypothetically, under the proposed changes, a cleric could be unable to reach an effective DC and encounter deathwarded undead mobs. That's two things preventing the cleric from being effective. So in a way it has made them even less effective.

The questions are loaded because they do not tell the entire story, are one sided (obviously biased to calling it a nerf) and do not allow for any other answer than yes or no.

Again, call the question unfair because it proves you wrong. Argue about arguing.

Welcome to the gray area. Its a gray area because examples of a different game space can be provided where you could call it a nerf, and where you would not be able to call it a nerf. The answer of only yes or only no does not apply.

Please provide examples of where you would not be able to call it a nerf.

Furthermore, even lawyering

You seem to imply that lawyering is something with negative connotations. You realize you are the one who used the phrase "false dichotomy fallacy"?

the ability as being nerfed in a specific example does not refute that the build is still not nerfed, because due to the other abilities that can be traded for this in what is proposed, the build as a whole could be built for something entirely different centered on the ability the player received for trading TU away, and be far more effective at what it does than anything TU could possibly have provided.

You have transitioned to talking about "the build" instead of the two nerfs to TU (addition of DC and immunity) and are referencing vague gains for trading away TU. What are these gains? Examples please.

Theres your real objective answer, No, Yes, and No.

Got it, thanks.

[Chai]

Well, let's think about this. I'll use your word, "effectiveness." Currently something stopping TU from being effective is a lack of HD on the cleric's side. Hypothetically, under the proposed changes, a cleric could be unable to reach an effective DC and encounter deathwarded undead mobs. That's two things preventing the cleric from being effective. So in a way it has made them even less effective.

Once again, something that has zero effectiveness cannot be made less effective. They can put 1000 different restrictions on something that has 0 effectiveness and it wouldnt be less effective than it was before.

Again, call the question unfair because it proves you wrong. Argue about arguing.

The question is unfair (loaded) because it demands a yes or no answer to a situation which requires a far more complex answer than yes or no, and the fact that you need to pose it as such proves me right. You limit the answers to only what will support your position. I called you on this, and provided the correct objective answer.

Please provide examples of where you would not be able to call it a nerf.

I did, you quoted it.

You did not answer the questions.

I most certainly did answer them. What I didnt do is fall into your first-week-of-first-year conversational trap and answer them using ONLY the parameters you provided, as those parameters are woefully incomplete answers for those questions. The fact that you disagree with the answers does not equate to not having answered the questions. You in fact, even quoted the answers.

You clearly see that my answers are right yet if you agree then you lose the point you have been so vocally defending. I will take the fact that you switched to attacking the questions as an admission that you understand how wrong you have been.

Incorrect, on all fronts.

[SirValentine]

I havent lied once.

OK, I'll grant the possibility that you forgot your own words or were delusional when you later flatly contradicted what you'd posted earlier. And I'm quite inclined to believe you're delusional when you brag about how you can measure inside of people's minds, months after the fact, based on actions in a video game, after the rules have changed.

The more you repeat this and gloss over addressing the position, the more apparent the true agenda becomes here.

Addressing what position? Feel free to state it clearly.

And what apparent true agenda? You want to accuse me of poor debating tactics, but all you have is vague innuendo? So what is this true agenda? If it's so apparent anyway, spell it out!

Of course I've already spelled out my agenda: I don't wan't these proposed changes to Turn Undead. I think that was pretty obvious in post #2 in the thread, my agreement with post #1 in the thread, which is, after all, titled, "Against the new cleric turning".

EDIT: Feel free to spell out your own agenda, too. Despite vague claims that you feel Clerics need love and you like D&D rules, all you've done is attack people fighting for those things.

[Chai]

OK, I'll grant the possibility that you forgot your own words or were delusional when you later flatly contradicted what you'd posted earlier. And I'm quite inclined to believe you're delusional when you brag about how you can measure inside of people's minds, months after the fact, based on actions in a video game, after the rules have changed.

The contradiction here is calling something that isnt a nerf, a nerf. Thats not happening on my end here.

Furthermore, equating datamining to measuring whats in peoples minds is something wholly made up by you. It shows how far my position needs to be misrepresented in order to have a strawman that you can refute.

Addressing what position? Feel free to state it clearly.

The one you consistently quote and consistently fail to address while offering nothing more than insults. Please refrain from replying with anything else other than addressing the specific position you have quoted several times now. Do not address the poster. Doing so shows a weak argument.

I do note you two are choosing to ramp this up on a Friday after office hours. /sigh I should have recognized the pattern earlier. No worries I will be back to celebrate playing clerics again shortly after the changes occur, with other people having fun on yet another class that is made relevant again due to revamping for the current game.

[chipotle47]

The bolded is incorrect. These arent my motivations. Thats how datamining, statistics, and marketing works.

It's mind blowing to see how you are unable to comprehend anything outside your own box. You seem to think that if something more powerful replaces something, then everyone SHOULD use the new thing because it further maximizes the potential of their character regardless of a person's play style or build preference. And while most people will do this once given the opportunity, that is irrelevant to Sir Valentines point that the change should not be done the way they are proposing.

This is simply lawyering more semantics and calling it different, when it isnt

The fact that you would have the gall to tell someone else what they should enjoy is a testament to your shortsightedness.

A good example of this are grinders.

No. A good example is a person who rides their bike to work because they enjoy it for the exercise. But the government says no you can't ride your bike to work anymore because we have given everyone cars. You still want to ride your bike so they give you a motorized bike because that's easier to make since they've already done so much work into making motorized cars. So they give you the motorized bike and say oh by the way by choosing the bike, you can't ever have the car and your going to have to get your exercise some other way. That's a nerf in case you couldn't figure that out either.

[SirValentine]

Furthermore, equating datamining to measuring whats in peoples minds is something wholly made up by you.

Nope, I never said data-mining is mind-reading, I said your skewed attempt at interpretation of data-mining is mind-reading. Data's data, and I have no qualm with it.

The one you consistently quote and consistently fail to address...

Which is what?

Please refrain from replying with anything else other than addressing the specific position...

When you won't even state what it is? I am unable to comply.

I do note you two are choosing to ramp this up on a Friday after office hours. /sigh I should have recognized the pattern earlier.

Do not address the poster. Doing so shows a weak argument.

The irony is strong here. Is there something wrong with working for a living? Why are you addressing my work hours instead of Turn Undead?

[karatemack]

Lots of derailing in this thread.

If someone insists on arguing semantics rather than the topic at hand... or seems intent on having their own discussion about strawman positions for which no one has advocated... then perhaps it's just better to ignore those posts and move on.

Not calling out any poster in-particular, but simply noting a behavior pattern and suggesting a productive solution.

[Thrudh]

Lots of derailing in this thread.

If someone insists on arguing semantics rather than the topic at hand... or seems intent on having their own discussion about strawman positions for which no one has advocated... then perhaps it's just better to ignore those posts and move on.

Not calling out any poster in-particular, but simply noting a behavior pattern and suggesting a productive solution.

Heh, way ahead of you... It's rather hilarious (or sad?) watching masters of this go back and forth with each other. At least they are not responding to the rest of us anymore. I'm also not calling out any poster in particular. I don't really need to.

[nokowi]

Lots of derailing in this thread. .

I wonder what data mining would show as to the cause.

[guardianx2009]

I've played purely clerics my whole entire time. As a player that knows the class very well and who also took the time to write the original Cleric's Guide to Turn Undead: I too am dismayed by the proposed turn undead changes.

Devs should listen to players that have invested time and to learn and know a thing or two about turn undead. Most players that shout "TURN UNDEAD IS USELESS" don't really bother to try to understand or have the patience to acquire the necessary gear/pl's to make a difference.

Like Karatemack and several others stated, the way Turn Undead currently works is fine as it is. It just needs to be tweaked to allow more sources of Turn Levels for Epics. Currently the only way to make TU even remotely useful is to acquire 3 cleric past lives, special combination of morninglord/pali splash. On top of that, good sources of TU gear is limited and difficult to acquire (Priestess torch, TOD radiant ring set). This creates a very large barrier to entry that no casual player will bother with.

Suggestions for improving TU have already been proposed here

[TitusOvid]

One of my favorite toons is a Cleric and it is a good one. I have invested a lot in him and I truely hope that you won't take him to the gallows.

So my only proposal is: Test the changes thoroughly and don't rush it. Have the ambition to do something good and not fast!

Thank you.

[nat_1]

I did, you quoted it.

No, you did not provide examples. You alluded to the existence of examples.

TU is dependent upon HD to destroy.
The proposed state is having to overcome a DC and being blocked by instakill immunities.

Provide examples of how this is not a nerf.

My case is clearly laid out in yellow, orange, and red. You have done nothing more than allude to situations that are simultaneously unknowable and fully understood by you and only you.

Provide the examples or I will assume you understand how you have failed in presenting your side of this.

[Chai]

No, you did not provide examples. You alluded to the existence of examples.

TU is dependent upon HD to destroy.
The proposed state is having to overcome a DC and being blocked by instakill immunities.

Provide examples of how this is not a nerf.

My case is clearly laid out in yellow, orange, and red. You have done nothing more than allude to situations that are simultaneously unknowable and fully understood by you and only you.

Provide the examples or I will assume you understand how you have failed in presenting your side of this.

You quoted the example and deny it exists. This is a much better tactic in a verbal conversation. In a written one any objective reader can simply see the example you quoted multiple times and yet still deny exists.

Until you address it specifically theres no reason to discuss this further or address any more denials of its existence. I will simply celebrate the cleric changes which nerf nothing, while bringing multiple build choices to the table as well as MC choices as outlined in the official thread on the topic.

[nokowi]

You quoted the example and deny it exists. This is a much better tactic in a verbal conversation. In a written one any objective reader can simply see the example you quoted multiple times and yet still deny exists.

Until you address it specifically theres no reason to discuss this further or address any more denials of its existence. I will simply celebrate the cleric changes which nerf nothing, while bringing multiple build choices to the table as well as MC choices as outlined in the official thread on the topic.

Do you set these same conditions in every thread without ever specifically saying anything? It seems so lately.

[Chai]

Do you set these same conditions in every thread without ever specifically saying anything? It seems so lately.

The claim of not saying anything has been incorrect each and every time. The test to address the actual position is a test to see how familiar the person making the personal comments is with my actual position and if they are willing to come back to the discussion. I give them a couple tries, and if they cant address the content of the post in the context of what is being discussed I lose all interest in discussing that topic with them.

Three individuals here also failed the same personal bias test you did. Once I see the same pattern playing itself out, I administer the test to gauge bias.
1. two quoted their own post from a previous thread, only with my name on it, and disagreed with it - one even claimed it was not possible, then made all kinds of personal comments about how no one being objective would think this way - it was their own post. /shrug
2. all three quoted posts they had agreed with in the recent past on the same subject, and vehemently disagreed with them, solely due to the name on the post.

This shows a level of personal bias which will cause those in question to never really participate in the discussion, only really showing up to troll someone they disagreed with in the past. Im not into being bait reported in a pattern based fashion due to conversations which predictably escalate on a friday after office hours and then implode entire threads over a weekend. This pattern is too easy to discern nowdays. You guys need to find some new tricks. The old ones havent been working for quite some time.

[nokowi]

The claim of not saying anything has been incorrect each and every time. The test to address the actual position is a test to see how familiar the person making the personal comments is with my actual position and if they are willing to come back to the discussion. I give them a couple tries, and if they cant address the content of the post in the context of what is being discussed I lose all interest in discussing that topic with them.

Three individuals here also failed the same personal bias test you did. Once I see the same pattern playing itself out, I administer the test to gauge bias.
1. two quoted their own post from a previous thread, only with my name on it, and disagreed with it - one even claimed it was not possible, then made all kinds of personal comments about how no one being objective would think this way - it was their own post. /shrug
2. all three quoted posts they had agreed with in the recent past on the same subject, and vehemently disagreed with them, solely due to the name on the post.

This shows a level of personal bias which will cause those in question to never really participate in the discussion, only really showing up to troll someone they disagreed with in the past. Im not into being bait reported in a pattern based fashion due to conversations which predictably escalate on a friday after office hours and then implode entire threads over a weekend. This pattern is too easy to discern nowdays. You guys need to find some new tricks. The old ones havent been working for quite some time.

Step 1: Allude to something imaginary, without ever providing a direct quote or something someone actually said
Step 2: Demand someone respond to imaginary claim before discussion can continue.

These two steps are a way to avoid discussion.

All they do is hijack thread after thread, while claiming proof but never actually being able to provide it. It's time for this to stop. We'd love to hear your opinions, but please stop doing this in nearly every thread.

[Chai]

Step 1: Allude to something imaginary, without ever providing a direct quote or something someone actually said

Step 2: Demand someone respond to imaginary claim before discussion can continue.

These two steps are a way to avoid discussion.

This is incorrect. All one has to do is address what is quoted. Theres nothing imaginary about what you quoted. If you cant address it, simply dont quote it.

All they do is hijack thread after thread, while claiming proof but never actually being able to provide it.

Im too busy playing the game to hijack threads.

It's time for this to stop. We'd love to hear your opinions, but please stop doing this in nearly every thread.

You speak for everyone now? Wont play the game, but willing to lawyer what can and cannot be said on the forum for said game. I recommend refraining from replying to me from here on out if you cannot address what is quoted. I will continue to provide my feedback objectively, and if people troll me in a pattern based fashion I will continue to administer the bias test and report the results. I will also cite the 4 times youve been asked to refrain from picking on people for their posting habits when doing so, not to mention the numerous times youve been asked to refrain from bringing previous disagreements into current threads.

[nokowi]

I will also cite the 4 times youve been asked to refrain from picking on people for their posting habits when doing so.

I'm just asking you to have respect for others. I was interested in what people thought about cleric, and not a literal copy and past of the last thread where 10 pages go by with the exact same tactics for not having a discussion. With that, I leave the thread out of courtesy for those that want the same. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk offline.