Yeah, I know we aren't on Feats yet but this is one gripe on clerics. If you're playing a cleric, you need to take this feat. It doesn't matter if you're channeling positive energy and don't want to heal your opponents. Or if you're evil and channeling negative energy and want your living minions around for another round or so. You still need it, IMO.
My suggestion. Just make this part of Channel Energy with the ability to exclude a number of targets equal to Cha bonus.
However, still keep the feat in order to gain the ability to exclude more opponents like adding your Cha bonus again or make it 1/2 your class level or Cha Bonus whichever is greater.
PS board ate original post. If ends up duplicating it.
It's a tax if everyone is going to take it. Many clerics don't have a high enough charisma to make it worth their while.
If turning and healing in combat are a big part of your player concept then you will invest in charisma, extra turning and channeling. If you don't go in for healing really big then you probably don't invest in this.
You could similarly say "Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization" are a tax on fighters :)
If you are focused on healing and turning then yes take the feats to improve those abilities and the Selective Channeling feat should remain as an improvement (just not as written). My main contention is that the ability to exclude a few targets from Channel Energy should be part of the base ability and shouldn't take a feat.
|
If you are focused on healing and turning then yes take the feats to improve those abilities and the Selective Channeling feat should remain as an improvement (just not as written). My main contention is that the ability to exclude a few targets from Channel Energy should be part of the base ability and shouldn't take a feat.
I disagree if its part of the ability then it makes channeling way too powerful. I think the feat tax should be there otherwise that's just turning CoDzilla to Czilla
I disagree if its part of the ability then it makes channeling way too powerful. I think the feat tax should be there otherwise that's just turning CoDzilla to Czilla
I don't think it's a tax at all since it is completely optional. Many clerics won't take it. If you are suggesting that it's good because it will burn a cleric feat then you are just as wrong as the OP.
|
|
I disagree if its part of the ability then it makes channeling way too powerful. I think the feat tax should be there otherwise that's just turning CoDzilla to CzillaI don't think it's a tax at all since it is completely optional. Many clerics won't take it. If you are suggesting that it's good because it will burn a cleric feat then you are just as wrong as the OP.
I agree that not every cleric will take it. but for those that want it, i don't want it as just a part of the ability allready.
Even if they do take it, why is it a tax, given that in PRPG you get more feats compared to 3.5?
|
Yeah, I know we aren't on Feats yet but this is one gripe on clerics. If you're playing a cleric, you need to take this feat. It doesn't matter if you're channeling positive energy and don't want to heal your opponents. Or if you're evil and channeling negative energy and want your living minions around for another round or so. You still need it, IMO.
My suggestion. Just make this part of Channel Energy with the ability to exclude a number of targets equal to Cha bonus.
However, still keep the feat in order to gain the ability to exclude more opponents like adding your Cha bonus again or make it 1/2 your class level or Cha Bonus whichever is greater.PS board ate original post. If ends up duplicating it.
Grogtard thisis already being discussed in another topic
i for one play a Cleric and i don't feel the need to have it even as a featok i go to the compromise to the feat... but what is really needed are better tactics by the cleric and his allies...
i don't see why a good god would deny anyone healing or why an evil god while allow anyone to escape the pain if they can gran it.
I disagree if its part of the ability then it makes channeling way too powerful. I think the feat tax should be there otherwise that's just turning CoDzilla to CzillaI don't think it's a tax at all since it is completely optional. Many clerics won't take it. If you are suggesting that it's good because it will burn a cleric feat then you are just as wrong as the OP.
i would prefer Extra Channeling
Actually i would say that selective channeling should have Extra channeling as pre-requisite... if you want to chose who to affect instead of affect everything you can, i would say you use 2 of your channeling of the dayalso a Feat for Extra Range for Channeling would be nice, Either for hunting undead, hurting the good guys, mass healing an army...
there are a lot of options... even ifyou need to be more careful with how you use it
|
|
It should be amended to exclude only 1 target from the effect, regardless of Charisma modifier. It's more thematic that way, and less combat fiddly: "You have been judged unworthy to share in Iomedae's light!" rather than "You...and you, and you over there, and oh, you!"
It would be useful ability but not 'necessary' as a lot of people think.
|
|
It should be amended to exclude only 1 target from the effect, regardless of Charisma modifier. It's more thematic that way, and less combat fiddly: "You have been judged unworthy to share in Iomedae's light!" rather than "You...and you, and you over there, and oh, you!"
It would be useful ability but not 'necessary' as a lot of people think.
damn as a cleric of Iomedae... i would say that sounds good...
|
It should be amended to exclude only 1 target from the effect, regardless of Charisma modifier. It's more thematic that way, and less combat fiddly: "You have been judged unworthy to share in Iomedae's light!" rather than "You...and you, and you over there, and oh, you!"
That is a neat idea.
I'd love if Channeling worked like Bardic song and you could just target your allies, without having to worry about affecting your foes. But since that seems unlikely, the ability to just select one person not to be affected seems like an ideal option for the negative energy Channeler who doesn't want to kill his horse every time he invokes his power, or the positive energy Channeler who would like to heal himself and not the dude he's fighting in a one-on-one combat.
Making it Charisma based, whether a Feat or not, just limits it's utility too much, as it creates a double-tax, not just the cost of the Feat, but a reduction in points available for Wisdom (or other attributes, like Strength, Constitution or that Intelligence that everyone is saying you are expected to have to buy to compensate for the 2 skill ranks / level), forking out for a Charisma of 16 (the minimum to use the ability in a 'standard' party of four, since you can already exclude yourself.
I don't think it's a tax at all since it is completely optional. Many clerics won't take it. If you are suggesting that it's good because it will burn a cleric feat then you are just as wrong as the OP.I agree that not every cleric will take it. but for those that want it, i don't want it as just a part of the ability allready.
I guess I'm splitting hairs. I just think to call it a 'tax' is to assume it's a mandatory feat which it is not.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be built into the class I just don't agree that it's a 'tax'. ;)
It should be amended to exclude only 1 target from the effect, regardless of Charisma modifier. It's more thematic that way, and less combat fiddly: "You have been judged unworthy to share in Iomedae's light!" rather than "You...and you, and you over there, and oh, you!"
It would be useful ability but not 'necessary' as a lot of people think.
Heh... I like it. Most likely that is going to be the way it works anyhow because how many clerics are going to have a 14+ CHA anyways? Probably more now... 14+ CHA will be the universal sign of a cleric/ healbot ;)
Hey this feat actually makes it kick a little ass for the paladin. Who with his high cha finally has a little competative edge on the channeling department.
Edit: hey cleric, you may have stronger channeling but guess what? I don't heal every enemy on the block so nyah
I hadn't really noticed... I don't know how I missed this. The Paladin's healing is really cranked up in this version. Unfortunately three levels lower means 1.5d6 less healing per shot. Plus the cleric gets two more channeling shots per day base... So now the Pali can heal almost as well as the druid.
So now the Pali can heal almost as well as the druid.
I think thats a very GOOD thing too.
|
|
Heh... I like it. Most likely that is going to be the way it works anyhow because how many clerics are going to have a 14+ CHA anyways? Probably more now... 14+ CHA will be the universal sign of a cleric/ healbot ;)It should be amended to exclude only 1 target from the effect, regardless of Charisma modifier. It's more thematic that way, and less combat fiddly: "You have been judged unworthy to share in Iomedae's light!" rather than "You...and you, and you over there, and oh, you!"
It would be useful ability but not 'necessary' as a lot of people think.
my cleric would join their lines in level 4 :P
and yes sounds like a nice development for the paladin
Its highly functional without the Feat.
The Feat only makes it more manageable in combat.
Considering its not a combat tool, the Feat requirement is reasonable.
Want to heal in combat? We got spells for that.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also think it should stay a feat, since many clerics won't care to use it at all, and save their channelling for undead fights, or inbetween combat healing and find other feats they'd rather pick.
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks "caltrops" every time they see the phrase "feat tax"?
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks "caltrops" every time they see the phrase "feat tax"?
Sadly... it took reading this three times at various times of day to 'get' this.
|
|
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks "caltrops" every time they see the phrase "feat tax"?Sadly... it took reading this three times at various times of day to 'get' this.
Ouch, it's okay Dennis, we'll get you a sense of humor one of these days, I'm probably going to start new Drunk DM competitions here once the rules are finalized and everyone is converted.
On a side note, am I the only one who thinks "caltrops" every time they see the phrase "feat tax"?
Good one.
Looks like the consensus is to keep it a feat. Here's the good part. We discussed. We disagreed and we kept it civil. I'm still not convinced but I can live with it.|
|
And honestly I've always thought the feat was more for Evil clerics than good. Think about it, a good cleric will at best have a 16 cha in most cases. This means he has three enemies he can exlcude from healing. Raise your hand if you've never fought against groups of more than three living enemies?
The evil cleric OTOH can have a sixteen charisma and usually (since not every party has 4 or fewer players) exclude all of his allies while blasting every living enemy within 30'.
So really, if anything it's a feat tax for the evil cleric. But even then I can see evil clerics saying, I don't care who gets hurt I'm blasting you all.
It's the fifth time I look at this thread....
...
...
...caltrops?
...
It's the fifth time I look at this thread....
How about Feet Tacks instead of Feat Tax ? Make more sense?
As Terry Pratchett is fond of saying it is a pune or a play on words.
Oh...c'mon, now that you explained, and I didn't figure it by myself, it TOTALLY lost the fun... No joke survives an explanation...
Oh...c'mon, now that you explained, and I didn't figure it by myself, it TOTALLY lost the fun... No joke survives an explanation...
You would prefer to remain perpetually in the dark on this one?
Don't be such...an...an...OGRE!
Some more, maybe twelve times, and I would understand maybe. Maybe.
|
|
As a DM and a player of a cleric, I like the burst and the feat as written. If there are to many enemies to use a burst then I have hard choices to make. As a DM the threats I can put on the table can sometimes get a bit out of hand, it happens to us all sooner or later. And a burst of healing can be just the ticket sometimes.
At first I was worried that this was to much of a good thing, now I find it has worked out quite well. The difficulty of when to use it and when to use that Cure spell have balanced out almost perfectly. The hardest part is when you still run out...those are tough times indeed.