Channel Smite (Combat)
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage. If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still expended with no effect.
SOOOO you can channel into one attack or you can good bomb a 30' radius. Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channel Smite (Combat)
** spoiler omitted **
SOOOO you can channel into one attack or you can good bomb a 30' radius. Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?
I think the idea was that you if you're fighting a BBEG, you can add the channel dmg to your melee dmg while only using one standard action. It does seem very suboptimal, though. Perhaps it would be slightly less odious if you didn't burn the channel on a miss...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's arguably useful if you're a negative energy channeler traveling with a party of living PCs.
I think the idea was that you if you're fighting a BBEG, you can add the channel dmg to your melee dmg while only using one standard action.
Or a regular full attack, for that matter. There's no "attack action" B.S. in the description.
It's also a prerequisite for Guided Hand.
Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?
As a side note, in this case it will be a Neutral Cleric who channels positive energy.
OK so it's situational against undead BBG. but other than that, Meh.
Design Manager
|
It's really not a bad feat for single target damage. Particularly if you're a negative energy channeler, this would allow you to drop some decent damage on a BBEG without taking the feat that lets you exclude your other living party members from the effects of the hit. Plus, as noted by other posters, you could use it on the first attack in a full attack action to dish out some hurt. It seems like it's most useful for either pally/antipallys or clerics whose primary schtick is buffing and going to town with their deity's chosen weapon.
It's also a prerequisite for Guided Hand.
Not sure if trolling. (It IS in the name, though.)
As for the feat: it's obviously for very niche builds. Not sure if this ability alone is worth a full feat though. Is guided hand very good?
|
It's also a prerequisite for Guided Hand.Not sure if trolling. (It IS in the name, though.)
As for the feat: it's obviously for very niche builds. Not sure if this ability alone is worth a full feat though. Is guided hand very good?
It was a nickname acquired before the internet. Not trolling.
Guided Hand allows you to use your wisdom for attack rolls with your god's favored weapon.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also worth noting that the way it's worded, the extra damage counts as extra weapon damage, not positive or negative energy. Which means it helps towards overcoming DR, massive damage, and so on. It also means you can full attack in addition to doing the channel damage.
It's a very situational feat.
Yeah, Guided Hand moves this Cleric's attacks from +0 up to +4 to hit melee, and from +2 to +4 ranged, (daggers is Gods favored weapon) so that's worth a 2 feat buy in I think?
Just wish that the stepping stone feat had some less situational use. :(
It is a Cleric of Pharasma tho so I guess channeling Pos. energy into a BBG undead guy is fluffy.
|
Design Manager
|
It's also worth noting that the way it's worded, the extra damage counts as extra weapon damage, not positive or negative energy. Which means it helps towards overcoming DR, massive damage, and so on. It also means you can full attack in addition to doing the channel damage.
It's a very situational feat.
I hadn't noticed before, but you're right, the wording of the feat does mean that the extra damage is weapon damage, not positive or negative energy, though the type of energy you channel dictates what situations you can use the ability in.... Hmm... Definitely a feat that might be more useful if you have an idea of what kind of campaign you're going into, absolutely situational.
It was a nickname acquired before the internet. Not trolling.
I only said anything because the OP said:
Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?
So, he kinda knew that already.
Not great but not most worthless ever.
If you are a paladin or melee cleric you may not want to give up your attack action to do 3d6 (if there is only one opponent) since your weapon damage could easily be higher than that. However, you might be thrilled to add an additional +3d6 to the first weapon attack.
Remember that if you miss, it wastes the channel.
Good ole Channel Smite.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you want to add some more damage to your full-attacks, rather than use a standard action for an ability that many people see as useless in combat at higher levels?
Because you still want to use it to deal damage, but don't want to pump Cha for Selective Channeling?
Maybe you want to be able to do all of the above, and apply slow to your target, with your Freedom variant channel? Or any other of the cool variant channels? With Greater Channel Smite, you could allocate your dice in a way that every attack would slow targets. Or anything other interesting effects.
Some extra damage is nice, but being able to make use of an ability you probably won't be using in combat anyways is always great.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I made up a negative channeling cleric of calistria. She uses a spell storing whip to deliver a channeled smite with her biggest inflict spell to boot. Its situational but to be honest half the time im casting spells anyways. When she gets a chance to bring the pain though everybody at the table loves it!
Dip into magus if you want to use this and cast true strike before using the channel smite attack. This way you get to make your channel smite attack at +18 as a full attack.
Channel Smite (Combat)
SOOOO you can channel into one attack or you can good bomb a 30' radius. Why on earth would anyone ever take this feat OTHER than it's a requirement for Guided hand?
My Ftr1/Clr13 of Orcus disagrees with you. Duel wielding, using power attack, strength buffed up, using an anarchic heavy mace vs. a lawful foe plus an extra 7d6 damage on teh first attack is great for taking out paladins of Pholtus!
I'm equally sure that characters optimised for undead slaying via such things as undead bane swords are also quite happy to both channel against a poweful undead foe while also getting their full attack actions, damn 'em :)
I just don't see it, particularly as Channelling uses *two* Lay on Hands instances for a Paladin.
Except as a Feat Tax (or for the occasional negative channeller with a bunch of living friends), it doesn't seem worth a feat to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that if you miss, it wastes the channel.
That's... That's annoying. Given how much of a loss that is, does that really make sense? Has anyone home-ruled that it doesn't waste the channel? (I'm seriously considering it, and am interested in other's thoughts/experiences.)
Rabit
Remember that if you miss, it wastes the channel.
That's... That's annoying. Given how much of a loss that is, does that really make sense? Has anyone home-ruled that it doesn't waste the channel? (I'm seriously considering it, and am interested in other's thoughts/experiences.)
Rabit
Greater Channel Smite gets rid of that.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Because you want to add some more damage to your full-attacks, rather than use a standard action for an ability that many people see as useless in combat at higher levels?
Because you still want to use it to deal damage, but don't want to pump Cha for Selective Channeling?
Good points. While I wouldn't take it for most characters, Channel Smite can be useful for specific builds that want certain things.
Maybe you want to be able to do all of the above, and apply slow to your target, with your Freedom variant channel? Or any other of the cool variant channels? With Greater Channel Smite, you could allocate your dice in a way that every attack would slow targets. Or anything other interesting effects.
Also a good point, but one that I don't think works. Channel Smite specifies: "If you channel X energy and you hit a Y creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel X energy ability." Nothing about additional effects, nothing about being affected as if hit by your channel. I can't find anything in Variant Channeling to help either, since it says feats that alter channel still work normally. Which is unfortunate, since the slow hammer would have been pretty cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channel Smite came out 2 full books before Variant Channeling did. I wouldn't expect to find anything in it about variant channeling :)
But Channel Smite presents an alternative use for channel energy, which is one of the clauses for feats that modify channel energy working on variant channels.
I can see where you're coming from with the "not as if hit by your channel", but that's splitting hairs, IMO, and I doubt it to be the intent. It doesn't work for every variant effect, but it should for many.
|
as a cleric, you can cast haste get your full attack damage and add in xd6 extra damage against a single target... how is this a bad feat? versatile channeler is a great feat to mix with this.
in a situation where you have multiple enemies near you a standard to deal aoe damage is worth while, but wasting a standard action for a single target is not. you run up to the big bad guy, with haste on, and start smacking him up side the head with your full modifiers to attack, get xd6 extra damage, then a spell storing weapon for inflict serious wounds, then you get the rest of your full attack action.
Anyone know if Channel Smite multiplies on a Critical hit?
Because if so, it might suddenly be very deadly.
Bonus points for using a Falcata.
It is weapon damage, but since properties like Flaming and Frost don't multiply on critical hits, I don't see why Channel Smite would.
As someone who plays a Neutral cleric that channels negative energy... this feat was a regrettable choice that I wish I could change.
Losing the channel if you miss is a major kick in the teeth. As others have said, why channel smite when you can just channel everything in 30'? So you might hit a friendly target or two, big deal. Odds are, those friendly targets have more HP and higher will saves than your intended targets, and if a little friendly fire will turn the tide of the battle, then so be it...
Another issue with Channel Smite... the target still gets to make the Will save. You're concentrating your channeled energy, something that is normally powerful enough to hit a 30' burst, into a single strike, yet it doesn't gain in power or intensity.
As far as the idea of "well you still get a full attack action with Channel Smite"; perhaps I'm just not building or using my cleric correctly, but his strength doesn't exactly come from unmodified melee attacks. There's no Smite (as in Smite Evil), Challenge, or Weapon Training damage bonuses, it's basically just strength + weapon damage and any small buffs I may have cast ahead of time. Even hasted that gives me the chance of adding ~3d8+12 from the melee. I think I'd rather just have a guaranteed channel-fry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd either (a) nix the loss-on-a-miss, or (b) disallow a save for half when used in this manner (kinda like how spells either require a ranged touch attack or allow a Reflex for half, but usually not both).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Exploit Lore is more useless.
Well, Prone Shooter is even more useless than that.
|
|
As someone who plays a Neutral cleric that channels negative energy... this feat was a regrettable choice that I wish I could change.
Losing the channel if you miss is a major kick in the teeth. As others have said, why channel smite when you can just channel everything in 30'? So you might hit a friendly target or two, big deal. Odds are, those friendly targets have more HP and higher will saves than your intended targets, and if a little friendly fire will turn the tide of the battle, then so be it...
Another issue with Channel Smite... the target still gets to make the Will save. You're concentrating your channeled energy, something that is normally powerful enough to hit a 30' burst, into a single strike, yet it doesn't gain in power or intensity.
As far as the idea of "well you still get a full attack action with Channel Smite"; perhaps I'm just not building or using my cleric correctly, but his strength doesn't exactly come from unmodified melee attacks. There's no Smite (as in Smite Evil), Challenge, or Weapon Training damage bonuses, it's basically just strength + weapon damage and any small buffs I may have cast ahead of time. Even hasted that gives me the chance of adding ~3d8+12 from the melee. I think I'd rather just have a guaranteed channel-fry.
so what you're saying is that adding 5d6 with a 2 handed weapon, the same as what a rogue gets without needing invisibility flanking suprise
round or feinting, is worthless because you will still get your full attacks for the round, instead of dealing 5d6 to one target as a standard action?so lets see...
cleric holding onto a spear 2 handed with a 2 strength hitting 3 times in one round ... carry the one... true strike... plus 5d6 is a lot more then 5d6 as a standard, or even just a normal full attack.
yeah im not seeing how you can say that adding 5d6(18 points of damage on average) isnt worth a feat, assuming that you channel negative.
is it a bad feat, hell no. but i wouldnt choose it over selective channel.
so lets see...
cleric holding onto a spear 2 handed with a 2 strength hitting 3 times in one round ... carry the one... true strike... plus 5d6 is a lot more then 5d6 as a standard, or even just a normal full attack.yeah im not seeing how you can say that adding 5d6(18 points of damage on average) isnt worth a feat, assuming that you channel negative.
Clerics cannot cast True Strike unless you have the Destruction or Luck domain, and then you can only cast it once per day without scrolls or metamagic feats.
Assuming a cleric who doesn't have the capability to cast True Strike (and thus has a much higher chance of missing)...
Your 2-handed spear with channel smite does exactly 0 damage if you miss. A standard channel is guaranteed damage. I suppose that if the only creatures that your DM ever throws at you are those with ridiculously low AC then missing wouldn't be much of a concern, but in my experience the creatures that you would want to add channel damage against tend to be harder to hit.
Antipaladins may be unrepentant puppykickers
I never understood that.
Wouldn't being horribly cute be beneficial to being evil? Why kick the puppy when you can warp it's impressionable little puppy mind into thinking it's okay to occasionally pissing in it's owner's shoes or hide the house key?
Well, Prone Shooter is even more useless than that.
Yeah, seriously. What the hell, editors?
You all should look at my build.
It's for "battle-clerics" who would never waste their turn channeling when they could be full attacking, use their negative channel on their full-attack.
For most clerics, it's not worth taking, for those who it is worth taking, there is no reason not to take it.
|
|
I've used it a few times with my Aasimar that can gets a small boost to channeling vs Undead and Evil Outsiders. One time I spent a round to Cast and Hold the charge on a Cure Mod, then charged a huge Undead and aded Channel Smite when no one else was hurting it. Another time I used it on some sort of Devil we couldn't get past it's DR or SR, but it was more of an attempt to get t to focus on e so the other PCs could start to get away. Over all, it's not worth a Feat, in my opinion.
For a Negative Energy using character it is. It's not great, but it's not nearly as situational. It's pretty rare that a normal Channel with a bit of tactical movement wouldn't do pretty much the same, but affect a lot more enemies. That's kind of the issue with most of the Channel Feats. They don't realy make what you can already do better, they give you another minor option you can do with the same small pool you have. Might be better if every Channel Feat gave you a +1 DC to resist Channels and an extra Channel use per day, but only for that Feat.
It does not, not any more than the fire damage on a flaming blade.Anyone know if Channel Smite multiplies on a Critical hit?
Because if so, it might suddenly be very deadly.
Bonus points for using a Falcata.
Fire damage does multiply on a crit from, flame blade spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have almost considered removing the Saving Throw to make this feat a bit more appealing...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I *love* giving this feat to my NPC evil clerics. It's a moderately powerful boost to damage and allows the NPC to make better use of his action economy. Why waste an entire round channeling for mediocre damage (which the PCs will probably save for 1/2 anyway), when you can hit 'em with a weapon, do weapon damage as normal, and get a nice boost from the negative energy to boot?
Add to this the fact that the BBEG doesn't need to worry about catching his allies in the area, and it's a real winner.
The fact that you waste the channel on a miss doesn't matter for an NPC, because most of them don't live long enough to use all their channels anyway ;-)
That said, you'd need a pretty specific build for this to be useful to a PC.
|
|
It's fair feat for what it does. I plan to take it on my cleric to avoid friendly fire and still use the negative channeling damage output.
True strike and Channel Smite can do easily 20 damage in one round. I don't plan to be major DPS machine, just to hit hard when it's needed.
Also, my players would disagree also. They received around 25 damage each round at lv3-4 and without healer, entire encounter quickly turned into a race of who dies first.
IMO would be better if it let you do damage to anything that gets hurt by positive energy, and not just undead. I think it should work on pretty much anything that a sunblade or a paladin's smite doubles damage on. (Evil outsiders, undead, evil dragons)