During our last two play test sessions we took a good hard look at the Channel positive energy class ability. The PC's cleric has Selective Channeling. There has been a major battle in which the PC's group fought another group of NPC's of comparable level and number (Level 1, 5 characters each) with a cleric that did not have this feat. Last session, the PC's fought a group of NPC's armed with a cleric, also without selective channeling, of which two of the NPC's were two levels higher (3rd) including the cleric himself.
Both ended the same:
Group with cleric that has the Selective channeling feat: Win
Group with cleric without selective channeling: Pwned
The enemy cleric was simply not willing to heal his enemies just to heal his companions. At one point I had to find the exact right square to place him in just to heal one of his guys without healing any of his enemies.
In a word, I see very little reason why a first level cleric would not choose Selective Channeling right out of the gate. The tactical advantage offered by it trumps just about every other feat the cleric might get. The only possible exception being an evil cleric who only runs around with undead companions.
Should we make Selective Channeling just a part of the Channel positive energy class ability?
eh this has come up many times. You want to control it you need to pay for that skill..meaning ya get the feat. To many clerics it's just not worth a feat , to a combat healing it might be, everyone has to make their choices.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think it's a must have if you channel negative energy - you certainly don't want to zap your allies then (unless they're worthless fodder of course.) I dread facing multiple evil clerics with selective channeling.
With positive channeling, I think it's a good feat, but not a must have unless, as previously stated, you focus on in battle healing. Personally, I think I'd take extra channeling before selective as a PC.
Considering it's nearly worthless unless you have a 14 CHA or better it is hardly a must have. Dwarf clerics in particular are unlikely to take it due to their CHA penalty.
While I agree the feat is definitely worth having because it makes life so much easier, it isn't completely necessary, even for a battle healer.
As a few examples:
Party takes on a single dragon. If the cleric takes a few steps in the right direction, they should be able to channel getting most of the party without getting the dragon in the radius. Even if the cleric has to get the dragon inside the radius, it may still be worth healing the dragon if it allows the rest of the party to sustain damage output at a higher level.
Party takes on a horde of monsters that take one hit to drop. Because healing caps out at your maximum health, the channelling won't have any noticable effect on the monsters. Either they're healthy or dead.
Party 1 takes on party 2 where party 2 has selective channeling. After party 2's cleric has channeled, the cleric of party 1 may want to risk a channeling if the benefit he supplies his enemies is minimal. In the examples you gave, I would consider having the cleric hold his action for after the other cleric and before his next party member's turn. That way he doesn't have to worry about healing any extra damage and rendering another party member's turn worthless.
Personally, I'll still be taking the feat as I wouldn't have to think as hard about the tactics or moving into the right spot. I also agree there aren't many better choices at first level for a cleric, I just wanted to point out that a cleric can still function without it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Party takes on a horde of monsters that take one hit to drop. Because healing caps out at your maximum health, the channelling won't have any noticable effect on the monsters. Either they're healthy or dead.
Actually, you need to be careful with this. Just because you drop a monster, doesn't mean it's dead. My players found out the hard way that as long as the dropped enemy hasn't bled out entirely, channeling can bring them from negatives to positive hp and they can cause some trouble for you still.
These are all very good points, and I appreciate the specific examples. My point is really that 2 victories now have boiled down to one thing: who had the feat and who didn't.
It's just that there hasn't been a single other feat that has proven, thus far, to be such a deal breaker. Where just because one side has it and the other doesn't meant the outcome of the battles.