I must admit this is the only thing that worries me in 3P.
Can someone try to explain to me why this is not too powerful?
A ability that heals 1d6/2 levels in an area (with the feat it will heal only you and your party)?
Doesn't this ability make Mass Cure spells useless?
Doesn't this make healing too powerful at early levels?
Doesn't it make an even bigger difference between the Cleric and Druid/Bard in the terms of healing? So far you could be a Bard or a Druid and be fairly proficient in healing when compared to the Cleric, but with this you are not even close.
First, I like the idea of this ability making healing easier and allowing adventures to continue without as much stoppage. In my campaigns, I imagine this will cut down on the number of cure light wounds scrolls and then wands being carried around.
Second, I do think this is a legitimate problem with the system.
Doesn't it make an even bigger difference between the Cleric and Druid/Bard in the terms of healing? So far you could be a Bard or a Druid and be fairly proficient in healing when compared to the Cleric, but with this you are not even close.
The cleric is already strong enough that you don't need to make it even more powerful vis-a-vis the other possible healers. In terms of ideas about how to fix the problem, I would consider giving Druid's a revised version of the "Vigor" spell that allowed them to heal one person per caster level with that spell. Maybe this could even be made into a supernatural ability that could be used once per three or so levels. This would allow druids to heal more folks in-between encounters. For the bard, I suggest giving a bardic music related power that gives 1d6/2 levels of temporary hit points to allies.
At lower levels it really does make a Huge difference. But, that was also their intent. It's supposed to be powerful. It is intended to allow clerics the option of Not burning every spell slot on healing spells.
Clerics have more spells to cast than 1 cure at each level + heal and mass heal.
At middle to later levels, the "usefulness" of channeling really turns around. the d6's of damage are too small to really heal the party while also being too small to really damage the undead you are facing. Remember that most creatures HD are far higher than their CL, and now every PC gets at least a d6 HD every single level.
This means that starting level 4 PC's HD already outstrip the ability and it just gets worse from there.
The ability is useful and it is potent, but mostly at the lower levels- and there seems to be an extreme push towards making low level characters more survivable. (full HP or double HP at first level, the hit die increase,)
-S
|
The cleric really can extend the 15 minute adventuring day by quite a bit, but there's no such benefit to the druid or bard. While a party without a cleric could theoretically get along pretty well before, now you pretty much have to be utterly insane to try it. One option for druid would be to increase the healing potential of goodberry, so they cured (CL) hp or something instead, so the druid could just cast that spell once a day and have a supply of healing similar to the cleric's...
Regardless of the power level, the healing burst is one Pathfinder rule that will never be used at my table. Not only does it not make much sense fluff-wise, but it really just emphasizes the role of cleric-as-healer. It doesn't matter whether you're the cleric of the sun god or the god of knowledge, you heal. Unless you're the cleric of, say, the evil god of monsters. Then you heal undead.
|
|
Regardless of the power level, the healing burst is one Pathfinder rule that will never be used at my table. Not only does it not make much sense fluff-wise, but it really just emphasizes the role of cleric-as-healer. It doesn't matter whether you're the cleric of the sun god or the god of knowledge, you heal. Unless you're the cleric of, say, the evil god of monsters. Then you heal undead.
It's your table, of course, but I think you're actually making a mistake with this decision. Based on my experiences with the mechanic so far, the cleric doesn't actually do all that much more healing - s/he just uses channels rather than spells to do so, which actually means they cast more non-cure spells than they did before. They get to do things that aren't healing.
Not only does it not make much sense fluff-wise,
Really? It always bothered me that all the Positive Energy being channeled under the old turn undead rules didn't do anything other than frighten undead. Or inversely, that all the Negative Energy channeled in a Rebuke attempt didn't harm the living.
(I am also in favor of giving the Druid some way to at least pretend to keep up. Even if it means taking away some of their other new toys.)
I'm not sure I want the druid to keep up, to be honest.
They can already out last them in a fight, when properly wildshaped, and they can cast spells in wild shape for the cost of 1 feat.
I'm not sure I also want them to have the full-on unadulterated healing capability of a cleric.
The classes need to remain different. Druids just aren't the healers that clerics are.
(and clerics don't run around turning into fuzzy forest animals and attacking things..)
I heart Channel Energy.
First off, it is mostly used from what I can see, as out-of-battle healing. It is easier to get all your friends in a bundle that way. Also, the healing is usually not enough to serve as any more than a band-aid in combat, so if you want real healing, you still need to go with a Cure spell. Look at it this way, say at 5th level a cleric's channelling does 3d6. A Cleric's Cure serious does 3d8+caster level. You'll find (up until you're past Cure Critical) that all the highest level "cure" spells a cleric can cast have the same number of d8s as a channel has d6s, and add the caster level of the cleric in too. As I said before, mostly it's out-of-battle healing, which is something the cleric was going to do anyway... by casting all his 1st level spells. This way takes less time and is generally better.
Second, I've often heard the complaint "But it makes mass-cure-X useless!" Wake up, joe... those spells were already useless. I've been playing dnd quite regularly since 3.5 came out, and I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever seen them used... ... ever. And I didn't say they were used effectively either. Lemme see.... 5th level spell.. I guess I could... deal everybody 15d6 damage in a burst radius with a flame strike ... or I could heal everybody in a burst radius for 1d8+15, golly gee, what a deal!.... Nah.. I'll just flame strike.
Third: This lets the cleric do a lot more than just heal. By giving the cleric some non-spell healing, he can actually use his spells for stuff.
It doesn't make the mass cure spells useless. They're just as functional as ever. It does mean that they're less important.
On the other hand, it means that Selective Channeling, Extra Turning, and Heightened Turning, and similar Feats and channeling boosting items become far more useful and important.
As far as being overpowered goes - yes, it is, at least once you take Selective Channeling (and you'd be foolish not to). Selectively restoring a chunk of HP to everyone in your party at once in the midde of a fight makes notions like "having to reach a fallen friend before they die" pretty trivial. If that Charisma 16 3'rd level cleric happens to be in a group with - say - a dozen caravan guards, four people they're protecting, and eight other PC's, that's take an action and provide a total of 50d6 of healing. Some of them may not need the 2d6 they get - but they might. That 3'rd level cleric can provide an average total of 1050 points of healing for this group per day without using any of his or her spells. If an old-style Wis 16 L3 Cleric of healing put ALL his or her spells for the day into healing, they could heal an average of 50 or 60 points.
Do you need to heal all the wounded after some major battle? Care to calculate how many people you can pack into a 30-foot radius? It's a LOT.
Given that kind of survival advantage, I'd expect that any culture that does not ensure that most of the youngsters who show any aptitude for it (at least slightly-above-average Wisdom and Charisma) train as Clerics - at least for first level - will be overwhelmed in a few generations by the ones that do. This will take a slightly greater investment of resources in training - but characters can start adventuring very young, and can easily pick up multiclasses, so it can't require that much and the benefits are clearly enormous.
AWP: I agree completely.
I have never, ever, seen a "mass cure" spell cast- except for Mass Heal.
As for "people training clerics".
You can't simply take a wise person and make them clerics. The ability to channel divine magic isn't as simple as being wise. A person has to have a very strong faith- in a deity or in some force- in order to do it.
In the Battles of Eberron book (think that's the name) there's mention of one of the houses trying to raise up a force of clerics who's "patron force" was patriotism, in order to get around some healing problems. The book expressed that despite their efforts, they were never successful.
They weren't successful because while you can teach faith, you can't force it. A person acquires it on their own, if they want it.'
I mean, lets face it. If having clerics was as easy as picking out the folks with wis 11+ and sending them to school, they would be far far more of them around than there are. Villages and cities alike would recruit them for damage management and cantrip use.
Create Water alone would be worth the effort, even before "unlimited cantrips".
It just isn't as easy as saying "you there, you seem wise.. go learn to be a cleric so we can get some channeled energy going on".
And if a player wants to use a feat, or lots of feats, to be good at one aspect of their character.. well, that's exactly what feats are for, aye?
-S
In response to quentin:
Lets face it, healing NPCs is icing on the cake, but healing your party is what you really care about. If a couple of those caravan guards bite the dust, does it really matter in the long run? Not especially.
Sure you could heal 1,000-something damage at level 3 to tightly bunched people. Sure a 5th level evil cleric could pretty much walk into a crowded town square and totally wipe it out. To that I say "Interesting." Lots of possibilities there, but nothing to get upset about. I mean, that's no worse than a 5th level wizard casting a fireball, in fact it's actually less damage. If there is already a Killy-burst effect (and plenty of them) at lower level, then why not a healy-burst?
You can't simply take a wise person and make them clerics. The ability to channel divine magic isn't as simple as being wise. A person has to have a very strong faith- in a deity or in some force- in order to do it.
...
They weren't successful because while you can teach faith, you can't force it. A person acquires it on their own, if they want it.'
I mean, lets face it. If having clerics was as easy as picking out the folks with wis 11+ and sending them to school, they would be far far more of them around than there are.
It just isn't as easy as saying "you there, you seem wise.. go learn to be a cleric so we can get some channeled energy going on".
QFT.
As for Mass Cure spells, I've seen them used, primarily in battles against mobs of undead, because all of the remaining targets after the Party were used smiting undead. Of course, I can't remember if spontaneous Cure spells was supposed to allow Mass spells or not, but that's how we played it.
Hrmm. Does Channel Energy mean that clerics don't need spontaneous casting anymore? It fills that role both mechanically and flavorfully quite well. (Backward compatibility may mean we can't take that ability away, even if it is for the best, but it's something to think about.
Based on my experiences with the mechanic so far, the cleric doesn't actually do all that much more healing
True, but I'm railing against the assumption that all clerics are healers. Honestly, I guess it's no different than clerics being able to convert spells into healing spells, but that never felt as blatant as this.
There's just something about a cleric of the god of trickery (fer instance) being able to radiate healing energy that doesn't ring true.
To me.
So how do you test for "Faith" in adventurers who want to be clerics? Why should "Faith" be rare in the population when there are constant demonstrations of how valuable it is and constant reinforcement? "Faith" in a deity or philosophy - strong belief - is easy to come by in worlds which have reliable divine intervention in the form of clerical magic. I personally have faith in the existence of electrons and in many other things I can’t directly test as well as in my own religious beliefs. Why shouldn’t you want it? In my small home town there are more than 40 little protestant churches of one denomination or another - each with its own cleric (or more than one) and little congregation. I pass five of them going to the post office.
For that matter, clerics can have "Faith" in various philosophies rather than gods; they don't need to be associated with particular deities “If you(r) cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, you still select two domains to represent her spiritual inclinations.” . Their alignment - and thus personal beliefs - don’t even have to match those of the deity or philosophy (although how that works with many philosophies remains a mystery).
Most importantly, the only apparent appearance of the word "Faith" in the actual rules for clerics is "Each cleric must choose a deity. Each deity has a number of domains associated with its faith, and its clerics must choose two of these domains to focus on." I don't see any requirement for a "cleric" to have personal faith: they simply must associate themselves with a particular belief system.
As for "if it was that simple there would be far far more of them around" - the rules say that it IS that simple. How does your world explain NOT having far far more of them around? By the rules, there should be. You’re always welcome to change the rules, but “in my campaign I handle that by...” really doesn’t help much when considering other settings.
As for "healing your party is what you really care about" - no it isn't. The party takes care of itself. I’m concerned with setting up a believable and interesting world for the players to interact with. The vast majority of clerics are NOT members of your party. Most will be locals. There is no detectable difference in the game world between player characters and non-player characters. If you want a believable world, the societies and cultures in it need to be consistent with the game rules - the “physics” of that world. If societies inclined to “faith” have a major advantage over those that aren’t, societies that aren’t will soon become extinct. The channeling ability as written will provide societies that make an intentional effort to tap into it - whether by cultivating and encouraging faith, by training clerics, or by simply putting religious tomes in every room of every inn - with such an advantage.
Basically, what are the likely cultural effects of the rules as written? If a race has an inherent short-range Teleport ability, how old are they before it comes into play? What effects does it have on the design of their cities? Their defenses? On how adults supervise the children - and thus the early experiences that will shape the backgrounds of characters of this race? Do they have a very low rate of violent crime, but lots of burglaries? Do they build antimagic jails or find some other method of punishing lawbreakers?
Admittedly, none of that matters much for an afternoons dungeon crawl - but it matters immensely during long campaigns. Nothing kills role-playing like finding that the world you’re supposed to be in has obvious lapses of logic.
There's just something about a cleric of the god of trickery (fer instance) being able to radiate healing energy that doesn't ring true.
hehe, that one's easy, he can just tell everybody he can't do it.
lol, I understand the sentiment, I think they were trying to help out in that area with the domains but yeah... Cleric does tend to have the heal stick. But I guess you could always be an evil cleric, or better yet (in most settings) a neuteral cleric who channels negative. Party might not be too happy with you tho =).
PC's are assumed to be of whatever faith they claim to be.
If the claim to be of one faith but the DM finds them to be severely lacking, then the DM can de-frock them. Playing a cleric, paladin or druid (or ranger) implies that you have some RP belief in something and that you more or less adhere to it. Or else! And Or else is in the hands of the DM.
Aside from players, NPC's follow the NPC demographics. THere are as many Clerics as it says there are- and pardon, I don't have them memorized and my books are not with me at present so I can't quote them.
But just as not every person with 11 int is a wizard, not every person with 11 cha is a sorc and not every person with 11 wis is a cleric. The cleric just has the added "requirement" of needing to believe in *somthing* strong enough to draw power from it- be it an ideal (such as Patriotism from my earlier example) or Pelor.
It is an established fact that clerics have to have some sort of divine connection to get their spells. It's where their spells come from. They don't reach out and manipulate magic so much as magic is gifted to them from some outside source. You can, in your campaigns, handwaive that if you wish- but then it becomes a problem of your houserules rather than an issue of how the game is supposed to actually work.
And even if you do, by DM fiat, say that anyone with an 11 wis can suddenly train to be a cleric, they'd be no more common with channeling than without it- because to the average village Channeling is far Far less useful than the sheer amount of spells the cleric would then have at his or her disposal.
Channeling hasn't created some global market for clerics, its just eased the burden of using their precious spell slots on healing everyone. Now they have a second method. A method that is good at low levels, is "ok" at middle levels, and is terrible at high levels. (unless 10d6 healing is "good" when everyone has at least 20d6hp + (con bonus x 20).
Channeling energy into healing is no less flavorful for the Cleric of Mask or Farfegnugen than converting prepared spells into healing was, and it's been a staple of clerics since 3.0 came out.
Not every druid wants to summon creatures all the time either, but they are still stuck with it. Sometimes classes are stuck with base features that don't fit every single individual character mold. The domains already give clerics vast diversity in power from one "Denomination" to the next. Not every cleric ability need be so varied.
-S
After all these posts here I find this an even bigger problem. I think I am going to house rules this out of my campaigns. The best I can leave is that healing only affects one target within range (or maybe one target per Wis modifier) while still damaging all undead.
First up, "faith" (a personal belief system) is not the same as "faith" (an organized church).
Secondarily, lets check the actual rules again: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for...". Now a Code of Conduct is just that - how you conduct yourself. That is, the actions you take. Your personal beliefs are not at issue as long as your actual actions fulfill that "code of conduct". Your house rules are not at issue - and I am asking what the game rules actually tell us about the world. There is no requirement listed for training to be a cleric, although there is one - a minimum attribute requirement - for casting clerical spells. Saying that large segments of the population CANNOT choose to take clerical levels is your personal GM fiat.
This still doesn't tell us anything about the "codes of conduct" required by various philosophies of course.
In fact, it is not "an established fact that clerics have to have some sort of divine connection to get their spells". No such requirements are listed - and Philosophies are not divine.
Checking the book, Rangers do not have a required code of conduct and are not required to believe in anything in particular. There are no rules for "ex-rangers" either. Are you thinking about earlier editions? The old first-edition ranger had some fairly specific requirements, but applying them now is - once again - your own house rule. Similarly, Paladins are required to be lawful good, and to adhere to a code of conduct, but they are not required to believe in anything in particular. A number of ability descriptions do mention them having a god or the power coming from a divine source - but there is no mention of a paladin even having to believe in a god. Apparently, if you are sufficiently lawful good, adhere to the code of conduct, and spend level choices on being a paladin, some divine entity will bestow power on you whether or not you've ever heard of him, her, or it.
As for demographics, under the standard rules, a "hamlet" (where most of the people in an agricultural society will live) has 81-400 people, with an average of 200. It will average 4.5 wizards (three of level one, one of level two, and a 50% chance of one of level 3 or 4), a similar number of Sorcerers, four or five first level Adepts, two of second level, one of third level, and has a 50% chance of one of level 4 to 6 hanging about. It has the same number of Bards, Clerics, and Druids as Adepts. Skipping the calculations for the possibility of classes such as Rangers and Paladins who might have a high enough level to cast spells, we still wind up with an average of 24 arcane spellcasters and 16 divine spellcasters (including an average of eight Clerics). That makes 8 Clerics out of a total adult population (and we'll presume an average lifespan comparable to modern cultures thanks to all those clerics and their spells, thus reducing the children to about 20% of the total) of about 160: making one person in twenty a cleric. This isn't entirely unreasonable historically. Even today, the county I live in - with a total population of 38,000 - lists 103 Churches in the phone book big enough to have their own phones. I know there are a couple of small centers for Moslems, Judaism, and various pagan groups, as well as quite a few religious groups too small to afford their own building and/or phone. Many of those have several people who consider themselves to be "clergy" of some sort. Who am I to argue?
Now then, as for "they'd be no more common with channeling than without it" this is an interesting statement, but it has no apparent logical basis. Having a massive amount of healing available in an emergency is not useful? Most worlds do have occasional floods, storms, raids, and other disasters, commonly with large numbers of injuries and an urgent need for uninjured defenders and/or workers - in which case a large amount of healing could come in decidedly useful. Competitive advantage works in the same way that compound interest does. Even a decidedly small advantage, such as a society that encourages "Faith" and/or Clerical (or almost any other Player-Character Class) training among the general population - will compound and be reinforced over time. A mere 1% per-year average advantage - a few less casualties from a raid, or fire, or flood - is a factor of 270% over a mere century. Over five centuries its a factor of 14,477% (more if you use continuos compound interest rather than simple).
As for how "good" the method is, that depends on how big the party is, whether you're attempting to protect anyone else, whether the cleric is using channeling-enhancing spells, feats, or items, whether or not everyone has a constitution bonus (or has a penalty, which can happen - particularly if attribute damage has been taken), and whether or not you have allies - even ones as simple as summoned creatures, animal companions, and familiars. It also depends on how quickly your battle is going. Up against a creature that does huge amounts to individual opponents? Not so useful. Everyone taking 4d6/round from the rain of burning coals and fires on the ground, from a swarm-style attack, or something similar? That healing burst may provide several extra rounds of action. You're holding the battlements against a horde of archers? You may only be taking 1d6/round from the occasional automatic hit, but a couple of healing bursts may well make the difference between holding the ramparts long enough for reinforcements to arrive and toppling to your death. Helping the militia hold out against a bunch of orcs breaching the gates? Extremely useful. Everyone in a party of ten characters has taken 12d6 damage from a some sort of trap and now the attack begins? Also extremely useful, and possibly a lifesaver.
It is less important if you insert the assumptions that (1) the party is small, (2) only the members of the party are important, (3) most "encounters" involve combat, (4) most damaging encounters are against a limited number of powerful opponents rather than forces which distribute damage more evenly, and that (5) healing everyone in a group for a moderate amount of damage - possibly half their hit points - is somehow less important that healing an individual completely or attacking for a round. Even for a party of five, that 20'th level average of 175 points of healing (more if familiars, mounts, animal companions, and summoned creatures are involved) is quite a bit of healing - a far better choice than most offensive spells. Yes. 10d6 of healing to everyone in a group is indeed "good".
As for "spending their precious spell slots": wands of Cure Light Wounds are cheap - and if your primary use is "between combats" for "low level clerics", they're far more effective for your party of five. A first level cleric gets a total 5d6 healing per burst, and may get five or so per day. 25d6 is an average of 87.5 points - very good for a first-level type - but the wand averages 275 points, and you can direct it all to people who need it, rather than wasting the 10d6 that would have gone to that perfectly healthy Rogue and Bard. A wand with 10 charges is comparable, only 150 GP, and can be used by several types of characters other than clerics. Channeling is an overwhelming cure for a non-existent problem. It means that adventures will have to be redesigned on the fly if the party is without a cleric - and it means that characters will be less inclined to try and avoid damage. Those characters are supposed to be people who actually have feelings - but channeling encourages the players to have them charge ahead, ignoring the risk of injury, rather than to actually play them as people. The wands tend to do that too to some extent - but at least they don't recharge tomorrow. Lets go and get hurt! We don't want to let perfectly good uses of channeling go to waste do we?
Flavor is not generally a rules issue, hence I leave it to others.
Playtested 1st, 4th, 6th & 8th level with at least one channeling cleric
1st level - almost TPK, channeling just postponed by 1 round the paladin biting the dust. Cleric was god of community so it felt right
4th, 6th, - channeling meant the cleric didn't use the cure light wounds wand as much. used cleric of knowledge (4th) and sun (6th). both came up with different rationales for their channeling
8th - battle with evil vampire spawn cleric - party panicked a bit BUT the cleric played a pivotal role in the fight using his channeling to counter the BBEG channeling. (as DM i probably should have had a crowd of undead minions to emphasise the battle of life versus death.
in short, works well and can be easily rationalised for each individual faith
re Druids - keep them different and assume they will use wands of cure light for out of combat heal frenzy's
sigh.. it ate my post.
will try to reconstruct it later.
*kicks forum*
-S
Unfortunately, "Playtested without a problem” tends to translate to: “No problems were observed in a particular set of situations, with a particular group, and with no examination of larger-scale effects on the game world”. Playtesting is useful, yet WOTC reports lots of glowing playtest results of fourth edition - and none of us would be here if we were happy with that. Playtesting tends to limit itself to a set of small-scale situations with a relatively limited number of complications and - unfortunately - tend to focus on combat. You can’t readily playtest whether your world will be believable in the long run: it takes too long.
Did you playtest with parties of ten or twelve characters? Were an assortment of familiars, mounts, animal companions, and summoned creatures involved at any point? Did you try the same sequences of encounters in groups with and without various character types to see if any of them made unbalanced contributions to the success or failure of the party? Did they have NPC’s along to aid or protect? If not, why not? Within the game world, there is no distinction between player characters and non-player characters: they’re all people.
As already noted, the channeling rules “work well” when you limit yourself to the assumptions that (1) the party is small, (2) only the members of the party are important, (3) most "encounters" involve combat, (4) most damaging encounters are against a limited number of powerful opponents rather than forces which distribute damage more evenly, and that (5) healing everyone in a group for a moderate amount of damage - possibly half their hit points - is somehow less important that healing an individual completely or attacking for a round.
These message boards are a part of a giant playtest - on with a large enough scale and enough participants with different ideas about encounters and world design to actually mean something - and a number of people have reported a bug. It didn’t come up when you were using the system? That’s good - but it doesn’t mean that the bug doesn’t exist. It just means that you never happened to try situation “A" and had it clash with “Rule X”.
Personally, I feel that large-scale, consistent, well-developed, worlds and cultures are vital to making a setting absorbing in the long run and that players may do as they please: if I’ve done my job and considered the implications of what I’ve put into the game world, it won’t be a problem if they decide to drop everything, charter a ship, and set sale for a land they’ve only vaguely heard mentioned. That sort of development was one reason why the Forgotten Realms have remained popular. From that prospective, anything would have a large-scale unaccounted-for effect on the setting is a serious problem.
Other people focus much more on their individual character, developing relationships with NPC’s, complex motives, and lengthy histories. For them, suggesting that NPC’s are anything but individual people as important as their characters, or imposing social interaction mechanics which don’t take their own in-character decisions and behavior strongly into account, ruins the game.
Some people like to be involved in large-scale battles and political events. If the Cleric has a far greater impact on the outcome of the battle to hold the gates than their fighter-commander who was actually leading the troops, they’re going to be pretty unhappy unless the attackers were a swarm of undead - in which case this was obviously the cleric’s job anyway.
Some people like the afternoon dungeon crawl, where you don’t have a swarm of other figures to take into account and tactics is king. They’ll be pretty upset if - say - the game fails to give them credit for taking advantage of the environment, gives a massive advantage to the defenders, or otherwise makes it hard to move ahead with a string of battles. Most of these aren’t too happy with Vancian magic or a shortage of healing for just that reason.
Some people like to charge ahead, smash things, and use the game to blow off steam. They’re hard to manage, since they’re dragging real-world problems into the game. Still, any rules which make their characters too fragile to let them work off some aggression are a deal-breaker for them.
Some people like simulations, and will be quite upset if the rules on doing things without magic start yielding overly unrealistic - in terms of their own, non-magical, experiences - results.
All of these (and others) are valid positions - and just because a problem is only apparent to a particular play style, doesn’t mean that it isn’t a valid concern. No game system can satisfy everyone - but the 3.5 player base is already fragmented enough. There’s no need to throw in rules changes that are going to fragment it further.
|
|
Channel Energy allows clerics to something with their spells other then convert them to healing spells. Even for a cleric that prefers to be the healer and stick to melee combat, it allows the party to keep going instead of stopping to rest.
Channel Energy is really no different then a Wizard using his school abilities 75% of the time and using his spells when it counts.
Channel Energy allows clerics to something with their spells other then convert them to healing spells. Even for a cleric that prefers to be the healer and stick to melee combat, it allows the party to keep going instead of stopping to rest.
Channel Energy is really no different then a Wizard using his school abilities 75% of the time and using his spells when it counts.
Agreed.
I'm going to re-ask the question to see if Channel Energy perhaps means Spontaneous Cure/Inflict can go.
It's a rule of game design to not try to model anything twice, and both abilities appear to be doing the same thing, and are connected by the same first level choice.
I might recommend spontaneous casting the old domain spells instead. That way, clerics off different gods feel as different as possible. Plus, I like the idea of a fire cleric casting Burning Hands spontaneously.
I do have to question the Extra Turning Feat on Page 66.
I don't have a problem with the Feat itself, but taken at first level.. it's an awful lot of healing for a low level party.
That sounds great on paper, but I'm starting to suspect if it isn't a little too much of a good thing at first to 4th levels.. like maybe there should be a modest level prerequisite on it.
I don't know.. but that's what I thought from my last session on Tuesday.
I'm going to re-ask the question to see if Channel Energy perhaps means Spontaneous Cure/Inflict can go.
It's a rule of game design to not try to model anything twice, and both abilities appear to be doing the same thing, and are connected by the same first level choice.
That's a good point. There does seem to be a potential for a lot of healing. Not to mention when you add the Extra Turning feat.
In my Runelords playtest I don't seem to be chewing through the cleric's resources at all. His Domain powers (Fire and Sun) are saving all his spells. The Channel Energies are also saving those spells.. and now to be able to convert those same spells to even more healing... The party has done a marathon through Thistletop. While I think that's great (at first), now I'm scratching my head with a little bit of concern.
The 15 minute Adventuring Day feels to have been over-extended in the other direction now. Like it got over-compensated for. That's what I'm starting to feel as a GM anyway...
I might recommend spontaneous casting the old domain spells instead. That way, clerics off different gods feel as different as possible. Plus, I like the idea of a fire cleric casting Burning Hands spontaneously.
Oh, and using this model, a cleric of a Healing god really could go in for the healing overload, which would make sense.
Secondarily, lets check the actual rules again: "A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for...". Now a Code of Conduct is just that - how you conduct yourself. That is, the actions you take. Your personal beliefs are not at issue as long as your actual actions fulfill that "code of conduct". Your house rules are not at issue - and I am asking what the game rules actually tell us about the world. There is no requirement listed for training to be a cleric, although there is one - a minimum attribute requirement - for casting clerical spells. Saying that large segments of the population CANNOT choose to take clerical levels is your personal GM fiat.
This still doesn't tell us anything about the "codes of conduct" required by various philosophies of course.
In fact, it is not "an established fact that clerics have to have some sort of divine connection to get their spells". No such requirements are listed - and Philosophies are not divine.
Checking the book, Rangers do not have a required code of conduct and are not required to believe in anything in particular. There are no rules for "ex-rangers" either. Are you thinking about earlier editions? The old first-edition ranger had some fairly specific requirements, but applying them now is - once again - your own house rule. Similarly, Paladins are required to be lawful good, and to adhere to a code of conduct, but they are not required to believe in anything in particular. A number of ability descriptions do mention them having a god or the power coming from a divine source - but there is no mention of a paladin even having to believe in a god. Apparently, if you are sufficiently lawful good, adhere to the code of conduct, and spend level choices on being a paladin, some divine entity will bestow power on you whether or not you've ever heard of him, her, or it.
Wow, that's a pretty narrow reading of the text, Quentyn.
I think it's pretty clear from the rules as a whole, whether you look at all 3.5 books, or just core books, that clerics belong to religions that are structured in certain ways and have certain requirements for entry and continued membership. For someone so concerned about world-building, I'd think you'd acknowledge this.
Additionally, it's equally clear that clerics do have to have a "divine connection" to get their spells. As you point out, gods send their priests their spells. If that's not a divine connection, I don't know what is. In fact, according to the SRD:
A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.
If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.
Each domain gives the cleric access to a domain spell at each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up, as well as a granted power. The cleric gets the granted powers of both the domains selected.
Thus, a character's deity has a definite effect on who (s)he is. Additionaly, this quote suggests that the language you have been focusing on in the basic class descriptions is intentionally vague as to the requirements of a particular religion because those specifics are dealt with in the relgion portion of the PH. This even suggests that one can be devoted to an alignment instead of a particular deity. However, other sections of the PH and supplemental books make clear that then the divine energy of the plane and outsiders of whatever alignment plane you worship grant your powers.
Thus, it's not true that if you are "sufficiently good" that some random deity you don't believe exists will bestow powers on you. And if (s)he does, wouldn't you then believe in him/her? And for that matter, what does "spend the level choices" mean in in-game context? It means joining up with the particular religion and developing a relationship with the appropriate deity and/or plane. I mean, it may not be the Roman Catholic church, but you still have to develop an individual faith on a significant level.
With all due respect, I think it's pretty difficult to argue that under RAW (whatever you want that to mean) that you don't have to have a relationship with a deity or alignment(read: source of divine power) to be a cleric--and consequently, not just anyone can do it.
I’m actually against any cultural assumptions in the class definitions. I see no more need to require clerics to belong to a church than I do a bard be a member of a college. At its basic level, clerics are simply spellcasters who gain spells by invoking other-dimensional beings who share the same interests.
It’s reasonable to say that churches sprouted up because the populace realized forming a club of people dedicated to using magic to heal or aid crops, but I don’t see anywhere where that’s a requirement to spell access.
Unfortunately, as far as Pathfinder is concerned the "rules as a whole" currently consist of (1) the SRD and (2) the current Pathfinder PDF. Clerics may indeed belong to religions - but they may also, as indicated in the next sentence in both, simply adhere to philosophies. For example, you can quite validly - per the rules - have a cleric of Atheism (a position found in Planescape), of Confucianism, of Existentialism, of Hedonism (whether in the classical or current sense), of Humanism, of Libertarianism, of Mathematical logic, or - for that matter - of Solipsism (for whom I suppose the "code of conduct" would be constant Metagaming - as in "I wouldn't have put this trap here without providing some sort of reset mechanism which would allow myself to escape...".
A characters deity definitely has a strong effect, just as your religious beliefs have a strong influence on who you are on earth - but characters, including clerics, are not required to follow, or even recognize, a deity.
As for Paladins, if you want to invoke the Players Handbook it also specifically notes - in the very first sentence under paladins/religion - that "A paladin need not devote herself to a single deity - devotion to righteousness is enough". There is no requirement of worship. There is not even a requirement that the character acknowledge the existence of other planes - or a requirement that such lanes exist in a given setting.
As for "spend the level choices" and what it means "in game context", Pathfinder does not currently list any restrictions or requirements of any kind for choosing a particular class upon leveling. The SRD does not do so either. Strictly speaking, the section of the Players Handbook on level advancement is not relevant to this discussion - however we can take a look at it. Unfortunately, all it says is that you choose a class. Again, there are no other requirements.
By the standard game rules, there is no requirement that someone join up with a particular religion, much less an organized one, to become a cleric. That is - once again - a house rule.
In fact, the ruling that a Barbarian can take a wizard level and immediately learn to read, or a Wizard can take a fighter level and immediately learn to use all martial weapons and all armor is explicitly supported. Personally, I find this unrealistic and require that in-game efforts be made to acquire relevant training - but that is my personal house rule. As for whether the language is intentionally vague, I am only able to evaluate the presented material. The motivations behind it remain an inference.
Now, it's certainly reasonable to house-rule that "not just anyone can become a cleric" or even that "a relationship with a deity is required" (although many current religions claim that God has a relationship with EVERYONE, whether or not they recognize it, and there seems to be no reason why anyone who wants a "relationship" with a deity shouldn't be able to form one; they seem to want or at least expect worshipers) - but its still a statement that you have to add house rules to keep the game world working as expected when you include the channeling rules. In this case there should either be a note in the rules on the likely social effects or be a note providing a counterbalancing factor.
There should also be some more precise playtesting: run the same scenarios without a wizard or sorcerer, without a cleric or paladin, without a rogue or bard, and without a fighter or barbarian. Is it substantially harder for a group to manage with the same number of characters but without a particular class in the group? If so, that class - or some feature thereof - is probably overpowered.
I might recommend spontaneous casting the old domain spells instead. That way, clerics off different gods feel as different as possible. Plus, I like the idea of a fire cleric casting Burning Hands spontaneously.Oh, and using this model, a cleric of a Healing god really could go in for the healing overload, which would make sense.
I like this too.
Sannos
I like this too.
Sannos
Excellent!
Must...Convert...more!
There should also be some more precise playtesting: run the same scenarios without a wizard or sorcerer, without a cleric or paladin, without a rogue or bard, and without a fighter or barbarian. Is it substantially harder for a group to manage with the same number of characters but without a particular class in the group? If so, that class - or some feature thereof - is probably overpowered.
That is what I have been saying. If you take out the cleric from the group who much weaker the group is because of this mechanic?
In 3.5e you could cover the absence of the Cleric with a Druid or a Bard, but with this new ability I am not sure you can. And if the adventure has to changed radically if the cleric is in the game or not that is not a balanced class ability.And I feel it is not, so as I said I am going to leave it to affect Undead as normal but only one person by the choice of the caster.
I'm going to re-ask the question to see if Channel Energy perhaps means Spontaneous Cure/Inflict can go.
It's a rule of game design to not try to model anything twice, and both abilities appear to be doing the same thing, and are connected by the same first level choice.
I might recommend spontaneous casting the old domain spells instead. That way, clerics off different gods feel as different as possible. Plus, I like the idea of a fire cleric casting Burning Hands spontaneously.
Not bad Ross.. Giving this some thought.
The group is already much weaker without a cleric.
Druids are decent back up healers, but to fill the role of a cleric-healer they have to actually memorize multiple healing spells. That is -seriously- weakening to them. Clerics aren't just good healers they are hands down the very best, even without the channeling. The ability to convert any spell into a cure spell is really /that good/ because it allows the caster to prepare nearly anything else And still heal. A druid just can't even come close to that. Yes, they can prepare cure spells, but they lose an absolute ton of the versatility that makes the class. I'm not against them having healing spells, but they have always been a far, far distant second to the cleric in that regard. (always meaning 3.0/3.5).
Clerics, in exchange, don't tend to come close to what a druid can do in melee. (via wildshape + spell buffs).
Channeling does widen the gap I admit, but it just makes the druid more inferior in that regard than they already were. The cleric already was The choice for a party healer- them having this option just expands on it. It isn't as though they were equal before but Now we have to have clerics. You already needed clerics. This just helps them do their job better.
And that was the stated purpose behind it. To make clerics better at healing, without forcing a mechanic that required them to burn their spells.
-S
Right, Clerics should be better healers than druid, even much better.
But if the gap gets too wide, it means you NEED a cleric, since even a Druid would be unable to help the party keep up with an adventure designed for the 'Core Four' iconic party.
The Druid is the second-best healer in the game, but they already lagged behind by a lot.
Clerics spontaneously cast cure.
Clerics get cure spells a spell level sooner. (Except minor and light.)
Clerics now also have channeling. The first two advantages were quite enough to drive home the idea that clerics heal better than druids.
I LIKE the channeling mechanic, and I love how perfectly it ties in with Turn Undead. I just want to make sure that at least a Druid can be primarily healer if the party wants to. (Bards, Rangers, and Paladins are backup: In multiples you have plenty of healing, but they shouldn't have to carry the burden alone.)
Unfortunately, "Playtested without a problem” tends to translate to: “No problems were observed in a particular set of situations, with a particular group, and with no examination of larger-scale effects on the game world”. ..............
These message boards are a part of a giant playtest - on with a large enough scale and enough participants with different ideas about encounters and world design to actually mean something - and a number of people have reported a bug....
I think there is a difference between a problem with a mechanic in game play, and a problem with the flavour it imparts on the world
I had no problems with the mechanic in play for levels 1-8, and we could happily rationale it into the particular faiths of the cleric.
If the perceived problem with this mechanic is the flavour it imparts to the world, than thats something no amount of playtesting can resolve, its a narrative decison.
My 2cents is that it is just too nice a mechanic not to use, and that it is worth the effort to rationalise the impact in the world. I do believe some thought needs to be given as to the Verbal, Somatic & Material components that go into channeling, especially to avoid the stealth negative channeling, and that the quickened turning feat is not converted into a quicken channeling feat
Compare it to a cure light wand, 750gp for 50d8 +50 worth of healing used by any character (with enough UMD)......
I'm going to re-ask the question to see if Channel Energy perhaps means Spontaneous Cure/Inflict can go.
It's a rule of game design to not try to model anything twice, and both abilities appear to be doing the same thing, and are connected by the same first level choice.
I might recommend spontaneous casting the old domain spells instead. That way, clerics off different gods feel as different as possible. Plus, I like the idea of a fire cleric casting Burning Hands spontaneously.
we house ruled spontaneous casting of domain spells a while back and I do like the mechanical differnence it gives to the various faiths
(mind you I also use cloistered cleric as the baseline cleric)
I LIKE the channeling mechanic, and I love how perfectly it ties in with Turn Undead. I just want to make sure that at least a Druid can be primarily healer if the party wants to. (Bards, Rangers, and Paladins are backup: In multiples you have plenty of healing, but they shouldn't have to carry the burden alone.)
I agree.
IMHO Druid's Nature Bond ability should have Healing domain as an option for those Druids that want to focus on healing.
Also, I always thought that Druid healing should be focused on regeneration and Cleric's healing be more burst.
Therefore, what I have been thinking about giving Druids class ability to grant Fast Healing (Ex).
Maybe…
They could lose a prepared spell in order to give someone Fast Healing of Spell level/2 rounded up for Wis modifier + spell level in rounds.
Or
They could lose a wild shape in order to give someone Fast Healing of Druid level/4 rounded up for Wis modifier + spell level in rounds.
On the whole I'm happy with the new rules. As others have said, the ability weakens as you level. I have chosen to split the ability into either positive healing energy or positive damaging energy. I don't like the idea that an Evil cleric can heal his undead minions and harm the party at the same time.
This ability messes with the CR of evil clerics with undead troops.
(1) "The group is already much weaker without a cleric".
-Quite correct. Also a clear statement of the problem and a sufficient demonstration in itself that the class is overpowered. A party can get along without a fighter, without a wizard, without a bard, without a rogue, without a druid, etc, etc, etc - but an adventure that would be challenging with a cleric in the party is likely to be lethal without one. This isn’t just about direct effects on game balance either. If the party HAS to have a cleric, say goodbye to sales to groups where no one wants to play one and to people who like settings that don’t feature clerics or would have to represent their local clerical types with other mechanics, such as Dark Sun.
(2) As for "World Flavor" - "Flavor" has nothing to do with it. It's World Logic. If I opted to run a world with no gravity, and ruled that everyone learned to use enough magic to gently guide their drift through force of will as a child - and then keep having people fall into pit traps, put in children who needed to be rescued from old wells and tall trees, put staircases everywhere, and keep rolling for falling damage, the problem is not "flavor". The problem is that the players will soon become disgusted with the lack of simple logic and go play something else. The more subtle the disconnection between the assumptions written into the game and the way the world is described the longer it will take to drive people away - but I’ve seen it happen lots of times. I own bookcases full of games no one is willing to play any more because they’re just to inconsistent. They’re all pretty much dead and off the market.
(1) "The group is already much weaker without a cleric".
-Quite correct. Also a clear statement of the problem and a sufficient demonstration in itself that the class is overpowered. A party can get along without a fighter, without a wizard, without a bard, without a rogue, without a druid, etc, etc, etc - but an adventure that would be challenging with a cleric in the party is likely to be lethal without one. This isn’t just about direct effects on game balance either. If the party HAS to have a cleric, say goodbye to sales to groups where no one wants to play one and to people who like settings that don’t feature clerics or would have to represent their local clerical types with other mechanics, such as Dark Sun.
This is exactly what I am talking about above. Thanks for helping make the point better.
The game should reward having a balanced party (sufficient healing, someone who can find traps (see the Trapfinding thread), some type of arcane caster, meatshields, etc.) A party composed of two fighters, a barbarian, and a monk should expect to have major problems. However, it shouldn't make it where there is a single 'must have' class. Look at the parties for the first 3 APs. The first one had a cleric. The second one has no cleric or druid, but 75% of the party can cast healing spells. The third (and last) has a Druid. All three of these parties should be viable.
Heh....
I see no-one has tested the reverse. Evil clerics are a popular choice in modules/adventures. See what happens when said cleric busts out the negative energy damage especially given that these self-same clerics tend to be surrounded by undead.
Throw in the "party gangs up on 1 NPC" nature of 3e, te ability is crazy strong.
Considering that that same evil Cleric could have just busted out with Flame Strike or Mass Inflict instead, for a similar result, I think it's OK.
For my 2 cents, I have playtested Burnt Offerings and Skinsaw Murders with PF Alpha 3 rules (and a cleric PC with Channel Positive Energy).
Obviously some minor spoilers follow....
For the particulars, we have a 6-PC party with a pretty low magic background (1 fighter, 1 ranger, 1 monk, 1 rogue, 1 cleric, 1 bard). The cleric's deity is Desna, so no special boost to heal spells. I did boost up monsters to compensate for PC number and for PF "toughener up" PC classes, both in number of rabble critters (goblins, cultists, ghouls, etc) and in HP.
My final verdict is that Channel Energy is not overpowered at all, actually it was a basic tool for party survival! In both adventures the PCs get engaged in pretty "continuous" dungeon forays with few chances of resting / retreating (though possible, it would clearly distort the plot, as villains would run away from the area, not just reorganize; Foxglove Mansion is a straightforward "they're pretty much trapped inside" situation). In the first module, PCs are not of enough level to brew potions, and even scrolls would be a bit off limits, as monetary rewards are a bit stingy until the end of the adventure. So the cleric spent the best part of her channel usages in pure healing after combat situations... In Skinsaw Murders that was a tough choice, as much healing was lost before undead were encountered and many haunts could not be banished. That is a good situation, as it implies a need to choose. In other cases, desperate need for healing PCs also caused some healing to adversaries.
The ability can be problematic in scenarios where there are many "breaks" between action (say, just a couple of damage-potential encounters per day, then rest), but that is also the case of spells and per day abilities. If one's adventures combine both patterns, I think that the usage is kept. Also, it is a good idea to include (when plot-logical) situations where Channel Energy is necessary for things beyond simple healing. That will keep players on their toes and be a bit more conservative with the healing use of the ability.
In my experience, the player got "trigger happy" with channeled healing (thus preserving her spell choice). The party suffered for that when they had to wade through ghouls and through the ghoul raven swarms at the end of Foxglove Mansion.
Also, it is a good idea to include (when plot-logical) situations where Channel Energy is necessary for things beyond simple healing.
Not too many, though. Not all parties have a cleric or paladin.
|
In my experience, the player got "trigger happy" with channeled healing (thus preserving her spell choice). The party suffered for that when they had to wade through ghouls and through the ghoul raven swarms at the end of the adventure.
Though I haven't yet had an opportunity to playtest this particular rule, that was my initial conclusion from looking over the rule. "Wow, this could be amazing for party healing, in adventures with no undead. Of course, you'd have to be careful about how many you burned for healing, in case you run into some undead. It would really suck to find yourself facing a bunch of undead, with no firepower left to throw at them..."
Of course, a lot of this depends on your style of play. I can't really remember the last time I've used Turn Undead for its original purpose. My characters usually wind up tossing it into some other feat that lets it be used for something else, entirely.