I do not like the rules about positive and negative energy.
They are very unbalancing vs. evil gods clerics ... loosing spontaneus cure spell is really bad ... anyone needs cure after all .. inflict damage is nearly never used ...
Not only ... using this rule an evil cleric cannot disguise his allignement .. ruining most plot ... and relating positive ( life) energy to good, and negative (death) energy evil is not so immediate.
I think all living clerics should channel positive energy, regardless of allignement, and all undead clerics should channel negative energy, regardless of allignement ( yes, there are also good liches).
Rebuking undead, if needed, should be at most a feat, with the prerequisite : not good allignement.
I like very much the option of Turn healing ... save a lot of spell and make the clerics more playable ... i will surely adopt this rule in my current game ...i'm afraid that Turn damage could result too strong, and unbalance the class ..
Yeah, I wanted to get my 2 cents in on this topic, too. I love the idea of turning as an area of effect - possitive energy and all that. I also like the healing as a side effect, so to speak. If I read it right, it's ALL living creatures in the area of effect who benfit, right? That's the bad guys, too.
However, may this healing with the turning is a bit much with spontaneous casting. That's potentially a whole lot of free healing - especially if your adventure doesn't call for a lot of undead ("Hey, I haven't used my turning today. Let me use it to heal everyone before we turn in for the night. Oh, and I'll convert all my spells to healing while I'm at it. I'll save all these scrolls for later."
I gotta say, after playtesting it, it works really well, and I used both the negative and positive channeling. While it's true that the cleric is weaker as a healer with spontaneous inflict, it can be great fun, and negative burst energy while surrounded by hobgoblins is fantastic!
Also, you've always had to choose to give up spontaneous healing for clerics of evil gods. I 3.5e that is.
That is sort of the point. Giving the Cleric 'free heals' means the Cleric can cast his other divine spells without feeling guilty that he didn't save them all for healing his allies. Or if he does use all his spells healing his allies then that means the party can keep adventuring for longer. This helps negate the problem of the '2 hour adventuring day'. Where characters lose 90% of their resources (HP, Spells and Heals) in a few short encounters.
More heals means more encounters of same ECL or lets the characters face Tougher ECLs without regular TPK.
What I wouldn't have given for the cleric in the party during the Age of Worms Campaign to have had those extra heals after the first encounter near the wolves. We spent 2 days resting after 1 encounter. I don't want to see that happen in Pathfinder.
What i mean is that all the good things about extended healing converting turning, spuntaneus healing, etc., with less need of time spent for healing, more fun for players not buond to use all his spell as cures, and the like is lost by the current rules, if your cleric has an evil god ... and i do not think this is fun for the game ... or for the player .. i know that in 3.5 ed. evil and negative plan are thought to be the same, but i think it make no sense ... this is the first rule i would change ... besides, evil pc. needs healing as much as good pc., that is all ...
I am creating a neutral cleric of Gorum, although this seems obvious it goes along the lines of this discussion: I want choose the positive/healing/turning undead side of the coin, but also want Destruction as one of my domains, and the domain powers (pg 51)include inflict light wounds at lvl 2 and inflict critical wounds at 12th. It would seem that you couldn't do both, or can you?...any ideas
As far as I know, you can still prepare (or get as domain powers) inflict spells without having to channel negative energy. There are not many good deities who would grant the Destruction domain, though I suppose for the ones that do, it's appropriate.
I like the ability, though I'd prefer it not to be named Turn Undead, I'd much rather Channel Positive Energy, with turning being a side-effect. Calling it "turn undead" makes it feel like that's its only use, and that's no longer the case.
|
I am creating a neutral cleric of Gorum, although this seems obvious it goes along the lines of this discussion: I want choose the positive/healing/turning undead side of the coin, but also want Destruction as one of my domains, and the domain powers (pg 51)include inflict light wounds at lvl 2 and inflict critical wounds at 12th. It would seem that you couldn't do both, or can you?...any ideas
The only relationship between turning and inflict spells involves the spontaneous conversion of memorized spells. Good clerics can cast inflict spells just like evil ones can cast cure spells. Your domains have no impact on this whatsoever, so everything should be fine.
I find this ability to turn undead combined with the an area of effect heal and area of effect damage to be way too overpowered.
The 3.5 turn ability is strong enough on its own in encounters with undead. The cleric turns the undead and the encounter is pretty much over with the players completely dominating the undead and destroying them.
But with these changes it's even more unbalanced. Not only are the undead turned, they are damaged with an effect that covers an area. On top of that the party is healed? You may as well remove undead encounters entirely as they won't be a challenge to any group with a cleric.
Although it is not a bad idea to give clerics some extra healing abilities since they do run out sometimes, I think an aoe heal is too much. Especially one that goes off their turning ability, so they can do it a number of times a day.
I think the ability to channel their spells already gave the cleric much enhanced utility from 2 edition. I could see giving them the ability to cast a heal based on their level a number of times per day, but this should be separate from turning undead. And I don't think it should heal everyone in an area. That's stronger than any regular healing spell. I don't see other spellcasters getting an arcane blast ability that hits an area for damage, but now all clerics get one? (healing for good clerics, and aoe inflict for evil clerics??).
The flipside is also unbalanced. The party faces an evil cleric and some undead and now they will get hit by an area of effect inflict, which is more powerful than most inflicts have been just because of the area of effect aspect, and their undead opponents also get healed.
This needs to be changed. I won't be using it in my campaigns. I might add an ability to cast a healing spell a number of times per day (perhaps the same number as turning) that is based on cleric level, but it won't be an area of effect ability that also blasts all nearby undead like some kind of bomb.
I strongly favour completely abolishing the idea of channeling energy.
Turning undead (in 3.5e) deals no damage, rebuking undead doesn't heal them. Sou the postive or negative energy doesn't really whow in this ability.
And as said, spontaneously casting inflict spells is no substitute for spontaneously casting cure spells. If you ablish the connection to postive and negative energy, clerics could also be able to spontaneously cast BOTH types of spells. Everyone needs cure spells and inflict spells are usually that rarely used, that you don't really get a noticeable power boost from it.
Yes, you damage the undead with the positive energy boost. Cool. However.....
Where before you would turn an undead and they would cower in a corner while your party wailed on them until they were dust, now they continue to fight back. Even if they flee, they can still defend themselves while doing so. It really does keep the whole thing from being unbalanced against undead.
And anything that helps us not have to spend every last dime of party money on wands of cure X is good with me.
Perhaps you make the Turn/Rebuke undead one of the options a first level cleric picks. "Do you want channel positive healing blast or turn undead young acolyte?"
Or make the channel energy a feat taken by folks with turn/rebuke. You can convert the turn into a deity-specific ability (a la Kalamar), channel energy, or cone shaped undead damaging energy, etc.
In 3.5, my turning cleric has ended many a final fight just in the nick of time. Great heroics. Likewise, in non-undead fights, he was relegated to the healing battery. That's the job description -- it's a team effort.
In other games with undead and no turning, that's been a nightmare. Preparedness and balanced parties are always better than charging the next room. Many things in 3.5 aren't broken, just missing a few spots here and there.
We need to keep the core of the system intact and add a layer of coolness as options on top. Turning are not underpowered nor game breaking (except after levels 15 perhaps).
That's my two cents.
I like the new Turn Undead, but maybe it should just 'stun' or 'daze' undead (in addition to damaging them)?
I have to second this. On a DM standpoint nothing is more anti-climactic than running an undead encounter to only have half, if not all, the creatures run off in the first round of combat.
A mechanic in which the undead on a failed save are either panicked, stunned, or shaken based on the creature's HD would be more fitting IMO.
I like the new Turn Undead, but maybe it should just 'stun' or 'daze' undead (in addition to damaging them)?
Hm . . . I wouldn't mind that too much. I still kind of like undead fleeing from the power of your god, but at the same time, dazing them with your power, and letting you bash them afterwards doesn't ruin the flavor of this ability too much for me.
|
I like the new Turn Undead, but maybe it should just 'stun' or 'daze' undead (in addition to damaging them)?Hm . . . I wouldn't mind that too much. I still kind of like undead fleeing from the power of your god, but at the same time, dazing them with your power, and letting you bash them afterwards doesn't ruin the flavor of this ability too much for me.
Oh, I meant that in my opinion turning is too "weak" or "powerful" (and "swingy") if you either completely fail to affect them *or* make them flee (so that they're dispatched without any trouble) *or* outright destroy them. I especially hate it if they can't attack the PCs after being turned.
Okay, so.
My group is currently running RotRL. We began before the PF alpha release but opted to convert and playtest the new system. As far as the cleric channeling, I do not like it. Our party cleric is a frail cleric of pharasma and as he channeled negative energy before the switch, the player opted to keep this ability. The result is that the cleric channeling ability is nearly useless; scratch that, not near.
As a 5th level cleric, he now does 3d6 damage in a 30 foot radius if he channels. For a melee cleric, this might be nice. Run ahead, get into the fray by yourself, channel, bring up the backups to clean up the rest. As it is, the cleric cannot affect undead without hurting the lot of us. Rather badly, if the roll goes poorly. So, fine our cleric is useless against undead.
Now let us consider evil clerics we might face in the future. The battle goes badly? All your troops are down and you're 7th level? Start dropping a channel for 3 rounds in a row. That's 12d6 for a party to try to take and or recover from. You essentially cannot chase an evil cleric unless you've enough hp's to avoid being massacred or an excellent will save, every time (let's say a 14 for this 7th level guy). Keep the rogue, ranger, fighter, barbarian and paladin away while we chase...
The feel of the mechanic seems right, but in practice, every cleric that channels negative energy is now essentially a bomb.
Is the burst a sphere as per default in the SRD or are we going with a conical burst?
I'd like to check in on this thread in the future, so please don't mention anyone from RotRL and ruin my fun...
Thanks for reading.