|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Okay, I searched for whether this was asked previously, and it was, but no official answer was ever given.
So, the Extra Channel feat, unlike all the other Extra ... feats, does NOT include the special that the feat can be taken multiple times.
Is this correct, or was there an oversight, and it can be stacked?
Thanks!
Here is my theory.
In 3.5 the feat was called Extra Turning. That feat could be taken multiple times.
In Pathfinder Beta they left it as Extra Turning but the part about taking it multiple times was dropped.
In Pathfinder Core they changed it to Extra Channeling but didn't restore the missing part about taking it multiple times.
Was this bit intentionally dropped?
I don't think so. Here's why:
1. It's no more powerful than any of the other "Extra Stuff" feats, and they all can be taken more than once, so I see no reason to treat this one differently.
2. Occam's Razor suggests, IMO, that it is far more likely a simple editing mistake (maybe copying/pasting from the original 3.5 SRD even) than a deliberate attempt to change this feat in ways that make no sense and are inconsistent with all other similar feats, especially when this feat doesn't seem overpowered.
Of course, that's just my theory.
I, too, hope we get an official response, though without one, I'm sticking to my razor...
|
|
I, too, hope we get an official response, though without one, I'm sticking to my razor...I think it was intentional, since they are so powerful now it doesn't make much sense to make it easy to get more. Also, it does a good job of limiting DMM cheese.
It really isn't that powerful, except, maybe, for Paladins. Two extra turnings doesn't add that much to the amount of healing available, especially when compared to a simple 750 gp Wand of Cure Light Wounds, which is usable by a significant number of PCs.
And what is DMM cheese?
|
|
I, too, hope we get an official response, though without one, I'm sticking to my razor...I think it was intentional, since they are so powerful now it doesn't make much sense to make it easy to get more. Also, it does a good job of limiting DMM cheese.It really isn't that powerful, except, maybe, for Paladins. Two extra turnings doesn't add that much to the amount of healing available, especially when compared to a simple 750 gp Wand of Cure Light Wounds, which is usable by a significant number of PCs.
And what is DMM cheese?
Divine MetaMagic. Can't remember which book it's from (probably Complete Divien) but it allows you to spontaneously apply metamagic feats you know by burning channels instead of spell levels. Part of the reason Clerics are considered vastly overpowered in 3.5
|
|
Divine MetaMagic. Can't remember which book it's from (probably Complete Divien) but it allows you to spontaneously apply metamagic feats you know by burning channels instead of spell levels. Part of the reason Clerics are considered vastly overpowered in 3.5
That explains a lot. I am, or was, looking at creating a CLeric for use in the PFSOP, Pathfinder Society, campaign, which is, currently, limited to the core rulebook. Makes for a different view of things.
|
Divine Metamagic was really only considered overpowered for two reason. In the original form (which was errataed very fast) the Player was not required to actually have the Metamagic feats that would be added.
The other reason, and this is the big one, Divine Metamagic when combined with specifically Extend Spell, Persistant Spell, and ways of getting your number of channels up super high for this alone. There are three big problems with this combination, (which is completely legal), depending on your point of view.
1.) you can make many of your buffs last 24 hours long, which can easilt make you Large, +4 all stats, add various elemental damages to your weapons (at no cost), infinite freedom of movement, haste, bless, fast healing, etc. . . This didn't actually happen much often as much as scare people that it could. This is primarily what people mean when they say Godzilla (Codzilla too?)
2.) allows for two strange things to happen. A Cleric could add metamagic to spells before they are normally able to, but also in the higher levels add metamagic to spells that are normally impossible to pre Epic level. One of the worst I've ever saw was a Persistant (24 HR) Time Stop, Earthquack, and things like Firestorm, which are not suppossed to last longer than a round or a few. Unlike #1, this is hardly ever an issue, and there are other ways to do this as well, but this was even less of a game breaking thing as a scare.
3.) the last, mostly based off of #1 is that it could easily mkae the Cleric better at many things at once than everyone else, all day. While things like Divine Power are ok to outshine the Fighter normally because it lasts so shortly and also takes the Cleric a turn to get up, with Divine Persistant/Extended Metamagic, it would last all day and already be up, and made other players less happy. This made the Cleric less happy also, which is why #1 really didn't happen very often or for very long when it did. Why play a game that is not a challenge and your the only superstar in a group of teammates?
Here is my theory.
In 3.5 the feat was called Extra Turning. That feat could be taken multiple times.
In Pathfinder Beta they left it as Extra Turning but the part about taking it multiple times was dropped.
In Pathfinder Core they changed it to Extra Channeling but didn't restore the missing part about taking it multiple times.
Was this bit intentionally dropped?
I don't think so. Here's why:
1. It's no more powerful than any of the other "Extra Stuff" feats, and they all can be taken more than once, so I see no reason to treat this one differently.
2. Occam's Razor suggests, IMO, that it is far more likely a simple editing mistake (maybe copying/pasting from the original 3.5 SRD even) than a deliberate attempt to change this feat in ways that make no sense and are inconsistent with all other similar feats, especially when this feat doesn't seem overpowered.Of course, that's just my theory.
I, too, hope we get an official response, though without one, I'm sticking to my razor...
Yeah you make a good point. I think it'll be a house-rule thing long term because I've a feeling it was left out deliberately.
I would prefer a Feat that allows Channel as a free action so the Cleric doesn't have to be band-aid for a whole round, but that would probably be a bit too strong, although you could always balance it by taking away Heavy Armour Proficiency ;-)
|
|
I don't think that Quickened Turning would really be all that bad. In fact, it is already out there as a 3.5 Feat. I am not sure where this idea that "if it is not in the PF core book, it is not allowed now" vibe seems to be comming from.
However, as for the Extra Channeling, I'm pretty sure it was deliberate, as Channeling is something that can be used more often, and I would say that Negative Energy is more powerful and useful that Rebuke Undead. I can see it breaking the game to have a lot of healing available for free, or being able to drop negative energy nukes practically at will.
I am not sure where this idea that "if it is not in the PF core book, it is not allowed now" vibe seems to be comming from.
Really! Have you not read some of the stuff in the Spell Compendium or some of the Complete series. One of the main selling points for Pathfinder has got to be that they're fixing the stuff that was broken in 3.5.
I know a lot of the broken stuff wouldn't have been a problem if the DMs running the games realized how broken stuff was and just said no, or stopped players dipping in and out of Prestige Classes for abilities. Man, some of the builds on the OP boards were truely sick [if allowed, again a fault of the DM]This whole backward compatibility stuff is a smoke screen really. We all liked the 3.5 system and didn't like the 4.0 system, so we buy Pathfinder and not 4th Edition. Eventually Paizo will release their own non-OGL stuff and we'll end up using less and less of the 3.5 material we all thought we were going to keep using. It's the only way PFRPG can thrive and move forward.
|
|
That might happen, but as long as I've known about Pathfinder, the major selling point was that you could still use all your 3e stuff. I've just been noticing a lot of people here imply (at least that's what it sounds like) that only PF Core material is allowed.
On the other hand, S.K. Reynolds (I am almost certain) told me on the last Extra Channel thread a few months ago, that all the 3.5 Turning feats are meant to work as they are, unless they have been replaced.
Class dipping, multiprestigue classing, and being broken are just as doable in PF (exclusively), it has just gone changed they way it can be done, a bit. I'd have to say that the 2 biggest factors of things being breakable in 3E are that it was designed with home games, (the majority) to be played and balanced along the same lines as Organized Play, which it is not, and that most of the playtesting was done in organized play, or similar controlled games.
|
|
Well, some of us are using PFS for the OP, which is limited to the core books. That is where I am coming from.
I am doing more 4.0 than PFS play, myself, and much more 4.0/LFR GMing than PFS.
My background includes a couple years of LG, so I see the correspondences between LG and PFSOP.
And this thread turned somewhat academic for me, since I wound up making my PFSOP rebuild character (Season 0 to Season 1) into a Fighter/ARcher type, instead of the Cleric I was originally aiming at.
That might happen, but as long as I've known about Pathfinder, the major selling point was that you could still use all your 3e stuff. I've just been noticing a lot of people here imply (at least that's what it sounds like) that only PF Core material is allowed.
I think you're right; many people do only use PF stuff. I guess it comes down to the DM and how much control he wants to have. Keeping a game balanced is the DM job regardless of what material is allowed. I do think that allowing all the 3.5 stuff is asking for trouble, but that largely depends on the type of players you have.