I often read posts that talk about Clerics and I've found one thing that's pretty constant. Most people feel that the positive energy channeling Cleric is hands down better than the negative energy channeling one. I seem to be the only one, or one of the very few at least, that disagrees. Possibly disturbing, a lot of people talk like you have to have a healy Cleric in the group and I'm starting to think that it's a suboptimal choice (not that I could be hypocritical enough to discourage anyone from playing a suboptimal character). I guess I'm looking for two things.
1. Your opinion on which one is better and why and of which type (Battle Priest, Spellcasting, Channeler)
2. Maybe some number crunching that offers a little more insight
I'll point out that this isn't a direct head to head fight between the two. Let's assume that you are plopping them into a party of 3-4 other adventurers and we only have access to PF core books (PF RPG and Bestiary).
Thanks!
I often read posts that talk about Clerics and I've found one thing that's pretty constant. Most people feel that the positive energy channeling Cleric is hands down better than the negative energy channeling one. I seem to be the only one, or one of the very few at least, that disagrees. Possibly disturbing, a lot of people talk like you have to have a healy Cleric in the group and I'm starting to think that it's a suboptimal choice (not that I could be hypocritical enough to discourage anyone from playing a suboptimal character). I guess I'm looking for two things.
1. Your opinion on which one is better and why and of which type (Battle Priest, Spellcasting, Channeler)
2. Maybe some number crunching that offers a little more insightI'll point out that this isn't a direct head to head fight between the two. Let's assume that you are plopping them into a party of 3-4 other adventurers and we only have access to PF core books (PF RPG and Bestiary).
Thanks!
IDK what is better, currently I have a negative energy one and I enjoy him, I think with all the damage I do I out damage everyone else just because of how consistant it is and how many weak minion types my DM's use, I also refuse to take heal spells, Cleric of Madness and all.
|
I often read posts that talk about Clerics and I've found one thing that's pretty constant. Most people feel that the positive energy channeling Cleric is hands down better than the negative energy channeling one. I seem to be the only one, or one of the very few at least, that disagrees. Possibly disturbing, a lot of people talk like you have to have a healy Cleric in the group and I'm starting to think that it's a suboptimal choice (not that I could be hypocritical enough to discourage anyone from playing a suboptimal character). I guess I'm looking for two things.
1. Your opinion on which one is better and why and of which type (Battle Priest, Spellcasting, Channeler)
2. Maybe some number crunching that offers a little more insightI'll point out that this isn't a direct head to head fight between the two. Let's assume that you are plopping them into a party of 3-4 other adventurers and we only have access to PF core books (PF RPG and Bestiary).
Thanks!
Healing is clearly superior. I think a better way of making inflict better is to have it do more damage or give status effects. I would pretty much never take inflict over heal unless it's for a special role-playing purpose (like evil characters).
Healing is clearly superior. I think a better way of making inflict better is to have it do more damage or give status effects. I would pretty much never take inflict over heal unless it's for a special role-playing purpose (like evil characters).
Cure spells are superior to inflict spells IMO but I'll argue that negative energy channeling is superior to positive energy channeling especially during battle.
Levels 1-4:
Negative: 30' radius killing blast - best attack in the game (other than potentially having allies around).
Positive: Cheap (virtually free) healing, when you need it the most. Cure light wands are a *big* investment, even potions are iffy purchases.
Levels 5-8:
Negative: Fireball comes around as a competitor (though not for the cleric, unless Fire domain). Still bigger radius though, and will-vs-reflex + no-evasion.
Positive: Healing scales almost as well as hp, wands still a bit costly.
Levels 9+:
Negative: Flamestrike, Holy Smite (Unholy Blight), and for the wizzies Cone of Cold become mostly superior area attack options. Plenty of feats now to include Selective Channeling in.
Positive: As Con items are added, hp begin to scale faster than channels, mass cure's and heal become available, and out of combat healing can be done with wands very cheaply. Can still be a solid in-combat boost, particularly with feats ava. for Selective Channeling.
Negative energy channeling is better if the rest of the party take the Tomb-tainted soul feat... But without 3.5 cheese, I don't know.
|
|
Negative Energy Channeling in a four man party (the 'default') requires your character to take the Selective Channeling feat *and* have at least a 16 Charisma, if he doesn't want to harm his allies. At standard point buy, that means he's likely to be limited to a 14 Wisdom, his casting stat, or have to dump Str, Dex, Con and / or Int into negative modifier territory, which will make getting anywhere near 30' blast radius of an enemy a risky proposal.
Note that if one member of that four man party is a Druid or Ranger with a Companion, a Paladin with a Mount, a Sorcerer, Wizard or Witch with a Familiar or a Summoner with an Eidolon, you've just gained another ally to worry about damaging with your death-bombs, and some of these choices (Companions, frex) have crap Will saves. Even a group that conveniently contains no Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Sorcerer or Wizard (or Witch or Summoner), could have some yob riding a horse (weak Will save, low HD) and that PC could get pretty darn sick of you nuking his fluffy boo to death. A generous house rule might allow a critter with a Share Spells type ability to be protected so long as their PC is protected, or perhaps only if they are within 5 ft. of the proscribed character and could benefit from the Share Spells feature.
At 1st and 2nd level, that whopping 1d6 to everyone, which, at the moment, can't be modified by anything, is unlikely to be your best option, and the less foes present, the less optimal a choice it becomes. If surrounded by goblins or kobolds, and in one of those ideal parties above, death-bombing is going to be an awesome thing. If soloing, or some sort of hybrid character that combines aspects of 3.5 and Pathfinder (such as being able to take the Tomb-Tainted Soul feat, either personally, or travelling in a group of same, or being able to effectively create and command undead, which, in Pathfinder, not so much), or being able to use the Channel Energy rules from Pathfinder Beta (which allowed one to harm the living *and* heal under, with a single negative energy blast) it could be great fun.
But those ideal situations, corner cases and exceptions make for a very small part of the game. You are much more likely to end up fighting a few larger foes, often with decent Will saves (to avoid save-or-die shut-downs), and travel in parties with more than four members, or multiple companions / familiars / henchmen / random NPCs that you have to escort / protect / accompany.
Channel Positive Energy can have similar issues. If you are in that BBEG fight, with only one foe, and a party of five, with two add-ons (Companion, Familiar, cohort, whatever), and the party has taken some area of effect damage (fireballs, etc.), it's probably acceptable to blast out 25 pts of healing that affects the BBEG as well as the 'good guys,' since your parties damage output should ignore that as a speed bump. In the fights that will have the Negative Energy Channeler chortling, surrounded by goblins and kobolds and swarms or whatever, the Positive Energy Channeler risks healing dozens of foes, and has to sit on his big healy-bomb, until the foes are not just dropped, but finished off / coup de graced.
House Rules can save the day for negative energy channelers;
1) Eat a Create Wondrous Item feat, and craft magical talismans in the shape of your dieties (un)holy symbol, and then give them to your allies (and their fluffy companions, etc.), making them immune to your Negative Energy Channeling effects.
2) Make yourself a 'masterwork holy symbol' that gives a +2 to channeling damage (whether used to heal or harm), or perhaps a +1 / die, or perhaps even use the mechanic from the new Toughness feat (+3 hp or +1/die, whichever is better).
3) Convince your DM to allow you to take a Vampiric Channeling feat that allows you to heal damage equal to your negative energy channeling roll, so long as you damage at least one foe (no standing around blasting trees, grass and butterflies to heal up at the end of the day).
I'm rolling up a Human, Lawful Neutral, Cleric 5/Fighter 1 character right now that's built for channel negative energy and Animate Dead. He's starting at that level and I haven't played him yet. I'm new to PF. Since you're playing a character like this, could you look at what I've got and see if I'm missing something?
Abilities 14, 10, 10, 10, 14, 17.
I'll need 2 stat boosters to get 9th lvl spells. I don't optimize by dropping stats. I don't want to play a character that's dumb or sickly or clumsy.
Feats: Selective Channeling, Extra Channel, Improved Channel, Weapon Focus, Dodge
I didn't take the Command Undead feat because the Animate Dead spell will already let me control a small army. I want to be able to fight in melee, cuz it's fun, so I put a few feats towards that.
The GM is following the loot list in the core book and it says I get 16000gp at lvl 6.
Robe of Bones
Full Plate +1, Heavy Shield +1, Ring of Protection +1 (x2), Amulet of Natural Armor +1
10 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1(dodge) = AC 27
Longsword +1 w/ Frost
4(bab) + 1(enchant) + 2(str) + 1(weapon focus) = +8 to hit, 1d8+3+1d6
Channel Energy: 8x/day 3d6 DC 18
Domains are Death/Healing. Makes sense for a neutral cleric right? The Death Domain means that my channels will heal me at lvl 8. The Healing domain ought to help a little bit for my lack of positive energy. I won't be the party's primary healer anyways.
Animate Dead allows me to create 10hd of undead a day, or 20hd if I first cast desecrate. I can control 40hd of dead per day. I didn't take the Command Undead feat because it seemed like a waste. That's a feat for 5 more HD of undead when I've already got 40. Unless I'm reading that wrong.
Desecrate gives all my zombies a +1/+1 and so does Prayer. The more zombies I've got the more the buffs do.
I can't wait to play this guy. I get to make zombies out of all the cool critters we kill. The limiting factor is bodies and only being able to cast Animate Dead once a day. I plan on having my zombies grab the bodies by their ankles and drag them around with us so I'll have them handy when I get up the next morning.
oh and btw, his name is Badash and he looks like Bruce Campbell from Army of Darkness :]
I am leaning toward the positive side.
1. There is a lot of discussion about the general inefficiency of blasts. An AoE blast at the right time and place can be useful, but in general you don't want to rely on them. I would not want to play a character focused on AoE blasting the perfect blasting moments only come up every 3rd fight.
2. If we are facing a single target, a cleric can put out more damage by casting a buff spell or 2 and smacking the bad guy in the face. Even without buff spells, a cleric can do decent melee or ranged damage, and isn't limited to X rounds per day.
3. Positive channeling frees you up to use your spells however you want. I am playing a battle cleric who is focused on melee. I generally blow all my spells on buffs and battlefield control, and I am loath to convert my spells to cures. Having positive channels means I don't have to convert spells to cures as often.
4. Actual AoE spells outpace channeling. Most blasting spells are 1d6/level. Channeling is 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels beyond 1. So at 5th level fireball is 5d6 and channel is 3d6. A level 15 wizard casting cone of cold(or cleric casting flame strike) does 15d6, a level 15 cleric's channel does 8d6.
Negative energy is a cool thing, but as a player, I would rather have positive energy for healing and keep a few blasting spells memorized. I prefer flexibility over power.
Having seen both in action channel positive is better purely due to undead. Channel positive energy always works. Channel negative energy doesn't work against undead. So channel positive just gets more use. Now Channel negative energy is nasty when it can be used which is often enough but when you run up against undead I find it lacking.
When you run up against undead you can try the Command Undead feat and use that negative channel to possibly control them. I'm not sure how well that works out in practice but it's something the negative cleric has going for them in that respect.
Personally, I think either can be effective/amusing depending on how you are playing it. If I had an EEEEEVIL Cleric, I'd load up on undead summoning spells, make a posse, and use the Negative Energy Channel ability to (in turn) keep their HPs topped up or drain the good guys. Nuthin' says lovin' like undead who just won't quit.
When you run up against undead you can try the Command Undead feat and use that negative channel to possibly control them. I'm not sure how well that works out in practice but it's something the negative cleric has going for them in that respect.
I find it rarely works except for low level undead. That nasty vampire ignores it. But when you start channeling positive energy against that vampire they feel it.
I'm rolling up a Human, Lawful Neutral, Cleric 5/Fighter 1 character right now that's built for channel negative energy and Animate Dead. He's starting at that level and I haven't played him yet. I'm new to PF. Since you're playing a character like this, could you look at what I've got and see if I'm missing something?
Personally, I'd ditch the Fighter level and the slight focus on melee fighting. The dedicated melee fighters quickly outpace you when you try to do too many things at the same time. Do what you want to do, of course. I won't try to convince you to play something you don't want to play. Just warning you that you run the risk of not being good at anything.
Here's a link of a suggestion I made for somebody else recently.
1. There is a lot of discussion about the general inefficiency of blasts. An AoE blast at the right time and place can be useful, but in general you don't want to rely on them. I would not want to play a character focused on AoE blasting the perfect blasting moments only come up every 3rd fight.
Blasts are generally inefficient because you have to make sure that you don't hit your allies. Not many worries with channel. I blast almost every round. It’s kind of like a 3.5 Warlock who starts with an Eldritch Doom that covers more area. It's a great option for a character who doesn't like a lot of book keeping.
2. If we are facing a single target, a cleric can put out more damage by casting a buff spell or 2 and smacking the bad guy in the face. Even without buff spells, a cleric can do decent melee or ranged damage, and isn't limited to X rounds per day.
True, against one enemy the blast isn't as effective. I used to buff in this situation but tend to debuff more now that everyone has magical belts.
3. Positive channeling frees you up to use your spells however you want. I am playing a battle cleric who is focused on melee. I generally blow all my spells on buffs and battlefield control, and I am loath to convert my spells to cures. Having positive channels means I don't have to convert spells to cures as often.
If you focus on melee then yes, positive is the way to go. It's tough being a good melee fighter, powerful caster and powerful channeler all at the same time. You'd need some monster stats for that.
4. Actual AoE spells outpace channeling. Most blasting spells are 1d6/level. Channeling is 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels beyond 1. So at 5th level fireball is 5d6 and channel is 3d6. A level 15 wizard casting cone of cold(or cleric casting flame strike) does 15d6, a level 15 cleric's channel does 8d6.
Not by as much as you think. At level 11 (where I'm at now), my Flame Strike is 11d6 while my Channel is 8d6. That -10.5 damage is more than made up for by the fact that I can do it whenever I want (for the most part), 11 times per day and the save DC (on mine) is 6 higher and can't be defeated by Evasion. I don't even bother memorizing Flame Strike.
Negative energy is a cool thing, but as a player, I would rather have positive energy for healing and keep a few blasting spells memorized. I prefer flexibility over power.
No problem and I appreciate your input. Wait 'till you see one in action though. I think you'll be surprised at how effective it is and how much less healing you need when one is present.
Having seen both in action channel positive is better purely due to undead. Channel positive energy always works. Channel negative energy doesn't work against undead. So channel positive just gets more use. Now Channel negative energy is nasty when it can be used which is often enough but when you run up against undead I find it lacking.
Yes, the negative energy channeler does seriously lack against undead. If this is a common enemy or the DM decides to start throwing a ton of undead at you then you have to start memorizing a lot of attack/cure spells. In general though, most times you will fight a lot more non-undead enemies.
Channel positive energy does not always work though. If you roll a good initiative, it's not going to work the first round of battle as no one is hurt yet. Unlike negative energy which usually hurts everyone on the battlefield equally, positive energy isn't going to help out the guys in the back who are staying out of harms way and your melee characters don't alway take damage evenly. It's got to be great when the group gets hit with a Fireball though.
When you run up against undead you can try the Command Undead feat and use that negative channel to possibly control them. I'm not sure how well that works out in practice but it's something the negative cleric has going for them in that respect.I find it rarely works except for low level undead. That nasty vampire ignores it. But when you start channeling positive energy against that vampire they feel it.
I wonder what kind of chance a DC 26-27 would have on one? It'd have to pushing close to 50-50 at that point. Funny thing is, I could be pushing DC 30 by now if I went all out. Now if I could only find a Rod of Splendor. :)
I'm rolling up a Human, Lawful Neutral, Cleric 5/Fighter 1 character right now that's built for channel negative energy and Animate Dead. He's starting at that level and I haven't played him yet. I'm new to PF. Since you're playing a character like this, could you look at what I've got and see if I'm missing something?
Abilities 14, 10, 10, 10, 14, 17.
I'll need 2 stat boosters to get 9th lvl spells. I don't optimize by dropping stats. I don't want to play a character that's dumb or sickly or clumsy.
Feats: Selective Channeling, Extra Channel, Improved Channel, Weapon Focus, Dodge
I didn't take the Command Undead feat because the Animate Dead spell will already let me control a small army. I want to be able to fight in melee, cuz it's fun, so I put a few feats towards that.
The GM is following the loot list in the core book and it says I get 16000gp at lvl 6.
Robe of Bones
Full Plate +1, Heavy Shield +1, Ring of Protection +1 (x2), Amulet of Natural Armor +1
10 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1(dodge) = AC 27
Longsword +1 w/ Frost
4(bab) + 1(enchant) + 2(str) + 1(weapon focus) = +8 to hit, 1d8+3+1d6
Channel Energy: 8x/day 3d6 DC 18
Domains are Death/Healing. Makes sense for a neutral cleric right? The Death Domain means that my channels will heal me at lvl 8. The Healing domain ought to help a little bit for my lack of positive energy. I won't be the party's primary healer anyways.
Animate Dead allows me to create 10hd of undead a day, or 20hd if I first cast desecrate. I can control 40hd of dead per day. I didn't take the Command Undead feat because it seemed like a waste. That's a feat for 5 more HD of undead when I've already got 40. Unless I'm reading that wrong.
Desecrate gives all my zombies a +1/+1 and so does Prayer. The more zombies I've got the more the buffs do.
I can't wait to play this guy. I get to make zombies out of all the cool critters we kill. The limiting factor is bodies and only being able to cast Animate Dead once a day. I plan on having...
Not sure if anyone else caught it, but your 2 rings of protection +1 won't stack.
We're currently playing a party where we have two clerics of Pharasma, a half-orc barbarian, a tiefling rogue, and a human (air elemental) sorcerer. (~lvl 5)
One of the clerics is positive energy focused and the other is negative energy focused. As long as we're all near one another we have no fear of dying due to the healy cleric. The negative energy channeler has selective channeling but can only ignore 3 allies so she usually lets the cleric (best able to take the hit) get hit with the negative energy channel.
By far the coolest thing is the Gentle Rest (Sp) that the clerics have. If we find ourselves fighting a BBEG that isn't immune to crits, we position the barbarian or rogue near the enemy and have the clerics both hit him with Gentle Rest. This puts him to sleep for one round and then the melee character coup de grace's for the win.
This interaction wasn't something we actually tried for in character selection, but it just happened to be a nice little bonus.
(Our group doesn't use point buy. We roll stats and take whatever we get. 4d6 drop the lowest, arranged.)
Blasts are generally inefficient because you have to make sure that you don't hit your allies. Not many worries with channel. I blast almost every round. It’s kind of like a 3.5 Warlock who starts with an Eldritch Doom that covers more area. It's a great option for a character who doesn't like a lot of book keeping.
Not hitting friends helps, but that costs feats. There are still situations where blasts will be ineffective. Ranged enemies that are spread out, or single targets.
True, against one enemy the blast isn't as effective. I used to buff in this situation but tend to debuff more now that everyone has magical belts.
The problems is that a lot of the best cleric buffs are personal. These buffs are a lot more effective when combined with combat feats to support your fighting style. If you spend all your feats on improving your blasts you will not have any feats to improve your melee or ranged attacks.
If you focus on melee then yes, positive is the way to go. It's tough being a good melee fighter, powerful caster and powerful channeler all at the same time. You'd need some monster stats for that.
Not matter what your focus is. Clerics have a ton of utility spells like cure blindness/deafness/disease, restoration, etc. If you are having to memorize a lot of cure XX Wounds to be capable of some form of healing, your are losing a lot of utility.
Not by as much as you think. At level 11 (where I'm at now), my Flame Strike is 11d6 while my Channel is 8d6. That -10.5 damage is more than made up for by the fact that I can do it whenever I want (for the most part), 11 times per day and the save DC (on mine) is 6 higher and can't be defeated by Evasion. I don't even bother memorizing Flame Strike.
You are not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing your optimized channel boosted by stats, magic items, and feats to a spell that isn't optimized at all. You could grab a prayer bead of karma and push your flame strikes up to 15d6 for 10 minutes a day, and the prayer bead effects all of your spells making it a lot more flexible than the perapt of negative channeling. You have a headband of charisma, swap that for a headband of wisdom and you get a higher DC on your spells, and more spells/day. A level 15 cleric could be dropping empowered flamestrikes for 15d6 x 1.5 = 76.75 average damage. A level 15 cleric with the perapt of negative channeling 10d6 = 35 average damage.
Just curious Frogboy, but how do you get that DC 30 channel save?
thanks for the input, FB. I read that link you sent a little while ago actually. I hope you didn't mind me hijacking your thread but it's why I posted here. I've seen several of your posts saying that you play an effective negative-channeling cleric and figured you'd be the guy to ask.
I didn't know the rings didn't stack. Man, this game's complicated. There always seems to be another little tripping me up. I'm learnin' though!
Blasts are generally inefficient because you have to make sure that you don't hit your allies. Not many worries with channel. I blast almost every round. It’s kind of like a 3.5 Warlock who starts with an Eldritch Doom that covers more area. It's a great option for a character who doesn't like a lot of book keeping.
Not hitting friends helps, but that costs feats. There are still situations where blasts will be ineffective. Ranged enemies that are spread out, or single targets.
Personally, I don't think I've seen a cleric that doesn't have selective channeling by lvl 5. Almost all the ones I have seen take it at lvl 1. Its one of the best feats a cleric can take IMO, positive or negative. You don't want to heal enemies. If someone is focusing on channeling, its definetely not unsafe to assume they will have a 16 cha, as it determines times per day.
I think a d6/odd lvl AoE is not a bad action in most groups. Especially if you can avoid allies. By having negative energy channeling, you don't need to spend as many spell slots on combat, but may need to add some healing in there instead.
Just curious Frogboy, but how do you get that DC 30 channel save?
Well level 11, and he has a 26 charisma I would guess(he has 11 channels per day which implies a +8 charisma bonus) 18 +2 racial + 2 from level increases + 4 from headband.
10 + 5(level /2) +8(charisma) + 2(Improved channel feat) = 25. 26 at level 12. The rod of splendor is an enhancemnt bonus, and would not stack with the headband of charisma, so I am not sure how that would help him get to 30(especially since it would only increase the DC by +2)
The absolute max I can get at level 12 is 29 charisma( 18 +2 racial +3 levels +6 headband of charisma) for 12 channels per day at a 10 + 6(half level) + 9(charisma) +2 (improved channeling feat) = 27 DC.
If I maxed out wisdom the same way, I would have a 29 wisdom, which would make my flame strike a 24 DC. I would also gain 3 level 1 spells, 2 level 2, 3, 4, and 5 spells, and +1 level 6 spell.
Blasts are generally inefficient because you have to make sure that you don't hit your allies. Not many worries with channel. I blast almost every round. It’s kind of like a 3.5 Warlock who starts with an Eldritch Doom that covers more area. It's a great option for a character who doesn't like a lot of book keeping.
Not hitting friends helps, but that costs feats. There are still situations where blasts will be ineffective. Ranged enemies that are spread out, or single targets.
Personally, I don't think I've seen a cleric that doesn't have selective channeling by lvl 5. Almost all the ones I have seen take it at lvl 1. Its one of the best feats a cleric can take IMO, positive or negative. You don't want to heal enemies. If someone is focusing on channeling, its definetely not unsafe to assume they will have a 16 cha, as it determines times per day.
I think a d6/odd lvl AoE is not a bad action in most groups. Especially if you can avoid allies. By having negative energy channeling, you don't need to spend as many spell slots on combat, but may need to add some healing in there instead.
True, but I am running in a party of 6 at the moment, and a 16 charisma would definately not be enough. With positive channeling and a 14 charisma, I can usually afford to wait until a few of the bad guys are dead, or let my channels hit bad guys who are not injured.
...stuff...
true, but I am running in a party of 6 at the moment, and my 14 charisma would definately not be enough.
Yeah. I think if you go negative, you need to really focus on negative channelling to make it worthwhile. Positive channelling is still good out of combat. Negative, on the other hand, is not.
|
|
Just curious Frogboy, but how do you get that DC 30 channel save?
He talks about having seven to eight uses per day, before Extra Channel, which suggests an 18-20 Charisma to start (and either massive point-buy, a shockingly low Wisdom, or total dumpage of other stats into negative-modifier-territory, or some combination of the above).
Add on the Improved Channel feat for +2, the Faith Trait that gives a +1 DC and fast-talk your DM into allowing Ability Focus - Channel Energy (p 7 of the Bestiary has Channel Energy as a Special Attack, for the Aasimar Cleric) for another +2, and he's starting out as a Human (to afford both feats) with a DC 10 + 1/2 level +4 or 5 (depending on Charisma) +5 (feats and trait).
[I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't allow Improved Channel and Ability Focus to stack, since the one feat is just a specialized version of the other feat, but who knows, I could be persuaded otherwise.]
I imagine it could be bumped further with Charisma-enhancing gear or custom items, like a magically-enhanced holy symbol or something.
This is probably one of those few builds which would strongly benefit from the old 3.5 Charm domain ability to boost its Charisma by 4 for a minute.
Yeah. I think if you go negative, you need to really focus on negative channelling to make it worthwhile. Positive channelling is still good out of combat. Negative, on the other hand, is not....stuff...
true, but I am running in a party of 6 at the moment, and my 14 charisma would definately not be enough.
Agreed, but if you are maxing out charisma, you are not maxing out wisdom, which is further lowering your spell selection.
In the case of a melee or archer cleric, you are focusing on 2 stats, Wisdom and Strength or Dex. Since one of the stats is physical and does not have uses/day tied to it, you can use your level 2 spells for temporary boosts, or you could get a belt. A Headband of Mental prowess(Charisma + Wisdom) is 25% more expensive than a Headband of wisdom + Belt of Strength/Dex.
That is why I prefer positive. I can go positive with a 13 charisma, 16 wisdom(14 + racial), and 15 strength, and make a very strong, flexible melee character who can adapt to a lot of different situations. I spend 1 feat on selective channeling, 1 or 2 feats on metamagic, and the rest of my feats on combat feats. If you go the negative route, You have to max out charisma over everything else, and you become a one trick pony.
At level 5, I have Selective Channeling, Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus(Human BTW). I have sound burst for AoE damage + stun. I power attack for 1d8 + 11 = 14.5 average with a +9 to hit. Next level, my power attack goes up, and I will hit for 1d8 + 14 = 17.5 average damage with a +9 to hit. That is without casting a single spell, and all I need is a 2000 gold for +1 magic spear. I can still channel 4 times per day for healing for 4d6, and I don't have to worry about memorizing cures. There are better weapon choices, but those are diety dependant, so I put down the damage that any cleric can do with just a simple weapon. I am actually playing a cleric of Gorum, and I use a greatsword and at level 6 I will hit for 2d6 + 14 damage, 21 average with a +9 to hit.
A level 6 negative energy focused caster would do 6d6 with the Phylactery of Negative Channeling for an average of 21 damage 8 times a day with a DC of 20(20 charisma from 15 base, +1 level, +2 racial, +2 headband). This requires 2 magic items totaling 15k gold out of the 16k gold that a level 6 character has. They have to burn 3 of their 5 available feats on channeling feats. Selective channeling, Improved Channel, and Command Undead(to not be useless against undead). Leaving only 2 feats free for other stuff. I end up with a lower widsom(less spells per day), and I would be forced to memorize cure spells if I didn't want to be forced to burn scrolls or wand charges.
A level 6 gold dragon sorcerer with a 20 charisma take spell focus evocation and greater spell focus evocation. They cast fireball for 6d6 + 6 = 27 average damage with a DC of 20 at a cost of 2 feats and a 4k magic item.
A level 6 Evoker with a 20 intelligence takes SF and GSF evocation. They cast fireball or lighting bolt for 6d6 + 3 = 24 average damage. Cost 2 feats and a 4k magic item.
A level 9 elemental sorcerer can blast for 9d6 damage and give acid vulnerability, then they can toss out an empowered fireball that becomes an their element type that deals 9d6 x 1.5 x 1.5 = around 70 damage on average vs a level 9 cleric that can deal 7d6 = 24.5 average damage.
A negative energy cleric is good before level 5, once the arcane casters get access to fireball, their power starts to wane quickly.
My character is only at a DC 26 channel but it could be higher. Let's build a typical negative energy channeler and see what we get when we reach level 10.
CHA: 16 + 2 racial + 2 level boost + 4 Headband of CHA or Eagles Splender = 24
DC: 10 + 5 level + 7 CHA + 2 Improved Turning + 2 Ability Focus (Channel) + 1 Sacred Conduit Trait = 27 DC
Channels: 7d6, 12 times per day w/ Extra Channel and a Phylactery or Negative Energy Channeling that is made for a different body slot.
If you started with an 18 CHA then bump that up one.
If you are lucky enough to find a Tome of Leadship and Influence then bump that up another one.
If you don't do Traits than subtract one.
Still, a 26-27 is pretty much the low end if you optimize your character for channeling. 29 is probably the high end unless there is another way to boost it that I'm not thinking of. I did say pushing 30 though meaning almost there. Not many make that save though either way.
I'll come back to respond to the other posts in a little bit.
My character is only at a DC 26 channel but it could be higher. Let's build a typical negative energy channeler and see what we get when we reach level 10.
CHA: 16 + 2 racial + 2 level boost + 4 Headband of CHA or Eagles Splender = 24
DC: 10 + 5 level + 7 CHA + 2 Improved Turning + 2 Ability Focus (Channel) + 1 Sacred Conduit Trait = 27 DC
Channels: 7d6, 12 times per day w/ Extra Channel and a Phylactery or Negative Energy Channeling that is made for a different body slot.If you started with an 18 CHA then bump that up one.
If you are lucky enough to find a Tome of Leadship and Influence then bump that up another one.
If you don't do Traits than subtract one.Still, a 26-27 is pretty much the low end if you optimize your character for channeling. 29 is probably the high end unless there is another way to boost it that I'm not thinking of. I did say pushing 30 though meaning almost there. Not many make that save though either way.
I'll come back to respond to the other posts in a little bit.
I am not 100% sure a PC can take Ability Focus (Channel) or if Ability Focus(Channel) and improved Channel stack.
I am not 100% sure a PC can take Ability Focus (Channel) or if Ability Focus(Channel) and improved Channel stack.
I don't see why not.
Ability Focus is a general feat (it just happens to be in the Bestiary) and Channel Energy is a Special Attack (see the Aasimar entry in the Bestiary.) Ability Focus gives an untyped +2 bonus to the save DC of the focused on ability.
Improved Channel is also a general feat and specifically states it grants an untyped bonus of +2 to the save DC of channel energy.
I would say, RAW, it stacks.
I am not 100% sure a PC can take Ability Focus (Channel) or if Ability Focus(Channel) and improved Channel stack.
I don't see why not.
Ability Focus is a general feat (it just happens to be in the Bestiary) and Channel Energy is a Special Attack (see the Aasimar entry in the Bestiary.) Ability Focus gives an untyped +2 bonus to the save DC of the focused on ability.
Improved Channel is also a general feat and specifically states it grants an untyped bonus of +2 to the save DC of channel energy.
I would say, RAW, it stacks.
Aasimars have a special attack that is identical to a cleric's channel, but that does not mean it is the same. Would an aasimar with 1 level of cleric would have 5 uses of their racial channel, and another 5 uses of the class ability channel or would they have 5 uses of a 2d6 channel? By a strict reading of the RAW, I get the first answer.
Can a wizard declare that their fireball spell is a special attack, and take ability focus(fireball) and thus get +2 to the DC of all their fireballs?
Channel is an extrodinary ability, the feat requires a special attack. I am not sure a human cleric qualifies.
Aasimars have a special attack that is identical to a cleric's channel, but that does not mean it is the same. Would an aasimar with 1 level of cleric would have 5 uses of their racial channel, and another 5 uses of the class ability channel or would they have 5 uses of a 2d6 channel? By a strict reading of the RAW, I get the first answer.
Can a wizard declare that their fireball spell is a special attack, and take ability focus(fireball) and thus get +2 to the DC of all their fireballs?
Channel is an extrodinary ability, the feat requires a special attack. I am not sure a human cleric qualifies.
The Aasimar example in the Bestiary is a 1st level cleric.
Not hitting friends helps, but that costs feats. There are still situations where blasts will be ineffective. Ranged enemies that are spread out, or single targets.
True but that's the nature of the game. No one is good all the time and everyone has strengths and weaknesses. It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
The problems is that a lot of the best cleric buffs are personal. These buffs are a lot more effective when combined with combat feats to support your fighting style. If you spend all your feats on improving your blasts you will not have any feats to improve your melee or ranged attacks.
Yes but that's a different kind of Cleric. I'm not saying a Battle Priest isn't an effective build. It can be just as effective as a full spellcaster or channeler, I'd assume. Haven't seen one in action yet.
Not matter what your focus is. Clerics have a ton of utility spells like cure blindness/deafness/disease, restoration, etc. If you are having to memorize a lot of cure XX Wounds to be capable of some form of healing, your are losing a lot of utility.
It's funny, you practically wrote out my spell list. :)
I'm being perfectly honest here. I don't have to memorize very many Cure spells. My daily spell list contains one of each level (two second level). I usually don't even use them all until the end of the adventuring day because I save them for emergencies. In most cases, battles end a lot faster so the wand of cure light wounds gets a lot of action. They're pretty much disposable by this point though.
You are not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing your optimized channel boosted by stats, magic items, and feats to a spell that isn't optimized at all. You could grab a prayer bead of karma and push your flame strikes up to 15d6 for 10 minutes a day, and the prayer bead effects all of your spells making it a lot more flexible than the perapt of negative channeling. You have a headband of charisma, swap that for a headband of wisdom and you get a higher DC on your spells, and more spells/day. A level 15 cleric could be dropping empowered flamestrikes for 15d6 x 1.5 = 76.75 average damage. A level 15 cleric with the perapt of negative channeling 10d6 = 35 average damage.
I know, that's why I went out of my way to specify "my channel" and "my flamestrike". If you focus on spellcasting, the Flamestrike will be stronger but less versatile than my Channel when you get 5th level spells. You only get a couple of them and have to sacrifice all of your other 5th level spells to even be able to cast it that much. As you level up though, the DC will only increase by a couple while everyone else's saves are increasing. The Channel has the advantage of an ever increasing save DC that is always equal to or one less than your highest level spell (before cranking the DC with feats and traits).
Okay, now you're prety much doing an apples to oranges comparison as well. You're comparing 10 minutes of +4 CL spellcasting to a perminant +2d6 on to your channel. And sure, a couple of times per day at 15th level with your highest level spell slots, you could average 77 damage on a 10ft radius empowered flamestrike with a fairly low save DC that most Rogues, Monks and Rangers will probably ignore and anyone else who rolls well will take half damage, minus fire resistance...oooor you could throw [probably more than] twelve 10d6, Will DC thirty-something channels that only the most prepared BBEGs will be able to protect themselves against. Also the occasional elemental as well since Elemental Channel is probably not worth a feat unless you know you are going to be facing a decent number of them.
But again, the Channeler's role isn't taking out the BBEG. It's taking out the minions with the quickness. I can see why this might not appeal to everyone though (not directed at you personally).
Again, I'm not saying the Channeler is the greatest, most powerful character in the game. I am arguing that it is likely as powerful as any other Cleric build though (at least through 11 levels). It is sort of front loaded but that's a good thing. You get to rock early and weaken up long after most campaigns are over.
thanks for the input, FB. I read that link you sent a little while ago actually. I hope you didn't mind me hijacking your thread but it's why I posted here. I've seen several of your posts saying that you play an effective negative-channeling cleric and figured you'd be the guy to ask.
No worries. I do seem to be one championing it the most around here. Most people that haven't seen it in action believe that it's weak by looking at the pure numbers. My DM doesn't think it is, though. :)
By having negative energy channeling, you don't need to spend as many spell slots on combat, but may need to add some healing in there instead.
Yes, this is key. My spell slots are almost entirely utility. Domain powers and Channels can easily be your main source of attacks for the day. I've found the Clerics spell list to be very lacking in the combat spells anyway. Some of the domains can make up for that though.
The absolute max I can get at level 12 is 29 charisma( 18 +2 racial +3 levels +6 headband of charisma) for 12 channels per day at a 10 + 6(half level) + 9(charisma) +2 (improved channeling feat) = 27 DC.
I actually have no CHA boosting item ATM. We rolled stats so I was lucky enough to start with a 20 CHA. I'm at 23 CHA because of a Tome of Leadership and Influence +2 we got as treasure. It'll go up to 24 next level and I'll probably upgrade my Headband of WIS +2 to a WIS/CHA +2 next time we have some down time. My save could be very close to 30 if I went completely in that direction. I haven't really needed to, though. A Rod of Splendor would totally make my DC nearly unreachable though since it'll bump up another +2 next level.
True, but I am running in a party of 6 at the moment, and a 16 charisma would definately not be enough. With positive channeling and a 14 charisma, I can usually afford to wait until a few of the bad guys are dead, or let my channels hit bad guys who are not injured.
We had a party of 7 or 8 when we first started this campaign. I really rocked the house then because the DM threw in more enemies to compensate. We only have four on a regular basis now, though.
Yeah. I think if you go negative, you need to really focus on negative channelling to make it worthwhile. Positive channelling is still good out of combat. Negative, on the other hand, is not.
Fully agree.
Just curious Frogboy, but how do you get that DC 30 channel save?He talks about having seven to eight uses per day, before Extra Channel, which suggests an 18-20 Charisma to start (and either massive point-buy, a shockingly low Wisdom, or total dumpage of other stats into negative-modifier-territory, or some combination of the above).
We rolled stats: 3d6, reroll 1s. The DM also had us roll a d6 and add those points to our total however we wanted. I rolled better than anyone with 17, 17, 15, 12, 11, 11. I bumped my two 17s to 18s, my 15 to a 16 and one of my 11s to a 12. This is why I created a more typical Channeler in one of my previous post's example. Funny thing is, it ended up with a better DC than I currently have. :)
Add on the Improved Channel feat for +2, the Faith Trait that gives a +1 DC and fast-talk your DM into allowing Ability Focus - Channel Energy (p 7 of the Bestiary has Channel Energy as a Special Attack, for the Aasimar Cleric) for another +2, and he's starting out as a Human (to afford both feats) with a DC 10 + 1/2 level +4 or 5 (depending on Charisma) +5 (feats and trait).
[I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't allow Improved Channel and Ability Focus to stack, since the one feat is just a specialized version of the other feat, but who knows, I could be persuaded otherwise.]
It is supported by RAW but I wouldn't be surprised to see DMs say no to this. A lot of people see negative energy channeling as weak though so maybe not.
This is probably one of those few builds which would strongly benefit from the old 3.5 Charm domain ability to boost its Charisma by 4 for a minute.
Yikes!
... lots of stuff ...
A negative energy cleric is good before level 5, once the arcane casters get access to fireball, their power starts to wane quickly.
Yeah, if you enjoy incinerating your entire party. :)
Channel Positive energy you can heal that amount and make the chance of a pc falling a lot more harder. Plus you dont have to wade into melee to heal or provoke attacks of opportunity with the channel energy.
Yes, ranged healing is an awesome ability. I even proposed the prospect to someone to go all out positive energy channeling. You could heal like crazy and be the bane of undead and evil outsiders as you'd have extra channels to attack with as well. Just an idea.
I am not 100% sure a PC can take Ability Focus (Channel) or if Ability Focus(Channel) and improved Channel stack.
I thought that maybe the designers just rebranded Ability Focus (Channel) into Improved Channel to make it a more obvious feat choice for the the Cleric so I asked this question on these boards a while back ago. The consensus answer was that they do indeed stack and can both apply to Channel (as long as the DM was cool with it).
A negative energy cleric is damn near broken before level 6
Oh and I fixed this for you. :)
We rolled stats: 3d6, reroll 1s. The DM also had us roll a d6 and add those points to our total however we wanted. I rolled better than anyone with 17, 17, 15, 12, 11, 11. I bumped my two 17s to 18s, my 15 to a 16 and one of my 11s to a 12. This is why I created a more typical Channeler in one of my previous post's example. Funny thing is, it ended up with a better DC than I currently have. :)
So basically, you got lucky on your DMs generous rolling system, and got the equivalent of a massive point buy on top of getting some lucky loot drops.... Just because you can make a concept work with stats like that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good concept.
You ended up with a better DC because of the +4 charisma item. Now take away the trait bonus(My group does not play with them), drop your original charisma from an 18 to a 15(standard panel stat array), and you are in the kind of games I play in. That would drop your DC by 3 right there.
With those same stats, I would have a 21 base strength at level 4 with an 18 wisdom, and a 17 charisma. Throw in a +1 greatsword with feats to back it up, and I am hitting for 2d6 + 11 = 18 damage average with a +9 to hit 4d6 = 14 average damage(if you have the phylactery of NC, which with standard wealth, you should not have something like that at level 4). That is with no buffs up, and I have unlimited swings per day.
I can take just about any class concept and make on overpowered character when I get to start with an 18, 18, and 17 for my 3 highest stats.
Yeah, if you enjoy incinerating your entire party. :)
Never really had that problem.
1. You can land the spells so that they just miss your party members and still hit a lot of targets. We do it all the time, and it is not that hard. The only advantage channeling gives you is that you can hit targets on both sides of a friend.2. You also have other shapes available like lines and cones.
3. Worse case, you can hold an action, and tell your friends to clear out. Most of them can take a 5 foot step away from the blast zone giving your more room to lay down the hurt.
4. Sometimes a little bit of friendly fire is worth it. There are times when it is a good thing that your spells are reflex based, like when the only friendly caught in the blast is the party rogue.
I thought that maybe the designers just rebranded Ability Focus (Channel) into Improved Channel to make it a more obvious feat choice for the the Cleric so I asked this question on these boards a while back ago. The consensus answer was that they do indeed stack and can both apply to Channel (as long as the DM was cool with it).
As long as the DM is cool with it translates to maybe you can get away with it. The consensus in that thread is that your DM has plenty of justification for saying no which means I cannot depend on my GM saying yes. Thus your success with that combination of feats may not translate over to my groups style of play.
We rolled stats: 3d6, reroll 1s. The DM also had us roll a d6 and add those points to our total however we wanted. I rolled better than anyone with 17, 17, 15, 12, 11, 11. I bumped my two 17s to 18s, my 15 to a 16 and one of my 11s to a 12. This is why I created a more typical Channeler in one of my previous post's example. Funny thing is, it ended up with a better DC than I currently have. :)
So basically, you got lucky on your DMs generous rolling system, and got the equivalent of a massive point buy on top of getting some lucky loot drops.... Just because you can make a concept work with stats like that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good concept.
You ended up with a better DC because of the +4 charisma item. Now take away the trait bonus(My group does not play with them), drop your original charisma from an 18 to a 15(standard panel stat array), and you are in the kind of games I play in. That would drop your DC by 3 right there.
...
Charender, I don't think I have ever seen anyone actually play with anything less than 20 point buy, unless the GM was a stickler for rolling and they rolled like crap. Almost all the build conversations I have seen on these boards assume either a 20 or 25 point buy. Its easy to build a channeler starting with an 18 Cha and 16 wis on a 20 point buy. And as you can tank 2 stats easily, str and int, you could even do 20 and 16 (not that I would recomend it). Telling someone they have to use the standard array in their example builds is just dumb.
Charender, I don't think I have ever seen anyone actually play with anything less than 20 point buy, unless the GM was a stickler for rolling and they rolled like crap. Almost all the build conversations I have seen on these boards assume either a 20 or 25 point buy. Its easy to build a channeler starting with an 18 Cha and 16 wis on a 20 point buy. And as you can tank 2 stats easily, str and int, you could even do 20 and 16 (not that I would recomend it). Telling someone they have to use the standard array in their example builds is just dumb.
We rolled stats: 3d6, reroll 1s. The DM also had us roll a d6 and add those points to our total however we wanted. I rolled better than anyone with 17, 17, 15, 12, 11, 11. I bumped my two 17s to 18s, my 15 to a 16 and one of my 11s to a 12. This is why I created a more typical Channeler in one of my previous post's example. Funny thing is, it ended up with a better DC than I currently have. :)
So basically, you got lucky on your DMs generous rolling system, and got the equivalent of a massive point buy on top of getting some lucky loot drops.... Just because you can make a concept work with stats like that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good concept.
You ended up with a better DC because of the +4 charisma item. Now take away the trait bonus(My group does not play with them), drop your original charisma from an 18 to a 15(standard panel stat array), and you are in the kind of games I play in. That would drop your DC by 3 right there.
...
We don't use a standard buy either. We use a similar rolling system, and I have seen 1, maybe 2 sets of rolls in 5 years of playing that were as good as those.
The standard panel or point buy is good for comparing different builds because it eliminates the randomness of the rolls. If you can make a concept work with a standard panel, then you can make it work with a better set of rolls. When you have 18, 18,17 for your 3 highest stats it is not that hard to make a powerful build no matter what you do, and those kinds of stats go way beyond even some of the most generous point buys. I had better than average rolls under our system, and ended up with a 17,14,13,13,11,10, better than a standard panel, but still a far cry from what he got.
Then you throw a tome of influence on top of that. Did the DM put it there for him, or was is dumb luck? I have yet to have any of the manuals come up as random loot, much less getting the exact manual that I need. Even then, in my group, we would have a 3 way cage match for the item because we have 2 charisma based casters(summoner and artificer) in addition to my cleric. It sounds like he is the only person in his group that really cares about charisma.
So based on all of that, I would say it is very likely that I would be unable to duplicate his results in my gaming group. Yay, I am glad that stars aligned and gave you amazing stats and the perfect loot rewards to make your negative channeler awesome, but I like to plan my character the stars not being aligned for me.
You seem very stand off-ish on this topic. Just to clarify again, I'm not saying that this is the only good cleric build. I just said that it *is* a good cleric build. I'm not putting down your battle priest or any other for that matter.
So basically, you got lucky on your DMs generous rolling system, and got the equivalent of a massive point buy on top of getting some lucky loot drops.... Just because you can make a concept work with stats like that doesn't necessarily mean it is a good concept.
That's why I built one with a more typical system which can easily get you a 16 in your primary stat to show that it can still work. I still ended up with a better DC since my character isn't optimized.
You ended up with a better DC because of the +4 charisma item. Now take away the trait bonus(My group does not play with them), drop your original charisma from an 18 to a 15(standard panel stat array), and you are in the kind of games I play in. That would drop your DC by 3 right there.
Eagles Splendor can be cast starting at level 3. Unless Traits are banned, you can use a feat to pick up two traits if you wanted.
If 15 is the highest possible starting attribute there is in your campaign then everyone is going to be weaker including all of the spellcasters. It doesn't make this character any worse comparatively.
With those same stats, I would have a 21 base strength at level 4 with an 18 wisdom, and a 17 charisma. Throw in a +1 greatsword with feats to back it up, and I am hitting for 2d6 + 11 = 18 damage average with a +9 to hit 4d6 = 14 average damage(if you have the phylactery of NC, which with standard wealth, you should not have something like that at level 4). That is with no buffs up, and I have unlimited swings per day.
I fought more at lower levels as well. That's a nice thing about the cleric. You can still hold your own in a fight, at least until the melee characters start getting their second attack. Once that happened, I abandoned trying to fight as my character wasn't at all geared towards it. Yours is so I'd imagine you can/will be able to still do that at level 10+.
I have no idea what the 18 average damage against one target you have to be able to hit vs. [fixed] 7 average damage against all targets within 30ft that get to save for half has anything to do with anything. Sure I could've done 18 damage against one target. I chose to do 14 average damage against 2 targets...21 against 3...28 against 4...35 against 5...etc. One time, when our group was especially large in the beginning of the campaign, I did well over 100 HP worth of damage to a room full of goblins with a 1d6 (rolled 5) channel. I almost ruined that part of the adventure since half of those goblins were designed to run away and engage us again later. Everyone shines in different situations. What's your point?
[fixed] I didn't get the Phylactery of NEC until I made it myself at level 10.
I can take just about any class concept and make on overpowered character when I get to start with an 18, 18, and 17 for my 3 highest stats.
That's why I built one with a more typical system which can easily get you a 16 in your primary stat to show that it can still work. I still ended up with a better DC since my character isn't optimized.
Is there an echo in here?
By the way, my 18 WIS goes largely to waste since most of my spells are designed to help the party and my 16 DEX is not a huge boost as I wear light armor and no shield. Heavy armor didn't fit my character concept. With no CHA boosting magic items and a completely unoptimized build, I'm at a loss as to why you would be attacking the fact that I started with better stats than usual. I'm not overpowered.
Yeah, if you enjoy incinerating your entire party. :)
Never really had that problem.
1. You can land the spells so that they just miss your party members and still hit a lot of targets. We do it all the time, and it is not that hard. The only advantage channeling gives you is that you can hit targets on both sides of a friend.2. You also have other shapes available like lines and cones.
3. Worse case, you can hold an action, and tell your friends to clear out. Most of them can take a 5 foot step away from the blast zone giving your more room to lay down the hurt.
4. Sometimes a little bit of friendly fire is worth it. There are times when it is a good thing that your spells are reflex based, like when the only friendly caught in the blast is the party rogue.
A Wizard can do this but it takes a lot more work and cooperation from the whole group. Even then he's not getting as many in his blast radius without hitting or possibly hitting allies. I have fire protection and very good saves so I encourage our Wizard to put me in the blast if he's going to target a lot of creatures. I know it can be done. It's still a big boon to be able to just walk right behind the front line and blast without having to worry about anything or making anyone give up their position.
And in some campaigns, the idea of setting off a fireball so perfectly that it hits your enemies but not your allies who are standing right next to them is absurd. Until we started using a battle grid (only a few months ago) we never allowed it. We still make you roll a hit on the exactly square/corner you're aiming at to align it that precisely.
As long as the DM is cool with it translates to maybe you can get away with it. The consensus in that thread is that your DM has plenty of justification for saying no which means I cannot depend on my GM saying yes. Thus your success with that combination of feats may not translate over to my groups style of play.
Remember, the Bestiary wasn't out yet so Ability Focus wasn't officially a feat yet in PF. Now it is. Again, that's why you ask your DM. You aren't getting away with anything, though. Your DM has to go against RAW to deny a player this. It's not like it's a house rule or something. A DM could ban Spell Focus or Belts of Bull's Strength or Channeling all together (returning it to Turn Undead). You could probably take this build to a Pathfinder Society game and use it so I don't see why you're treating it like it's some broken, cheater build.
Trust me, you'll see this build get used more as people get used to playing PF more. Channel Energy is a new mechanic (which is why I was drawn to trying it out) and changes the game in a way that people are still getting used to. No other class can so easily and consistantly damage all of the enemies that are engaged in melee like the NEC Cleric. If the attack was a powerful as a wizard's fireball, it would be seriously broken.
It works well unless the DM specifically tries to thwart it (which can be said for any class' strength), rarely throws more than one or two enemies at a time at you or is running an undead heavy campaign (in which the reverse build would rock even more).
Charender, I don't think I have ever seen anyone actually play with anything less than 20 point buy, unless the GM was a stickler for rolling and they rolled like crap. Almost all the build conversations I have seen on these boards assume either a 20 or 25 point buy. Its easy to build a channeler starting with an 18 Cha and 16 wis on a 20 point buy. And as you can tank 2 stats easily, str and int, you could even do 20 and 16 (not that I would recomend it). Telling someone they have to use the standard array in their example builds is just dumb.
Thank you. But just for kicks...
STR: 8 (-2 points)
DEX: 12 (2 points)
CON: 12 (2 points)
INT: 8 (-2 points)
WIS: 14 (5 points)
CHA: 16 + 2 racial = 18 (10 points)
Heavy Armor Proficiency with Full Plate and a Heavy Steel Shield will get your AC as high as anyone else's. This is a perfectly playable build with a 15 point buy.
So he needs magic items and possibly one of his ability boosts to get his WIS high enough to cast 9th level spells. That's not his focus and he doesn't even really need to ever go there. There's no rule that says a spellcaster *has* to be able to cast the most powerful spells in the game if that's not his focus especially since most campaign don't even last that long. A battle priest could easily make this same trade-off.
You seem very stand off-ish on this topic. Just to clarify again, I'm not saying that this is the only good cleric build. I just said that it *is* a good cleric build. I'm not putting down your battle priest or any other for that matter.
More devil's advocate than anything. I like to keep a good discussion going. Negative energy is awesome up until level 5 after that it is good, but there are a lot of good things after level 5.
That's why I built one with a more typical system which can easily get you a 16 in your primary stat to show that it can still work. I still ended up with a better DC since my character isn't optimized.
Exactly, you have the equivalent of a massive point buy.
Eagles Splendor can be cast starting at level 3. Unless Traits are banned, you can use a feat to pick up two traits if you wanted.If 15 is the highest possible starting attribute there is in your campaign then everyone is going to be weaker including all of the spellcasters. It doesn't make this character any worse comparatively.
Traits are optional, my group doesn't use them.
I fought more at lower levels as well. That's a nice thing about the cleric. You can still hold your own in a fight, at least until the melee characters start getting their second attack. Once that happened, I abandoned trying to fight as my character wasn't at all geared towards it. Yours is so I'd imagine you can/will be able to still do that at level 10+.I have no idea what the 18 average damage against one target you have to be able to hit vs. [fixed] 7 average damage against all targets within 30ft that get to save for half has anything to do with anything. Sure I could've done 18 damage against one target. I chose to do 14 average damage against 2 targets...21 against 3...28 against 4...35 against 5...etc. One time, when our group was especially large in the beginning of the campaign, I did well over 100 HP worth of damage to a room full of goblins with a 1d6 (rolled 5) channel. I almost ruined that part of the adventure since half of those goblins were designed to run away and engage us again later. Everyone shines in different situations. What's your point?
[fixed] I didn't get the Phylactery of NEC until I made it myself at level 10.
It gives a baseline for comparison. You have to hit 3 targets and they all have to fail their saves to do more damage that a melee cleric of the same level. That makes 3-4 targets the break even point. Also note the presence of cleave. If the melee cleric gets to cleave, you are going to have to hit 6-7 targets do put out a similar amount of damage.
Remember, the Bestiary wasn't out yet so Ability Focus wasn't officially a feat yet in PF. Now it is. Again, that's why you ask your DM. You aren't getting away with anything, though. Your DM has to go against RAW to deny a player this. It's not like it's a house rule or something. A DM could ban Spell Focus or Belts of Bull's Strength or Channeling all together (returning it to Turn Undead). You could probably take this build to a Pathfinder Society game and use it so I don't see why you're treating it like it's some broken, cheater build.
If it was strictly RAW I wouldn't have to ask my DM if he was ok with it. I don't think it is cheating, but I do believe that there are plenty of DM who would say no. I am one of them.
Asking the DM for permission to take a feat can look a lot like the DM showing favoritism, and since I am not 100% comfortable with letting any player take the ability focus feat for anything they feel is a "special attack", I would be inclined to say no. "My dazzling display is a special attack, I want ability focus so that I can't stack another +2 on top of skill focus intimidate and persuasive". If I let one player do it, I have to let them all do it.
And in some campaigns, the idea of setting off a fireball so perfectly that it hits your enemies but not your allies who are standing right next to them is absurd. Until we started using a battle grid (only a few months ago) we never allowed it. We still make you roll a hit on the exactly square/corner you're aiming at to align it that precisely.
That is the RAW. If you are house ruling that wizards have to make an attack roll to hit a location, that is something your group has added to the rules.
Thank you. But just for kicks...STR: 8 (-2 points)
DEX: 12 (2 points)
CON: 12 (2 points)
INT: 8 (-2 points)
WIS: 14 (5 points)
CHA: 16 + 2 racial = 18 (10 points)Heavy Armor Proficiency with Full Plate and a Heavy Steel Shield will get your AC as high as anyone else's. This is a perfectly playable build with a 15 point buy.
So he needs magic items and possibly one of his ability boosts to get his WIS high enough to cast 9th level spells. That's not his focus and he doesn't even really need to ever go there. There's no rule that says a spellcaster *has* to be able to cast the most powerful spells in the game if that's not his focus especially since most campaign don't even last that long. A battle priest could easily make this same trade-off.
Which pretty much proves my point. With that stat distribution, you can make the channeling work, but your melee will be -1 to hit and -1 to damage, and your archery will be +1 to hit and -1 to damage. My point has been that you are giving up the cleric's ability to be a semi decent fighter to become good at negative channeling. Think about how much you meleed at lower levels, then imagine doing that and being completely suck at it.
Not to mention, with an 8 strength + Full plate is a bad idea. The armor and shield alone are 55 pounds which puts you at heavy load. Now normally as a DM, I hand wave encumberance rules, but when I see a player abusing it with something like this, I will choose to enforce the RAW, and since negative channeling depends on your positioning, the loss of mobility would really hurt.
Charender,
You can replace most of your melee attacks with negative channels. I watched a positive cleric do it, and channel almost every round. I see no reason why a negative one can't do the same. Throw in some buffs or debuffs, and your all set for combat actions. Clerics don't need to melee.
An interesting thing that I noticed going through the cleric spell list. One fo the best spells IMO, Shield Other, is significantly less useful as a negative channeller. Damage redistribution isn't as good if you can't heal multiple people at once.
|
|
An interesting thing that I noticed going through the cleric spell list. One fo the best spells IMO, Shield Other, is significantly less useful as a negative channeller. Damage redistribution isn't as good if you can't heal multiple people at once.
Just screams for a new spell that allows a cleric to 'curse' someone so that any damage they inflict to a specific target is halved, with the cursed victim taking the other half.
Great for a solo fight, as the Cleric could designate himself as the shielded target, but also handy to cast on a bad-guy who is locked in single combat with the party fighter, so that half of the damage he does to the fighter returns to him. If he's unable to change targets, say, because of terrain restrictions, he's basically pooched!
An interesting thing that I noticed going through the cleric spell list. One fo the best spells IMO, Shield Other, is significantly less useful as a negative channeller. Damage redistribution isn't as good if you can't heal multiple people at once.Just screams for a new spell that allows a cleric to 'curse' someone so that any damage they inflict to a specific target is halved, with the cursed victim taking the other half.
Great for a solo fight, as the Cleric could designate himself as the shielded target, but also handy to cast on a bad-guy who is locked in single combat with the party fighter, so that half of the damage he does to the fighter returns to him. If he's unable to change targets, say, because of terrain restrictions, he's basically pooched!
Sounds like an awesome variant of Fire shield. I would probably put it at like 6th lvl though.
More devil's advocate than anything. I like to keep a good discussion going. Negative energy is awesome up until level 5 after that it is good, but there are a lot of good things after level 5.
Never said that there wasn't.
Traits are optional, my group doesn't use them.
Which is why I specified "subtract one if you don't use traits.
It gives a baseline for comparison. You have to hit 3 targets and they all have to fail their saves to do more damage that a melee cleric of the same level. That makes 3-4 targets the break even point. Also note the presence of cleave. If the melee cleric gets to cleave, you are going to have to hit 6-7 targets do put out a similar amount of damage.
I only have to hit one if the melee cleric misses his attack which happens quite a bit at lower levels. There's also the "1 HP left" foes that they have to waste their attacks on as well. In those cases, they are effectively only doing 1-2 HP worth of notable damage with the attack. I can drop all of those "1 HP left" foes all at the same time whether they save or not.
If it was strictly RAW I wouldn't have to ask my DM if he was ok with it. I don't think it is cheating, but I do believe that there are plenty of DM who would say no. I am one of them.
It is strictly RAW. The reason you should bring it up to your DM is because the feat isn't one that many PCs can utilize which is why it's in the Bestiary. This is more of a throwback to the 3.x days when PCs had even less opportunity to use it. The 3.5 FAQ specifically states that a Monk can take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist) if he wants. The Warlock (which most count as standard class now) specifically states in its description that he can take Ability Focus (Eldritch Blast). Your DM might not be familiar with it and think that you are trying to pull a fast one on him if you don't bring these points to his attention. This feat has been open to take for a long time now.
Asking the DM for permission to take a feat can look a lot like the DM showing favoritism, and since I am not 100% comfortable with letting any player take the ability focus feat for anything they feel is a "special attack", I would be inclined to say no. "My dazzling display is a special attack, I want ability focus so that I can't stack another +2 on top of skill focus intimidate and persuasive". If I let one player do it, I have to let them all do it.
Dazzling Display doesn't have a save DC. It's a skill check. That's why Skill Focus is the way to boost it instead of Ability Focus. you can easily get a 1d20+35 Intimidate check at level 10 (+10 ranks, +3 class skill, +2 CHA, +6 skill focus, +4 persuasive, +10 any item you want that grants +10 to a skill - 10,000gp). If you really want to burn a feat for another +2, I'd say go for it (although it isn't legal). :)
Special Attacks typically follow a simple consistant formula. It's a special ability that has a save DC of 10 + 1/2 character level + ability modifier. The saves for these abilities can not be modified in any other way except for Ability Focus or a feat that is specifically designed to do this. Skill Focus and Spell Focus will not raise these. I could take Ability Focus (Aura of Madness) to improve my 8th level domain ability if I wanted to. That's a perfect example of this. The only exception I've seen to this formula are innate spell-like abilities. Those usually have a spell level assigned to them which replaces the 1/2 character level.
A DM can say that the designers of PF may not taken into consideration that these two stack by RAW and forgot to put in some provision that prevented this. They would be making an assumption and deviating their game from RAW though (not that there's anything wrong with that).
That is the RAW. If you are house ruling that wizards have to make an attack roll to hit a location, that is something your group has added to the rules.
Yes, I know. Some of the people in my group go back to 1st and 2nd edition and have some carry over rules that will never change. We still can't see in magical darkness without some magical ability to get around it. Neither 3.5s nor PFs nerfs ever stuck for us.
But anyway, if you or your DM says that Improved Channel and Ability Focus (Channel) don't stack then you are also adding to the rules as well.
Which pretty much proves my point. With that stat distribution, you can make the channeling work, but your melee will be -1 to hit and -1 to damage, and your archery will be +1 to hit and -1 to damage. My point has been that you are giving up the cleric's ability to be a semi decent fighter to become good at negative channeling. Think about how much you meleed at lower levels, then imagine doing that and being completely suck at it.
My STR was only 11 until level 4 so the -1 isn't that big a drop. You still have your Divine Favor and Bull's Strength that can boost it up to a semi-repectable level. I mostly went into melee to grant flanking, aid the barbarian or during clean up. I was never good at it.
Not to mention, with an 8 strength + Full plate is a bad idea. The armor and shield alone are 55 pounds which puts you at heavy load. Now normally as a DM, I hand wave encumberance rules, but when I see a player abusing it with something like this, I will choose to enforce the RAW, and since negative channeling depends on your positioning, the loss of mobility would really hurt.
Okay then drop the Heavy Armor Prof. and use the feat on something else. Maybe buy Mithril Full plate when you have the chance to save on encumbrance. Drop your CON down to 10 and boost your DEX up. This was just a quickie example, not something that lives or dies on exactly what I threw down there. Any character built with a 15 point buy is going to have some draw backs...even the standard spellcasting cleric. Pointing them out isn't going to prove anything.
Yes, positioning is important but you will almost always be right behind the fighters. It's rare that I have to move more than 20 feet to get into position to channel.
Charender,
You can replace most of your melee attacks with negative channels. I watched a positive cleric do it, and channel almost every round. I see no reason why a negative one can't do the same. Throw in some buffs or debuffs, and your all set for combat actions. Clerics don't need to melee.
That is besides the point. My point is that to be a NE cleric you are giving up a lot of the natural flexibility of the cleric class.
1. You have more resources tied up in specific magic items. You need the Phylact of Negative channeling. That is 11k gold that other clerics don't need. Give me a great sword and a greater magic weapon spell, and i am good to go for a few hours.
2. You end up with a lower wisdom. For most cleric builds wisdom > charisma. For a NE cleric, charisma > wisdom, this results in a loss of bonus spells.
3. Need to memorize cure spells. This eats up more spell slots.
4. Lower combat prowess. On average a NE cleric is going to end up with lower physical stats and less combat feats. This makes them more dependant on per day effects. If the NE cleric runs out of channels, they are a lot worse off that a battle cleric.
5. Buff spells, yes you can use buff spells to make up for #4, but...
5a. See #2 and #3. You are further taxing you limited spell slots.
5b. Buff spells take time to cast, and sometimes every round counts.
5c. There are probably better choices for casting combat buffs on. For a battle cleric, buffing myself is usually as good or better than buffing the rogue or fighter.
6. Effect is centered on cleric. A wizard can launch fireballs into enemies 400+ feet away. A cleric has to get within 30'. If you are wearing medium armor, it is worse.
7. Scaling. Most Blast spells scale at 1d6/level. A cleric with PoNC starts at 3d6 and gains 1d6/2 levels. The beak even point is at level 5. After than the cleric falls behind and stays there.
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.
Pros of NE cleric
1. Targetable. With a single feat, you gain the ability to miss your allies. The only way an arcane caster can do this is if the DM allows stuff from 3.5
2. Larges Area of effect. 30' radius is much bigger than a 20' radius(fireball) or a 60' cone(cond of cold)
3. Will save. No evasion for you!
Yes, NE is nice, but I wouldn't do it because I feel like the pros just don't outweigh the cons.
Charender, stop ignoring me. Channel Energy IS a "Special Attack" according to the bestiary.
I already proved it to you.
Ability Focus is a general feat (it just happens to be in the Bestiary) and Channel Energy is a Special Attack (see the Aasimar entry in the Bestiary.) Ability Focus gives an untyped +2 bonus to the save DC of the focused on ability.
Improved Channel is also a general feat and specifically states it grants an untyped bonus of +2 to the save DC of channel energy.
I would say, RAW, it stacks.
Aasimars have a special attack that is identical to a cleric's channel, but that does not mean it is the same. Would an aasimar with 1 level of cleric would have 5 uses of their racial channel, and another 5 uses of the class ability channel or would they have 5 uses of a 2d6 channel? By a strict reading of the RAW, I get the first answer.
Can a wizard declare that their fireball spell is a special attack, and take ability focus(fireball) and thus get +2 to the DC of all their fireballs?
Channel is an extrodinary ability, the feat requires a special attack. I am not sure a human cleric qualifies.
The Aasimar example in the Bestiary is a 1st level cleric.
Aasimars have a special attack that is identical to a cleric's channel, but that does not mean it is the same. Would an aasimar with 1 level of cleric would have 5 uses of their racial channel, and another 5 uses of the class ability channel or would they have 5 uses of a 2d6 channel? By a strict reading of the RAW, I get the first answer.
Can a wizard declare that their fireball spell is a special attack, and take ability focus(fireball) and thus get +2 to the DC of all their fireballs?
Channel is an extrodinary ability, the feat requires a special attack. I am not sure a human cleric qualifies.
Open the book and you'll notice I'm right. I just hope in all of this quoting I didn't screw up the train of thought.
Also, for another example of Channel Energy as a "Special Attack" see the level 3 drow cleric in the Bestiary. Paizo lists Channel Negative Energy as a special attack, therefore it is available to be chosen for Ability Focus.
1. You have more resources tied up in specific magic items. You need the Phylact of Negative channeling. That is 11k gold that other clerics don't need. Give me a great sword and a greater magic weapon spell, and i am good to go for a few hours.
I can't figure out why everyone loves greater magic weapon so much. Until I reach my next level (12) all it does is boost my +1 weapon to a +2 for the day. Big whoop. Next level, it gets better for me. But what self respecting Battle Priest hasn't found a +2 weapon by now? Oh yeah, I forgot. They get to play the Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin's weaker little brother. XD
By the way, I'm only joking there but there is a hint of truth to it. The battle priest doesn't get to outfighter the fighter any longer in PF. I know that's not the point, though.
2. You end up with a lower wisdom. For most cleric builds wisdom > charisma. For a NE cleric, charisma > wisdom, this results in a loss of bonus spells.
Yes, losing a couple of spells hurts a little but it's not that bad. For one, you don't need attack spells and it's a good thing. The cleric's attack spells are pretty lame overall and even if they get a couple of good ones with their domains, they only get to memorize one per level. The cleric deals mostly in utility spells where save DCs don't even apply. It's amazing how few spells I have to give up to play this build.
3. Need to memorize cure spells. This eats up more spell slots.
Cure X wounds are horrible spells that only should be used in the case of emergencies. I'm almost always better served draining my enemies life more than I am giving the barbarian another half a hit. Since battles are over quicker, our enemies don't get off as many attacks including that lucky x3 critical that makes you drop everything and rush over to help.
4. Lower combat prowess. On average a NE cleric is going to end up with lower physical stats and less combat feats. This makes them more dependant on per day effects. If the NE cleric runs out of channels, they are a lot worse off that a battle cleric.
True but it's only happened to me once. I usually only get off a channel or two per battle any more. I had to conserve some earlier on but now my Extra Channel feat is going to waste. I could easily retrain it to something else if my DM allowed for that kind of thing (I'm not going to, though).
5b. Buff spells take time to cast, and sometimes every round counts.
How exactly does a battle priest get around casting buff spells?
5c. There are probably better choices for casting combat buffs on. For a battle cleric, buffing myself is usually as good or better than buffing the rogue or fighter.
And so is buffing the fighter or rogue and blasting away at your enemies.
6. Effect is centered on cleric. A wizard can launch fireballs into enemies 400+ feet away. A cleric has to get within 30'. If you are wearing medium armor, it is worse.
Not really. You are already right in the thick of things. Only ranged attackers and spellcasters sometimes stay far enough away to avoid your blasts and the wizard or sorcerer can put the pain on them. Plus, I get to quickly erraticate the blockers so that the fighters can get to them faster.
7. Scaling. Most Blast spells scale at 1d6/level. A cleric with PoNC starts at 3d6 and gains 1d6/2 levels. The beak even point is at level 5. After than the cleric falls behind and stays there.
The advantages of channeling make up for the weaker damage that you do. It would be seriously broken if it didn't.
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.
Charender, stop ignoring me. Channel Energy IS a "Special Attack" according to the bestiary.
I already proved it to you.
and?
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.
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.)
1. You have more resources tied up in specific magic items. You need the Phylact of Negative channeling. That is 11k gold that other clerics don't need. Give me a great sword and a greater magic weapon spell, and i am good to go for a few hours.I can't figure out why everyone loves greater magic weapon so much. Until I reach my next level (12) all it does is boost my +1 weapon to a +2 for the day. Big whoop. Next level, it gets better for me. But what self respecting Battle Priest hasn't found a +2 weapon by now? Oh yeah, I forgot. They get to play the Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin's weaker little brother. XD
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.
By the way, I'm only joking there but there is a hint of truth to it. The battle priest doesn't get to outfighter the fighter any longer in PF. I know that's not the point, though.
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.Yes, losing a couple of spells hurts a little but it's not that bad. For one, you don't need attack spells and it's a good thing. The cleric's attack spells are pretty lame overall and even if they get a couple of good ones with their domains, they only get to memorize one per level. The cleric deals mostly in utility spells where save DCs don't even apply. It's amazing how few spells I have to give up to play this build.
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.
Cure X wounds are horrible spells that only should be used in the case of emergencies. I'm almost always better served draining my enemies life more than I am giving the barbarian another half a hit. Since battles are over quicker, our enemies don't get off as many attacks including that lucky x3 critical that makes you drop everything and rush over to help.
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.
How exactly does a battle priest get around casting buff spells?
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.
Not really. You are already right in the thick of things. Only ranged attackers and spellcasters sometimes stay far enough away to avoid your blasts and the wizard or sorcerer can put the pain on them. Plus, I get to quickly erraticate the blockers so that the fighters can get to them faster.
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. In medium armor you have to run for 2 rounds to get into position.
The advantages of channeling make up for the weaker damage that you do. It would be seriously broken if it didn't.
Yes, but the lower damage is one of the disadvantages.
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.
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.