Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).It specifically mentions that Craft Construct is an exception, but it does not specifically allow or disallow PCs from taking other monster feats. The rules say these feats are for monsters only, but there are some exceptions. It does not state specifically what is or is not an exception, thus by the RAW, it is up to individual DMs to decide what monster feats they would allow the player to take.
Now unless you have something official that says explicitly that a player can take the ability focus feat, then it is up to individual DM, and I am not inclined to let my players take that feat, because it opens a whole can of worms about what is and is not a special attack.
Can I declare that my spells are special attacks and thus get +2 to the DC of all my spells by taking ability focus(arcane spells)?
Just because most DMs house rule that encumberance can be ignored does not mean that encumberance doesn't exist in the RAW. Just because most DMs would let a player take a specific monster feat doesn't mean that it allowed by a strict reading of the RAW.
The feats listed don't have "Prerequisite: Monster". It says that "most" of them pertain specifically to monsters, but that some characters can qualify for them. Clearly Channel Energy is a special attack and thus qualifies for the feat. (I'm not considering any other attack options. I'm specifically talking about channel energy. RAW it's legal.)
No, the feats listed have a disclaimer at the beginning of the section saying that all of them are "Prerequisite: Monster" unless something says otherwise. Craft Construct is the only feat that specifically says otherwise.
Ability focus(Channel) is a legal feat by the RAW, but the RAW does not specifically allow or deny players from taking that feat. You can give the examples of NPCs with that feat. The RAW states these feats are for monsters only, but may be available to players., Since ability focus is not listed as a specific exception to the monster only rule, it is up to the DM to decide if the player qualifies.
More devil's advocate than anything. I like to keep a good discussion going.
Glad you aren't taking all this too seriously and appreciate the debate. That's cool.
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).It specifically mentions that Craft Construct is an exception, but it does not specifically allow or disallow PCs from taking other monster feats. The rules say these feats are for monsters only, but there are some exceptions. It does not state specifically what is or is not an exception, thus by the RAW, it is up to individual DMs to decide what monster feats they would allow the player to take.
Ability Focus has been one that PCs have been allowed to take since 3E. I don't see any reason why PF would ban it now.
Now unless you have something official that says explicitly that a player can take the ability focus feat, then it is up to individual DM, and I am not inclined to let my players take that feat, because it opens a whole can of worms about what is and is not a special attack.
I noticed that the Ability Focus feat in SS is listed as a
general feat instead of a monstrous feat. To me, that implies
that some class abilities are considered special attacks.
Which qualify, if this isn’t a typo?You can use the Ability Focus feat with pretty much
anything that you can use to hurt or hinder a foe and that allows
a saving throw. A short list includes the monk’s stunning
attack, the assassin’s death attack, and the bard’s fascinate
ability. Things that don’t allow saving throws, such as sneak
attacks, aren’t affected.If a warlock selects Ability Focus (MM 303) and chooses
for it to affect his eldritch blast, does it still apply when he
uses a blast shape or eldritch essence invocation?Yes. Whether the warlock is using a frightful blast, an
eldritch cone, or an utterdark eldritch doom, Ability Focus
(eldritch blast) increases the save DC by +2.Does the Ability Focus feat (MM 303) apply to spell-like
abilities?Yes, although each selection of the feat applies only to a
single spell-like ability. A dretch could select Ability Focus
(scare) or Ability Focus (stinking cloud).
Unless Pathfinder did something to specifically undo this, it still stands due to backwards compatability.
Can I declare that my spells are special attacks and thus get +2 to the DC of all my spells by taking ability focus(arcane spells)?
No, you can't. Spells are spells, not special attacks. It would be interesting if you could designate a single spell like fireball and increase it's DC +2 but I don't believe that's supported by RAW. A Warlock can use it on an invocation though like Ability Focus (Shatter) or Ability Focus (Chilling Tentacles). A Rogue could use it on a number of special attacks attached to sneak attacks if they grant saves.
8. RP/Storyline considerations. Negative energy is associated with evil clerics, and many campaigns may take a dim view of neutral clerics who channel negative energy. Also, some campaigns have a lot of undead encounters.
Somewhat but when you are saving their lives, they tend not to really care how you do it.In undead heavy campaigns, I'd strongly discourage this build. A positive energy channeling specialist would rock the house though. Same build, just choosing positive energy instead as it would hurt more enemies not to mention the ability to heal the group better as well.
I've been trying to stay out of this argument/discussion... but this point bugs me. If you consider the argument valid that a Negative Cleric (as a damage-doer) is less viable because some campaigns having a lot of undead
Then wouldn't the flipside of that coin be that because nearly all campaigns have far more non-undead (i.e - living beings like orcs, etc.) that the Negative Cleric as a damage-doer has more opportunity to hurt people story-line wise?
Flexibility, and 1 hour/level are the big reasons. If I am up against werewolves, silver sword + GMW, instant werewolf slayer. Mundane adamantite sword + GMW, instant golem slayer. You can't keep a magic weapon of each material handy, but you can carry a weapon of each special material, and make them magic on demand.
At level 8 it is iffy, level 12 and beyond it really comes into its own. You can turn a +1 weapon of speed into a +3 weapon of speed. You focus on enchanting weapons with special properties, then use GMW to give the weapon enhancement bonuses.
Great points. I'll make sure I start memorizing this next level.
Straight out of the box, no, but a battle cleric is not that far behind. Cast divine power or righteous might, and you are on par with a fighter. Cast them both, and you are ahead.
If your party has a Bard, Wizard or Sorcerer who casts haste at the beginning of every battle (and most do) than you fall back behind. In this situation, I've found Divine Power completelh worthless compared to Divine Favor.
Yes, it hurts, that is why I listed it as a con of the build. Cleric have a lot of situational spells like invisibility purge, remove blindness, freedom of movement, etc. When the situation arises, these spells are awesome. If the situation doesn't come up, they are useless. Being able to convert situational spells to healing, which is always needed, is one of the biggest advantages of the positive cleric. The more spell slots I have to cover situational effects, the more useful I am in random situations. That is why losing spells slots is a big deal to me.
It's a slight con, I guess. I still have room for every single one of those spells you listed.
Absolutely, cure spells are horrible in combat, and just about the worst thing a cleric can do. Touch range, provokes AoO, etc. But out of combat, they save you having to use wand charges, potions, or scrolls, which is saving the party money. A single level 5 channel of positive energy heals about 2 charges worth of healing from a wand of cure light per party member who needs healing. Also, as someone else pointed out in this thread, the synergy between Positive Channeling and Shield Other is amazing.
As is the synergy between the group getting hit with a fireball and positive energy channeling. Healing is great when you need it. On the other hand, negative energy channeling has great synergy with a room full of mooks blocking the barbarians charge to the wizard BBEG.
I don't. Without buffs I deal about 80-90% of the damage a fighter would deal. If I don't have time to cast buffs, this is good enough.
A NE cleric with no combat feats would be more around 50% of a fighter's power. You would need 2 or 3 buffs just to get your combat prowess up enough to make it worth it.
But one channel can often do 100%-500%+ more damage than the fighter. My last channel was in a room with six enemies and did 32 points of damage (none saved). That's 192 points of damage. The barbarian can get to around 150 with an awesome full attack where he nails a couple of criticals. All I had to do was roll slightly above average and 2/3s of all of my enemies life was sucked right from their bodies. You can't deny the usefulness of this.
You must do a lot of dungeon crawls. Spotting someone who isn't hiding outdoors under normal likes takes a DC 10 check at 100 feet. Even in bad lighting, you would still be spotted at 50+ feet. 100+ feet is a pretty normal encounter range for outdoor encounters.
No, not at all. We just don't typically come across the stupid ogres in the wild. I've thrown this kind of thing at my players on several occasions and they usually bait them into a trap and cut them down before they get to even do anything. Our usual DM typically throws stuff at us that's specifically sent to assassinate us by the current BBEG so they are the ones that get the drop on us at least half of the time, maybe more, even with a couple/few high perception characters. Either way, they are usually close and ready to attack before we have much chance to do much besides not be flat footed. A battle priest would actually kind of suffer in our campaign as they wouldn't usually have much time to buff. I don't hold that against them though since I know that every DM doesn't do things the same way.
In medium armor you have to run for 2 rounds to get into position.
So would everyone else in medium or heavy armor. If this were the norm in a campaign, the archer and sorcerer would reign supreme as no one else would even get to fight.
Yes, but the lower damage is one of the disadvantages.
Yes but hitting more enemies often amounts to more overall damage, not less. I'm not talking about some crazy hypothethical situations either. On average, I do more damage per round than anyone in the group. It's just split up between a lot of enemies and not as focused. I don't consider doing more damage a disadvantage.
My point is that is really depends on the campaign. If you DM decides on a lets go defeat the goblin hordes, NEC will be great. If the DM decides on a campaign based on a series of BBEG fights, NEC will suck. I usually don't know what the campaign is about until about halfway through it.
True but this isn't specific to the NEC. If your DM runs an undead heavy campaign and you created an illusionist or an enchanter, guess what? That's right, you're going to suck. If your DM makes all of the bad guys neutral and there is a Paladin in the group, he's going to suck. If you make a dragon slayer and never face any dragons...you get the point. Hopefully, any DM worth his salt will recognize that the NEC in the group needs lots of mooks to cut through in order to shine. If he doesn't give him that, he's practically going out of his way to screw him over and that's not cool. It's not like it's difficult to throw in extra enemies.
8. RP/Storyline considerations. Negative energy is associated with evil clerics, and many campaigns may take a dim view of neutral clerics who channel negative energy. Also, some campaigns have a lot of undead encounters.I've been trying to stay out of this argument/discussion...
Oh come in and join the fun. It's open to all. We're just the only two going back and forth ATM. :)
but this point bugs me. If you consider the argument valid that a Negative Cleric (as a damage-doer) is less viable because some campaigns having a lot of undead
Then wouldn't the flipside of that coin be that because nearly all campaigns have far more non-undead (i.e - living beings like orcs, etc.) that the Negative Cleric as a damage-doer has more opportunity to hurt people story-line wise?
I think that's exactly what he means. :)
Then wouldn't the flipside of that coin be that because nearly all campaigns have far more non-undead (i.e - living beings like orcs, etc.) that the Negative Cleric as a damage-doer has more opportunity to hurt people story-line wise?
Sure - but the healing benefits of Positive Channeling are pretty strong too.
Bravo to Frogboy for proving quite a good case for a channeler (negative or positive) type: I was actually considering playing one recently and still didn't think it would be *that* good (DC 26, nice!).
If your party has a Bard, Wizard or Sorcerer who casts haste at the beginning of every battle (and most do) than you fall back behind. In this situation, I've found Divine Power completelh worthless compared to Divine Favor.
Haste benefits big heavy hitters the most, since I use a greatsword, I get just am much benefit from haste as our greataxe barbarian, and more than the two weapon figher. If I was an archer my benefit would be more on par with the two weapon fighter.
The thing is, the +x/+x from divine favor/power makes up for the weapon groups and weapon spec abilties that fighters get, or the extra strength of a raging barbarian. If I get to throw righteous might on top of that, I come out ahead ahead. At that point, Haste only pushes me further ahead. The downside is that I need some warning to get my buffs up.
Use Divine Favor until level 12, then swap to divine power. Divine Favor caps at level 9.
It's a slight con, I guess. I still have room for every single one of those spells you listed.
There are a lot more than that. Those are just the ones I threw out as examples of situational spells.
As is the synergy between the group getting hit with a fireball and positive energy channeling. Healing is great when you need it. On the other hand, negative energy channeling has great synergy with a room full of mooks blocking the barbarians charge to the wizard BBEG.
IF there are lots of mooks around. We fight a group like that every 3rd to 4th fight, and we have a party of 6, so my positive channels are awesome healing. My point is your results will vary based on the encounter. Just because you have a really nice hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail.
But one channel can often do 100%-500%+ more damage than the fighter. My last channel was in a room with six enemies and did 32 points of damage (none saved). That's 192 points of damage. The barbarian can get to around 150 with an awesome full attack where he nails a couple of criticals. All I had to do was roll slightly above average and 2/3s of all of my enemies life was sucked right from their bodies. You can't deny the usefulness of this.
And I haven't, in the right situation, blasts are great, but on average, a fighter should be dealing 2-3 times more damage on a single target. A crit should push them into the 4-5x range. So you need to be hitting 3 to 5 targets to break even with the fighter. When you go up against a single target, the barbarian is still capable of putting out 150 damage, while you still do 32 damage on a slightly better than average roll.
True but this isn't specific to the NEC. If your DM runs an undead heavy campaign and you created an illusionist or an enchanter, guess what? That's right, you're going to suck. If your DM makes all of the bad guys neutral and there is a Paladin in the group, he's going to suck. If you make a dragon slayer and never face any dragons...you get the point. Hopefully, any DM worth his salt will recognize that the NEC in the group needs lots of mooks to cut through in order to shine. If he doesn't give him that, he's practically going out of his way to screw him over and that's not cool. It's not like it's difficult to throw in extra enemies.
Not really, illusionists, or enchanters still have plenty of other spells available. They haven't put everything into maximizing a single ability to quite the level that a NE cleric does.
A paladin is still a mounted warrior with a powerful mount(or can put some nice bonuses on his weapon) when facing neutral enemies. Even against neutral enemies a paladin would do at least as much damage as an unbuffed melee cleric.
As a DM, I make sure I play to each characters strengths AND weaknesses. I make touch attacks against the plate tank's crappy touch AC. I will make sure that he sweats the fact that he decided to gimp his wisdom by making sure he gets hit with Will saves. I would throw illusions at an NEC to make him waste his channels. I would put him into single target fights to give the other players a chance to shine. A DM's job is to challenge the players to their limits without going past those limits, not give them 1 cakewalk after another. If the DM throws extra enemies into every fight just to make the NEC happy, he is just giving the party free XP. I don't hit them on their weaknesses all the time, but I will make sure their weaknesses get hit enough so that they feel like they are in peril.
In the end is comes down to "I prefer flexibility". The NEC gives up a lot of flexibility to be really good at one thing. Admittedly, it is a really nice trick, but I just feel it isn't worth the loss in flexibility.
Bravo to Frogboy for proving quite a good case for a channeler (negative or positive) type: I was actually considering playing one recently and still didn't think it would be *that* good (DC 26, nice!).
Thanks! :)
I will let you in on one thing that Charender has't thought of yet. There is one situation that sucks to be a NEC instead of a PEC (Out of the way PEC! ha ha!). It's when you face another NEC (or four). It becomes a race to see who can drain the others faster. It's a very good thing that I've crafted Cloaks of Resistance +3 for almost everyone in the group.
Of course if you have one of each, you're gravy.
just my .02, currently playing a cleric of Asmodeus because our group had an inquisitor and a summoner who both worshiped him when i joined the group. So by default i have negative channeling. I went with Aasimar as a race, dm allowed is as i went with being a bastard child of a celestial so i turned by back and embraced asmodeus's teachings, I chose trickery and fire. At lvl 7 I have at my disposal:
dc20 will save vs 4d6 dmg 8 times / day
fire bolt 8 times / day for 1d6 +3 dmg
daylight 1 / day
copycat: move action, single mirror image for 7 rounds 8 times / day
2x burning disarm, great spell from a pathfinder companion
2x cure light wounds
face of the devourer, just for fun and flavor
comprehend languages
burning hands
spiritual weapon
2x cure moderate wounds
death knell, just for fun and flavor
invisibility
sand whirlwind, another great spell from a pathfinder companion
cure serious
dispel magic
fireball
air walk
cure critical wounds
fire wall
It turns out for our group, the amount of additional damage i can push out. The few heals i know more than makes up for it.
We had a heal bot in our group, which the dm killed off cause he pissed everyone off which is why i made this guy. And our group loves my new cleric. Especially when i walk into the top floor of a building invisible cause i got fed up with the party moving to slow. See 13 people standing there looking at me waiting in an ambush, so i throw a fireball. Win initiative, and kill off the remainder of the el9 fight at level 5 with a channel negative energy. For the fights we encounter that things aren't set up for me to nuke, i use burning disarm and laugh as they either take damage or drop their weapon.
|
Frogboy,
I started reading this thread with the expectation that it would be another crazy amateur build thread (man does anyone else have players that find the most godawful builds on sketch forums with dubious resources? Ok ok I only had one player do it once on his first character. How much damage ar you doing at first level? You realize that feat is a 3.0 feat from a different campaign setting right?). Anyway, point being, I walked into this thread thinking pffft I build clerics to heal the living daylights out of my party, yeah! Channel negative is for noobs!
I have found, much to my delight, that my expectations were wrong, and your arguments are both educated and persuasive. I don't have anything to add to the thread (I think it's getting recursive) and I still absolutely love healing clerics, but you can count me in as willing to give this crazy noob build a try :)
Then wouldn't the flipside of that coin be that because nearly all campaigns have far more non-undead (i.e - living beings like orcs, etc.) that the Negative Cleric as a damage-doer has more opportunity to hurt people story-line wise?Sure - but the healing benefits of Positive Channeling are pretty strong too.
Agreed. I would generally choose to play a Positive Channeler myself. BUT the point he seemed to be making was that in terms of dealing damage - in an undead heavy campaign - the positive channeler is better. No argument. I'm just saying that if the yardstick is 'doing channeling damage' then in most campaigns there are more opportunities to harm living creatures rather than undead... so that would be a point in favor of the Negative Channeler if the only thing being evaluated is opportunities to harm opponents with channel energy.
The thing is, the +x/+x from divine favor/power makes up for the weapon groups and weapon spec abilties that fighters get, or the extra strength of a raging barbarian. If I get to throw righteous might on top of that, I come out ahead ahead. At that point, Haste only pushes me further ahead. The downside is that I need some warning to get my buffs up.
Don't forget that you fall back 2 BAB in the first five levels. You don't get your second attack until level 8 and your third until level 15. Even with your two buffs on, you can't be that far ahead if any at all. Haste affects everyone so I don't see how you could jump ahead with that unless you're getting it from Divine Power when no one else is. In 3.5, I'd say sure, you can get those BAB back with Divine Power. In PF, they're gone for good unless you can use the Holy Warrior variant in the Campaign Setting.
There are a lot more than that. Those are just the ones I threw out as examples of situational spells.
I know. For some reason I thought you threw a lot more out there than you actually did. I do have just about every, if not every, Remove spell ready to go, two Dispel Magics, Freedom of Movement, Air Walk, Breath of Life or Raise Dead, Restoration, True Seeing etc, etc. I'm loaded up with that stuff. Of course, I'm not the fully optimized channeler. My good stats allowed me to balance out with my casting somewhat. I'm not taking as big a hit to my spells. However, battle priest's aren't going to use WIS as a dump stat. They need STR too. The full spellcasting cleric is the only one that should be dumping everything into WIS.
IF there are lots of mooks around. We fight a group like that every 3rd to 4th fight, and we have a party of 6, so my positive channels are awesome healing. My point is your results will vary based on the encounter. Just because you have a really nice hammer doesn't mean that everything is a nail.
So in a party of six, you rarely ever fight even an equal number of enemies?
Our DM is pretty rough. We are often out numbered in fights and face things that are quite a bit tougher than the ECL dictates. This goes back well before I decided to play a NEC. We don't typically face battles that make us use 1/4 of our resources. We could potentially be TPKed in almost any battle if we get too unlucky. Most battles have a real potential for a character to die, though. Our Rogue got turned into a wraith a couple weeks ago. I couldn't raise dead with only 1d4 rounds between death and undeath.
Although when things go our way, we sometimes mow right through our enemies too.
And I haven't, in the right situation, blasts are great, but on average, a fighter should be dealing 2-3 times more damage on a single target.
On a single target, yes he does.
A crit should push them into the 4-5x range. So you need to be hitting 3 to 5 targets to break even with the fighter.
Since when do fighters crit on every attack? Also, don't forget that the melee characters often have to close with their enemies. That first round when the barbarian charges and hits for 30 damage, I can usually move in next to him and do that to everyone in the area. Even if there are only two enemies, I still usually do 2x what he does. Melee characters don't get to make full attacks every round. They often have to use a move action to get to their next target(s). This cuts their DPR down comparitively to mine since I don't have to be immobile to do the kind of damage you are describing. And again, when the fighter uses an attack to kill the foe that only has a few HP left in order to move on to other enemies, his damage for that round goes down to almost zero. The channelers damage on the dice he rolls might look like a bag of suck but it stacks up higher than most if not all other classes on consistancy alone...unless you play in your campaign world where you only fight more than two enemies at once every 3-4 encounters.
When you go up against a single target, the barbarian is still capable of putting out 150 damage, while you still do 32 damage on a slightly better than average roll.
Yes and that's what the barbarian does really well. When we faced the Storm Giant, I didn't even bother channeling. I used my actions to dispel some of his buffs. The barbarian and the wizard did all of the shredding. The bard made them do it even better. Ironically, it was my weak NE blast that dropped him when he was on his last leg but I wasn't one of the ones that shined that battle, that's for sure. Everyone has their chance to shine.
Not really, illusionists, or enchanters still have plenty of other spells available. They haven't put everything into maximizing a single ability to quite the level that a NE cleric does.
I still have other spells too. I can do more than just channel energy. The point is that if you create a character concept based on enchanting or creating illusions and fight undead the whole time, you aren't even playing your character. You're playing a wanna be who *has* to throw his fireball every round or cast some BS bull's strength on the fighter because he can't use most of the abilities that he wants to (including his two spell focus feats).
A paladin is still a mounted warrior with a powerful mount(or can put some nice bonuses on his weapon) when facing neutral enemies. Even against neutral enemies a paladin would do at least as much damage as an unbuffed melee cleric.
Again, he wouldn't be living his dream. He'll still do more than an unbuffed melee cleric on average mainly because of the weaker BAB.
As a DM, I make sure I play to each characters strengths AND weaknesses. I make touch attacks against the plate tank's crappy touch AC. I will make sure that he sweats the fact that he decided to gimp his wisdom by making sure he gets hit with Will saves. I would throw illusions at an NEC to make him waste his channels. I would put him into single target fights to give the other players a chance to shine. A DM's job is to challenge the players to their limits without going past those limits, not give them 1 cakewalk after another.
It's not a cakewalk, I assure you that. See "Storm Giant" and "Dead Rogue turned into Wraith" examples above. :)
If the DM throws extra enemies into every fight just to make the NEC happy, he is just giving the party free XP. I don't hit them on their weaknesses all the time, but I will make sure their weaknesses get hit enough so that they feel like they are in peril.
The DM can give any amount of XP he wants. If he throws in extras, especially if they are one-channel-dead types, he doesn't really need to hand out a ton of extra XP just because the book says so.
The DM shouldn't always only throw one or two enemies at the group either unless he wants the battles to only last two rounds.
In the end is comes down to "I prefer flexibility". The NEC gives up a lot of flexibility to be really good at one thing. Admittedly, it is a really nice trick, but I just feel it isn't worth the loss in flexibility.
That's cool. Like I said, the battle cleric is a perfectly fine build. I honestly couldn't say if one is better than the other since I haven't played a battle priest in PF yet and even then, better is a subjective term. He's going to be better at some things and worse at others.
I will argue that if you picked up and ran a random adventure path and counted every HP worth of damage dealt (and no hitting the foe with 10 HP seven times and counting it as 100 damage) that the NEC would likely come out on top (unless he gets screwed and ends up in an undead campaign).
Frogboy,
I started reading this thread with the expectation that it would be another crazy amateur build thread (man does anyone else have players that find the most godawful builds on sketch forums with dubious resources? Ok ok I only had one player do it once on his first character. How much damage ar you doing at first level? You realize that feat is a 3.0 feat from a different campaign setting right?). Anyway, point being, I walked into this thread thinking pffft I build clerics to heal the living daylights out of my party, yeah! Channel negative is for noobs!
I have found, much to my delight, that my expectations were wrong, and your arguments are both educated and persuasive. I don't have anything to add to the thread (I think it's getting recursive) and I still absolutely love healing clerics, but you can count me in as willing to give this crazy noob build a try :)
Thanks! and lol (you've got to love some of the 3.0 stuff)
The not so obvious thing about the NEC, I think is that they always sucked for PC builds in 3.x. Inflict vs Cure wasn't even a contest. If Cure is a bad action then I don't even know where Inflict registers. With channel energy now, it's a different story. I went the full damage route (NE) with my first PF character and it's worked out well. The positive Energy specialist might be an even crazier build but I think that it'd work too. I've done some things that weren't obvious (Ability Focus and putting my Phylactery of NEC on a different body slot to free up my headband slot) but nothing too far out there. I think this new ability to channel fills a nice new niche that no other class covers...and that's a win for PF IMO.
ok, my group mostly plays archers/ warriors so the BBEG fights dont usually last long, but the swarm fights kill us because of the lack of AoE. I usually play a negative energy cleric because it gives me AoE, that isnt incredibly devastating to the damage sponges up front. i also get buffing and Hold spells to increase my effectiveness. as for healing, a wand and some potions work wonders.
thanks. I caught that right before I got to play. I'm still thinking like it's 2nd edition.
Man, there are some angry people in the cleric threads that talk about armor. I bet Jason Bulmahn got death threats for that one.