|
As a quick and dirty house rule: Add negative and positive energy to the list of energy types covered by the "Resist Energy" and "Protection from Energy" spells.
A scroll of Resist Energy costs the party 150 gp (party of 4 pay 37.5 gp each). Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer can cast the spell on the party's Tank (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) on round 1.
If you're short a Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer and need to use the Bard or Rogue to activate the scroll it can be activated with a UMD check of 23. (Assuming a +3 cha bonus and 1 rank in the skill we're looking at a 16 plus on a d20).
Like I said HOUSE RULE. But it seems to fit especially since the nomenclature of "Energy" really should apply to anything that is called an Energy.
Just make the rest of the party take Tomb Tainted Soul from Heroes of Horror. *grin*
Seriously though, if you were a cleric in 3.5, you practically needed the high Charisma as it was to help rebuke undead. I don't see much difference.
We, as players, insist the DM rolls all his dice in front of us, for example, because we don't want to be let off.Okay, I need to drop out of this thread. I hadn't realized the damage done to the game by wotc and video games was so culturally systemic.
IMO I don't think you have any kind of gamemaster at your table. Just a sucker whos been asked to be the banker in a monopoly game.
I think that's a bit rude, actually. We just have a different approach, that's all. I no more believe that a DM should decide who lives or dies than I believe that there is a God up there deciding which one of us lives or dies. In RPGs as in life, you make your decisions and you take your chances. Our DM (which includes me when I'm DMing) runs the world just like any other DM, however when the time comes to see how PCs should fare as a result of a risk that they both understood and chose to take then the die rolls stand. The only time I intervene is if I believe the risk wasn't properly understood (like with this Channel Energy thing).
Richard
The whole story part is killed by this, really a board game or video game would be what you are striving for. Not an RPG. The DM isn't just a judge he's a story teller and if he needs his villian to make a save to continue the story he simply does, and if he needs the PCs to survive against the troll well a few bad rolls go against him and the PCs win. Not that the PC have a free ride, sure they might and should be able to get killed but mostly they should only really face death when they screw up or their dice turn against them badly or in the epic part of the story. When the dark priest finishes his summons and the Unnamed Demon steps out of the smoke, that's when it's time to let it ride and let the dice fall were they may.
But the idea is to tell a story. Not compare numbers on dice and sheets of paper. Well that's what D&D is to me, anything else is really a board game or video game, and they can be fun too. But I don't turn my D&D game into them.
|
As a quick and dirty house rule: Add negative and positive energy to the list of energy types covered by the "Resist Energy" and "Protection from Energy" spells.
Should there be an equivalent to the old-style 'Amulets of Turn Resistance'?
And shouldn't the Consecrate spell, as well as boosting positive chaneling, now have an equal and opposite effect on negative channeling?
It wasn't required before, since living PCs weren't affected by rebuking, but now that evil Channels deal actual damage, there should be justification for such a change to the spell, and wards built using that spell exisiting in-game.
Personally I agree with Pax. My brother (DM for our family game night) has the attitude that "it's the DM's job to kill the players" (and that's an exact quote from him). And it's that kind of attitude that kills games (unless you're up for that kind of game). RPG's were made so you (the players) could use your imagination to tell a story. With the rules in place to determine who wins or loses in a particular action that may have a disagreement on.
"Pow! I shot you"
"No you didn't, you missed!"
"Nu-uh, did not!"
The PCs vs DM attitude has to go.
Sure a 3rd level priest is going to be difficult for a 1st level party. It's supposed to be. Though the priest has other resources to use besides the Channel Energy, and probably should use them, the fact that he DOES have it should be made known to the players through story, and the fact that it makes him a badass should scare the hells out of them. That doesn't mean he should use it at every opportunity just because he can.
I think that's a bit rude, actually. We just have a different approach, that's all. I no more believe that a DM should decide who lives or dies than I believe that there is a God up there deciding which one of us lives or dies. In RPGs as in life, you make your decisions and you take your chances. Our DM (which includes me when I'm DMing) runs the world just like any other DM, however when the time comes to see how PCs should fare as a result of a risk that they both understood and chose to take then the die rolls stand. The only time I intervene is if I believe the risk wasn't properly understood (like with this Channel Energy thing).
Richard
First off, you're original thread is completely correct. That cleric is going to kill those PCs pretty easily. What I'd say is that the game has to be designed with a certain level of play in mind and that there's no way to make that extend over 20 levels. Currently, it seems to be designed with 5th-10th level players in mind (in which channel energy is decent but nothing to write home about), which is fine by me, as that's when most campaigns seem to take place/take off. First level is, unfortunately a casualty of that system, in that most players, once they level, literally get an average of 50% more hit points than they had the last level and twice the resources. Fortunately, 1st level is only one level that doesn't last for very long. what I might suggest, in the future, is starting off at 2nd level. It won't create much of a difference overall to the campaign.
As for Pax, I agree, that was a completely rude response and was way out of line. However, theoretically, I think he's correct. Video games, especially MMOs have instilled the geek community with the idea that fairness is of such huge importance in gaming that they hem and haw as soon as they detect the slightest imbalance of power. Which is ironic, considering that most iconic geek literature is filled with imbalances of power. Gandalf didn't make Aragorn less interesting, and Willow didn't make Buffy less interesting. And, many of use feel that WOTC capitalized on this silly preoccupation with game balance to market a sub-par superhero RPG in D&D's skin.
Now, that being said, that has nothing to do with your DMing. I'm sure there are some very good DMs who make all of their rolls openly, and you're likely one of them if you're this concerned about your encounters. But, I personally would never run my game that way. I feel like a DM is a storyteller first and a game moderator second. The rules are just there to provide a framework for the DM. Personally, I follow the rules 95% of the time. I like them; they're good rules. But, I also like being able to cheat. Keeping the BBEG alive for an extra round so they can get off a big dramatic attack or skipping a random encounter when the group is sick of combat makes the game flow so much more smoothly, and I suspect most games would be better that way. If I wanted to follow every single rule every single time without being able to fudge, I may as well just play a videogame.
|
I think I'm as much a story-telling GM as any other.
Where I think we're disagreeing is on the role (sic) of the dice, and, I believe, on the story that we are telling.
I believe that the important thing is for DM and players to agree on the story that is being told and, therefore, the role that the dice will take. I don't think there's any right or wrong in this and I think allowing the dice to play a greater or lesser part in this doesn't in any way diminish the story that is being told - it just changes it.
Allowing the dice roll more power probably makes the story a bit more gritty-realistic. I've always preferred that. I've been playing D&D now for almost 30 years and I'm in no hurry to climb levels. I get absolutely no satisfaction being labelled a "hero" if I don't personally feel I've done anything "heroic". There has to be real danger and adversity for my character to overcome for me to get satisfaction from the story that is being told about me (my character).
Just out of interest, what sort of story do you think is being told in the Pathfinder Society scenarios? I don't actually run these at the moment but my understanding is that they are run quite "rules-strict".
Richard
I don't see a big problem with the initial situation:
So there is an evil cleric who can do 2d6 to everyone (near enough for this) every round. Might sound bad on paper, but you do get to save for half damage, and the party cleric can further balance it out with a 1d6 healing burst. So the 2d6 become an effective 1d6 (with save for half!)
Plus, consider what other 3rd-level characters could do to you:
It's just annoying that the power is 'too good' for an NPC, who can surround himself with undead
And a good cleric can surround himself with living. Not that much of a difference, except that the good cleric needs to get selective channeling to keep the enemies out of the healing burst - on the other hand, he gets to be healed with his own channel, which is nice.
And good clerics were always so much better healers than evil ones, so let the evil ones get something...
Important note: The evil cleric gets to heal his undead OR hurt his living foes. He doesn't get to do both with a single channel negative energy (and neither does a good cleric get to heal his friends and attack undead at the same time).
That was changed from beta to final, probably more because it makes evil clerics quite scary than because it makes good clerics powerful against undead.
|
My houserule fix for this channeling issue is to have the channel ability provoke attacks of opportunity like a spell. In 3.5 there was no access to healing while engaged in melee without suffering the AoA (except with use of some magic items). Now the channel, combined with selective channel feat, allows the cleric to heal their self and allies while engaged in melee. That is really the only part of the channel feat that seems to be wrong to me. Although I don't mind having to houserule this because it does require a feat to work in most cases.
1st level characters and all commoners are supposed to be in awe of the third level cleric...
Just a thought, but it's not unreasonable for an NCP to have already consumed some limited-use abilities. I sometimes stat bad guys having already cast spells because like PCs, the bad guys have real lives. It's not an unreasonable thought for a 3rd-level cleric to be down to say... two channels. Average of 14 damage over two rounds, save for half. Assuming the PCs have a cleric who doesn't drop in the first round, you're down to 10.5 average damage over two rounds. Survivable and win-able, but not a gimme.
|
|
My houserule fix for this channeling issue is to have the channel ability provoke attacks of opportunity like a spell. In 3.5 there was no access to healing while engaged in melee without suffering the AoA (except with use of some magic items). Now the channel, combined with selective channel feat, allows the cleric to heal their self and allies while engaged in melee. That is really the only part of the channel feat that seems to be wrong to me. Although I don't mind having to houserule this because it does require a feat to work in most cases.
I never understood why chaneling/turning didn't provoke AoO.
Every picture representing the act seems to have them stood with their arms held out, practically inviting someone to take a free shot.
I think I'm as much a story-telling GM as any other.
Where I think we're disagreeing is on the role (sic) of the dice, and, I believe, on the story that we are telling.
I believe that the important thing is for DM and players to agree on the story that is being told and, therefore, the role that the dice will take. I don't think there's any right or wrong in this and I think allowing the dice to play a greater or lesser part in this doesn't in any way diminish the story that is being told - it just changes it.
Allowing the dice roll more power probably makes the story a bit more gritty-realistic. I've always preferred that. I've been playing D&D now for almost 30 years and I'm in no hurry to climb levels. I get absolutely no satisfaction being labelled a "hero" if I don't personally feel I've done anything "heroic". There has to be real danger and adversity for my character to overcome for me to get satisfaction from the story that is being told about me (my character).
Just out of interest, what sort of story do you think is being told in the Pathfinder Society scenarios? I don't actually run these at the moment but my understanding is that they are run quite "rules-strict".
Richard
What is wrong with people on these boards?
The guy asks a question and probably expecting a reply or two, at least a discussion on the problem. This thread started off in thst vein and then it turned into another attack on someones (perceived) style of play which he is now feeling he has to defend.We ALL have different styles of play, neither are right or wrong to those players. Can't people accept that instead of critisising play styles? If all people can or want to contribute to a question is to effectivly critisise playstyle don't bother posting.
|
|
We ALL have different styles of play, neither are right or wrong to those players. Can't people accept that instead of critisising play styles?
Best advice I've seen here is to allow for some positive and negative energy resistance to be added to Resist Energy and / or to replace a number of low-level NPC Clerics with Adepts, so that they can fulfill their priestly role without necessarily being able to channel energy.
The 'OMG, yr playing it wrong!' stuff is just noise. Concentrate on the signal.
We ALL have different styles of play, neither are right or wrong to those players. Can't people accept that instead of critisising play styles?Best advice I've seen here is to allow for some positive and negative energy resistance to be added to Resist Energy and / or to replace a number of low-level NPC Clerics with Adepts, so that they can fulfill their priestly role without necessarily being able to channel energy.
The 'OMG, yr playing it wrong!' stuff is just noise. Concentrate on the signal.
Thankyou Set!
And I never thought I would be saying that :)Anubis is better IMO.
|
|
Keep in mind with channeling, it is basically essentual you be in the middle of combat. Otherwise you are just wasting it.
Well, strictly speaking, you're better off standing 35' off to the side, so you catch your guys, but not theirs (assuming there's a discrete 'front line').
If it's a tangled mess, then you can't help catching them, if you step forward to be in range of your fellows.But does it matter if you do catch some of the enemy in a healing wave, if they arent yet injured?
|
|
It occurs to me, that one of the reasons evil channelers are at an advantage, is the following clauses:
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric..... A cleric can choose whether or not to include herself in this effect.
When I first heard about the ability, I assumed there would be a 'Feat Tax', forcing them to take either Selective Channeling, or Tomb-Tainted Soul (or an OGC equivalent), at level 1.
By allowing them the opt-out automatically, it allows them to blast away, and still be as useful as a regular cleric, feat-wise.
Anyone considered removing that?
|
|
But does it matter if you do catch some of the enemy in a healing wave, if they arent yet injured?
Which makes it great for countering damage taken in a surprise round or trap effect before the big encounter, as you haven't hurt any foes yet anyway, and otherwise would have started the fight two steps behind the curve.
In addition, situationally, there are times when fighting a BBEG, that it hardly matters if you have to heal him of the same 14 pts of damage that you are healing your entire party. If you just canceled out his AoE damage or kept some allies on their feet, and the rest of your team is doing 50 pts of damage to him per round, you've come out ahead.
Taking an extra round to kill the BBEG, at the benefit of not losing any party members, is an acceptable trade-off. I've never felt the need to take Selective Channeling for a positive energy channeler, and I've played about six Clerics at this point, using Pathfinder channeling (I did take it with one character, a high Charisma Cleric of Shelyn, but never played him). Not once, not a single time, have I healed an enemy by accident. The single time it was an issue, where we had enemies that had fallen but were still at negatives, and I didn't want to 'wake them up,' I spent a round attacking the one that would have been a threat if he woke up (seven points of morning-star-to-the-face to someone who was at -8 pretty much ended any chance of him 'waking up') and then stepped out of range of the other 'sleeper' and channeled away. It cost me a round, that one time, not having Selective Channeling, but since that Cleric had a Charisma of 10, he wouldn't have been able to buy it anyway.
What I have felt that I had to do, is take positive energy channeling, even when it didn't fit the character, or I didn't want to, because it was just so freaking superior to negative energy channeling (and didn't require the Selective Channeling feat tax, and didn't have half the Command Undead utility it had in 3.X, and didn't have a chance of accidentally causing a TPK if ever actually tried to use it in combat, and, gosh, how useful is a class ability that lets you do damage, but not in combat? How often does that need come up?).
When one class option *cripples* your character, it shouldn't be called an 'option,' it should be called a trap.
What is wrong with people on these boards?
The guy asks a question and probably expecting a reply or two, at least a discussion on the problem. This thread started off in thst vein and then it turned into another attack on someones (perceived) style of play which he is now feeling he has to defend.
We ALL have different styles of play, neither are right or wrong to those players. Can't people accept that instead of critisising play styles? If all people can or want to contribute to a question is to effectivly critisise playstyle don't bother posting.
The thread went on and people digressed. A couple of people were jerky, but lumping everyone who dared discuss their philosophy of gaming and why they may or may not agree with a particular practice into one category of 'attacks' is a bit dramatic.
|
If we're looking for a house-rule, I like the "resist energy" thing.
How about a cooldown period? Clerics can only channel once ever 1d3+1 rounds. I'd stick that to PCs too, to be fair. As the DM, I frequently get frustrated when the dang cleric undoes all the damage done by my monsters in a single round.
|
I'd be fine as long as there is some compensation for taking it away. PF has done nothing but take away from the Cleric already, so give something back.
Also, doing something like this will hurt different clerics worse than others. for your evil necromancer, taking away their ability to heal their minions (who are expensive to recreate) is a lot worse to that Cleric than it would be to a party healer (because the party just needs better tactics here). Likewise, if you are an elemental priest and can't heal your Elemental or hurt other Elementals when needed, is a lot worse than not being able to try to Rebuke again for 20 seconds.
|
3rd level cleric blasts everyone with a 2d6 channel and says: "Fools! there's more where this came from!"
--> from the various groups of people I've DM'd in my life, I would expect that at least half of the time, someone would take a free action to yell "Back away, spread out, and Pincushion the crap out of him!"
a cult I would do cleric and adapts. Thats how I have been converting some. As most cults wear robes anyhow, problem solved :)
|
|
Do we believe that the CR encounter guidelines are wrong for a 1st level party, and that a CR 2 encounter is more than just "challenging"?
I still think, BTW, that a 3rd level cleric is more of a TPK proposition than a 3rd level anything else. Maybe we should play test this - generate some single 3rd level adversaries and pit them against the 4 PCs on one of the Adventure Paths.
On the business of gaming styles, incidentally, if someone wants to start another thread somewhere else on this I'm more than happy to participate, as long as we all agree there's no right or wrong here. When Gary Gygax made his infamous and rather controversial statement many years ago that good DMs only roll the dice for the sound they make he started a heated discussion that has continued to this day.
Richard
|
|
I still think, BTW, that a 3rd level cleric is more of a TPK proposition than a 3rd level anything else. Maybe we should play test this - generate some single 3rd level adversaries and pit them against the 4 PCs on one of the Adventure Paths.
The problem with this is that it's situational. A party of four with good Will saves (Monk, Paladin, Druid, Wizard) might completely scoff at the evil Clerics DC and take half damage. As for those who don't have good Will saves, the Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger have some of the highest HD available, leaving only the hapless Rogue with d8 HD and a poor Will save as the most vulnerable to our evil Cleric. If the encounter is tailored in the Cleric's favor, with him at the top of a flight of stairs on a balcony, with everyone in the room within 30 ft. of him, having to charge up the stairs to get to him past barricades and caltrops and undead skeletons, then yeah, he's gonna have a *field day* blasting those PCs to giblets (and, for added cruelty, the balcony railing gives him partial cover vs. missile fire). If the room is larger and lacks convenient cover and obstacles, and several party members can hang back at the 40 ft. mark and plink him with arrows, then he's gonna have a less pleasant day.
Meanwhile, in an ideal situation, a 1st level Sorcerer or Wizard with access to Color Spray or Sleep can be a one-man TPK against this hypothetical four man 1st level party.
Another quick and easy solution would be to just cut the radius down to 20 ft. or even 10 ft. from the channeling Cleric, for both healing and damage. No more hanging back at the 30 ft. range pumping out damage, knowing that if the Rogue wants to Point Blank Shot / Sneak Attack you, he has to enter your zone of death, or if the Sorcerer or Wizard wants to spam you with Acid Darts or Elemental Rays, he's got to be willing to eat what you're cooking up as well. Reducing channel radius to 20 ft. eliminates that, and allows the Sor/Wiz or Rogue to use their free bonus damage on you without being guaranteed punishment in return.
You could even do a sliding scale thing, or add in a feat to return some radius for those who crave larger radius channeling. Perhaps it starts at 10 ft. radius and 1d6, and every odd level thereafter you can add +1d6 or another 5 ft. radius, up to a maximum of 30 ft. radius at 9th level (but only channeling for 1d6 at that radius, since you put every increase into range!), or some combination of the two, such as 5d6 in 10 ft. or 4d6 in 15 ft., 3d6 in 20 ft., 2d6 in 25 ft., or 1d6 in 30 ft. chosen at the time of channeling.
Note that line of effect also means that the Cleric may have difficulty affecting everyone if there are pillars in the room that a character can hide behind, or doorways they can duck out of, or even windows they can fire through.
|
|
By way of comparison I was just thinking of using 4 adventure path characters (I don't have the latest, but RotR has a Fighter, a Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Rogue), and a fairly neutral situation (no one is surprised as the evil *whatever* comes round the corner 30' away). I would suggest using 10s on initiatives. If we could agree on stats, I'll build the 3rd level evil cleric for our experiment if you like.
By way of adjusting channel energy, I must admit I'm still in favour of making it 1 full round with AoOs. I think the other suggestions are fine too, but I haven't heard any objections to that one. Do you think it cripples the ability too much? It does mean, on the negative side for the party healer, that anyone he's hoping to save from death with channel energy will bleed for 1 more round.
Cheers
Richard
|
|
I'd be fine as long as there is some compensation for taking it away. PF has done nothing but take away from the Cleric already, so give something back.
Also, doing something like this will hurt different clerics worse than others. for your evil necromancer, taking away their ability to heal their minions (who are expensive to recreate) is a lot worse to that Cleric than it would be to a party healer (because the party just needs better tactics here). Likewise, if you are an elemental priest and can't heal your Elemental or hurt other Elementals when needed, is a lot worse than not being able to try to Rebuke again for 20 seconds.
So super-charged domains and free weapon proficiencies and a bunch of free healing from a near-useless ability isn't giving things back? Mmkay.Anyhoo. The point is to hurt the negative energy clerics. They hit too hard at low levels.
"Super charged" is pretty debatible (many are by far weaker) and "free weapon Prof" only works about half the time, if the cleric doesn't already get it as a simple weapon which most do. But that is not the point. You are thinking about NPC's only. Taking that away from PC's can really screw with them, like I said an undead controller who heal their minions is out a lot of money. :) But lets go ahead and do that, and Sneak Attack is now 1/day, and PC's are immune to being a Favored Enemy. :)
...Plus, consider what other 3rd-level characters could do to you:...
Of course the difference being that your examples, fighter excluded, involve 1 PC being taken down, not the whole party. Even the fighter would only hit threatened and adjacent characters.
That aside, I guess I'm a libertarian when it comes to this situation. Still don't see a need to houserule it when as a DM I can just use my discretion and common sense to avoid slaughtering my friends' characters needlessly. All of the rule-based scenarios I've read in this thread that involve avoiding the 30' burst seem contrived and situationally idealistic (no offense meant). What happens if you meet the cleric in a typical 20x20 dungeon room? It all comes back to reasonable DMing.
Zo
As a quick and dirty house rule: Add negative and positive energy to the list of energy types covered by the "Resist Energy" and "Protection from Energy" spells.
A scroll of Resist Energy costs the party 150 gp (party of 4 pay 37.5 gp each). Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer can cast the spell on the party's Tank (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) on round 1.
If you're short a Cleric, Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer and need to use the Bard or Rogue to activate the scroll it can be activated with a UMD check of 23. (Assuming a +3 cha bonus and 1 rank in the skill we're looking at a 16 plus on a d20).
Like I said HOUSE RULE. But it seems to fit especially since the nomenclature of "Energy" really should apply to anything that is called an Energy.
I already do this in my games. We use the following list of energies :
Positive, Negative, Fire, Earth, Acid, Water, Cold, Electricity, Sonic, and Air. (Not counting weird types like City, from cityscape).
So, you can buy a sword that does any of those energy types, and it does 1d6, just like a 'blazing'. Certain creatures are immune or have resistance (For example, an earth elemental is immune to earth element). Fire elementals take 50% extra from water or cold. Vice versa. It's not hard to adjudicate, I know what the party has at any given time elementwise, and I can add resistances to monsters that make sense (like sonic steel or stone golems, or air to flying monsters).
The statements are not contradictory, they are a matter of opinion, I dont think its dumbing down to not go all out at every oportunity. I am not saying I have never killed a player, I have, for a number of reasons, my point is that it should not be what I am trying to do as a dm. My ideal situation is for the players to think they are all going to die in that hard fight, and then find a way to succeed. Sometimes I miss the mark one way or another. But that is my target. And if that means pulling a punch or two, I will, just means I have to mask it from the players. (They dont know how many turns the evil cleric has left that...Kolokotroni wrote:
Ok so, I dont dumb down my big bad....
Quote:
But I will not always go the most lethal route with a character,
Those two statements are contradicting. If you throw a fireball when you can do an area of affect death spell you are dumbing down the NPC. I understand some groups are more of what I call the narrative type, and everyone in that group knows that nobody will die unless the circumstance is really bad, but to not play an NPC to the fullest is dumbing him down, especially when you refuse to disable or kill a player.
Just because you kill/disable a player that does not mean you are against them. They risked their lives for the good of others and they may pay the ultimate price.
As to why some of us can kill a player:
Many of us are of the idea that the players are being given the opportunities to become heroes; they are not heroes by right, and success is not a given.
If you, as a player, know you are going to succeed it takes away the danger element. That does not mean I never fudge dice, but I have never played or been in a campaign where someone did not die. Sometimes the dice don't roll your way. Maybe you made a bad decision. Maybe I could not save a player without it being obvious that I fudged the dice. Everyone hates character death, but some of us hate Deus Ex Machina even more.
I apologize for the late response. I should be back online normally by the end of the day, and I misunderstood your statement as saying we should let them live. Most DM's I see on these boards don't kill the players every time they get a chance. It's not worth the trouble, and by that I mean bring in new characters interferes with the continutity of the story if its done at a bad time among other reasons. In other words, I agree with you if you mean DM's should not try to kill players
By way of comparison I was just thinking of using 4 adventure path characters (I don't have the latest, but RotR has a Fighter, a Cleric, a Sorcerer and a Rogue), and a fairly neutral situation (no one is surprised as the evil *whatever* comes round the corner 30' away). I would suggest using 10s on initiatives. If we could agree on stats, I'll build the 3rd level evil cleric for our experiment if you like.
By way of adjusting channel energy, I must admit I'm still in favour of making it 1 full round with AoOs. I think the other suggestions are fine too, but I haven't heard any objections to that one. Do you think it cripples the ability too much? It does mean, on the negative side for the party healer, that anyone he's hoping to save from death with channel energy will bleed for 1 more round.
Cheers
Richard
Then why not just cast one of the cure mass spells for a standard action, which at least gives you a chance to make a concentration check or take the chain spell metamagic feat to avoid losing the spell? I would do that before taking a full round, and risking an AOE with no chance to negate it.
I apologize for the late response. I should be back online normally by the end of the day, and I misunderstood your statement as saying we should let them live. Most DM's I see on these boards don't kill the players every time they get a chance. It's not worth the trouble, and by that I mean bring in new characters interferes with the continutity of the story if its done at a bad time among other reasons. In other words, I agree with you if you mean DM's should not try to kill players
Ok so how exactly is throwing down a circle of death not trying to kill the players? Or spamming channel negative energy at lower levels? These are highly lethal effects that have a high probabilty to kill PC's. I totally understand a hard fight where if the dice go against the players they might go down, this is a save or die. This is one die roll, you are done, that is trying to kill the party.
Its not like the party rogue rushed in alone and unbuffed against the big stompy hydra that ate him alive, (and therefore gets very little pity from me). Its party open door, cleric goes first, wham dead, thanks for coming out.
And a good cleric can surround himself with living. Not that much of a difference, except that the good cleric needs to get selective channeling to keep the enemies out of the healing burst - on the other hand, he gets to be healed with his own channel, which is nice.Most enemies are living, KaeYoss.
So?
You still get to heal more. If you don't take the feat, you just won't use it during a fight.
What do the evil guys get? Some extra damage, or maybe repairing their undead minions (remember you cannot have both). Everyone can do damage.
...Plus, consider what other 3rd-level characters could do to you:...Yeah. Just one. But he's going down NOW. The cleric, in all likelyhood, needs another round. A round during which the cleric can counter it.
In those other cases, someone will drop. Maybe the cleric.
And the next round, someone else will fall (just like in the cleric scenario, it takes two rounds for people to drop).
What happens if you meet the cleric in a typical 20x20 dungeon room?You go back out the way you came in?
Allowing AOO without a channeling feat to prevent it, and allowing resitance or protection spells to protect against positivie or negative energy all seem reasonable.
I also agree on various statements in regards to the DM being a story teller, and providing the appropriate hints, and/or potential resources that may be available if the right questions or actions are taken, to help the characters.
In regards to movies or books, the director or author is the GM, and makes sures the characters survive to tell a story.
I apologize for the late response. I should be back online normally by the end of the day, and I misunderstood your statement as saying we should let them live. Most DM's I see on these boards don't kill the players every time they get a chance. It's not worth the trouble, and by that I mean bring in new characters interferes with the continutity of the story if its done at a bad time among other reasons. In other words, I agree with you if you mean DM's should not try to kill playersOk so how exactly is throwing down a circle of death not trying to kill the players? Or spamming channel negative energy at lower levels? These are highly lethal effects that have a high probabilty to kill PC's. I totally understand a hard fight where if the dice go against the players they might go down, this is a save or die. This is one die roll, you are done, that is trying to kill the party.
Its not like the party rogue rushed in alone and unbuffed against the big stompy hydra that ate him alive, (and therefore gets very little pity from me). Its party open door, cleric goes first, wham dead, thanks for coming out.
The cleric has to win initiative, not likely, and everyone has to fail the save. The chance of everyone dying is remote. Unless the cleric can hear know for sure that it is not his minions on the other side of the door he has no reason to ready an action. If its obvious that all his minions are dead the party will most likely be prepped for such as attack.
I think the disagreement is what is assumed as "trying to kill the party". Trying to kill the party to me is setting up tactics or an encounter that almost ensure the party will die. Doing something that might kill them is not trying to kill them.
|
|
"Super charged" is pretty debatible (many are by far weaker)Which is why you don't take them. The fact that weak options exist doesn't weaken the strong ones.
There isn't crap in the Pathfinder Domains that compares with the ability to rebuke/command twice your level in Air subtype creatures, Fire subtype creatures, Earth subtype creatures, Water subtype creatures or Plant creatures, just counting Core domains, with reptilian animals (snake swarms!), cold subtype creatures, *constructs*, oozes, plants, vermin, etc. available through various other WotC Domain choices (Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Plant, Thirst, Slime, Ooze, Scalykind, Spiders, Dragon, Warforged, etc., etc.
Note that these pools were seperate, as well. A Neutral Cleric of Obad-Hai with the Earth and Fire Domains, who could choose to channel negative energy, with the Improved Turning feat, could, at 2nd level, have four Thoqqua (two commanded with earth domain, two commanded with fire domain, since Thoqqua have both subtypes), and a half-dozen medium skeletons (or a pair of shadows) to handle the light work. As he progresses in levels, he can pick up an Amulet of Turning to add +4 to his effective Cleric level, which, combined with Improved Turning, will allow him to Command creatures 5 HD above his Cleric level, and up to 2x his Cleric level +10 total HD *for each of his three command pools.*
Pathfinder Domains are vastly more interesting than Domains that gave +1 Caster Level to Law spells or a free Point-Blank Shot feat or something lame like that, but they are about as 'supercharged' as a moped run on biodiesel.
Barbarians, Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerers and Wizards got buffed nicely with Pathfinder. Rogues arguably did pretty well for themselves as well, mainly because of skill consolidation, a larger hit die and being able to sneak attack more critter types. Monks and Bards and Rangers moved more horizontally, neither jumping ahead greatly or losing ground hugely, IMO. Clerics and Druids got smacked down. Not at all undeservedly, and they are still eminently playable and fun, so I'm not quibbling that, but they did not get 'supercharged.' They got smacked around a little, and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
|
|
Um, travel got weaker and liberation became what tavel used to be?
:)
How are Barbarians (why is this bolded???), Paladins, Fighters, Wizards (the one you should have bolded, arguably, if any) and Sorcerers not superbuffed up? Druids got knocked back to really where they kind of need to be, but Cleric really just got a lot taken away, maybe too much.
And Set, +1
And Kyrt-ryder +1
|
|
Nah, I think that the cleric is still a bit weaker (not huge) and got the least buffing up. Even the Barbarian and Bard got far more. It's just not the point here and we already did two topics around 1,000 posts each on it.
I don't think either channeling be restricted to time between uses or making it provoke is a good idea. If a group doesn't compensate and change tactics, that is their fault. It is different if they CAN'T, but that is rare. Or if they roll low. But those two things shouldn't be the basis for even more nerfs. Channeling is already very limited as it is.
You go back out the way you came in?
What happens if you meet the cleric in a typical 20x20 dungeon room?
LOL! Damn straight!