And yes, selective channel is a MUST have. Do enhancement items allow one to qualify for feats?
To the question, yes, if you meet an ability score prerequisite with an item, you can take the feat (but you will lose access to it if you lose the item/prereq).
As for Selective Channeling - it's nice, but none of the 5 clerics that have been made at my table have bothered with it. It's not a must have, it's a nice to have - a rather well balanced feat.
Edit:
It's particularly necessary when your cleric channels negative energy, and the rest of the party doesn't like getting hit with it. :)
Now that's rather more true :)
While as DM I thought the Beta channel energy was a little too potent, it only got worse as my player's cleric began boosting it with Feats meant for original "turn undead" rules. Porting them over caused a few issues. Nothing we couldn't iron out, however.
Can't wait for the cleric preview on this one!
-DM Jeff
Again, agreed. Start piling feats onto the beta channel energy and it gets sick fast. I think a strong argument is that channel energy is basically as powerful or more powerful than the mass cure spells, which are very high level.
|
And yes, selective channel is a MUST have. Do enhancement items allow one to qualify for feats?It's particularly necessary when your cleric channels negative energy, and the rest of the party doesn't like getting hit with it. :)
Depends on your alignment. Perhaps you don't much care if your so-called allies take a little damage if they get underfoot? (None of my Clerics have been willing to buy up Charisma just to qualify for a feat that wouldn't allow them to function in a standard four-man party without at least a 16 Charisma. Fooey on that noise.)
The biggest issue I would have with channel energy is if it didn't function as a burst emanation. If it does, walls will stop it. If it doesn't, an evil Cleric of say, 3rd level, could walk up to the wall outside of a busy taven and start killing everyone within 30 ft., right through the walls, at 2d6 per round...
If it's a choice between undermining the tension with a healing class feature and undermining the tension with a wand of Cure Light Wounds, I'd prefer to have the class feature.
If I didn't want plentiful(-ish) magical healing (out of combat), I'd be playing Iron Heroes. YMMV, of course.
Oh I'm all about getting rid of cleric-in-a-stick too. Cure wands are one of the things I hated most about 3.x. I strongly suspect those won't change much in PF Final but I appreciate the way the old rules worked where (generally speaking) wands were for arcane casters AND they had multiple effects (wand of conjuration could cast unseen servant and monster summoning spells for instance). I really preferred the flavor and color of the old school wands. Not to mention I generally see "wands" as being for mages. I can't picture too many priests from fiction running around waving wands at people. Wizards yes, priests and clerics no. I'm coming up with something for my next campaign that brings that back.
Put me in the camp of Selective Channel being mandatory for the cleric and/or paladin. Not healing the enemy is a good thing. /salute!
|
We will preview the cleric soon and all will be revealed. I'd say "don't expect major changes," but I've come to appreciate that one man's minor change is another's catastrophe, so all I can really say is keep your hats on and try not to worry too much. I can say that we are playing with the final rules in James Jacobs's Shadows Under Sandpoint campaign, and the channel energies are flying fast and furious.
good enough... will wait :P
just don't keep us waiting a lot...
and for the others, yes a high level energy channeling is as good as a mass effect... just rember... you heal 1d6 every 2 levels, all the cures aer 1d8+1 per level...
so mass healing actualy heals a lot more,. and about the same level... and it might save the players from a TPK
and yes... while not mandatory Selective Channeling IS quite useful
I'm running a Beta cleric with channeling pretty much super-optimized - quickened, turn outsider, selective channeling, extra turning, a periapt of positive channeling... And it's certainly better than usual, but not overpowered.
You have to remember that spells like Cure Light Wounds were created back in the early days of D&D, when people had many fewer hit points and did much less damage. A Cure Light was enough to fully heal most any second level character back in 1e. Now, it'll only half heal many level 1 characters. Many monsters do 100 points of damage in a round to our main tank, who (at level 14) has near 200 hit points. It's only via CMW wands that we ever get anyone fully healed up. Healing has dramatically lagged the rest of the D&D power escalation.
I love quickened channeling. I can use my spell slots and my actions for positive contributions other than pouring all the healing I can every round. (Well, I still have to keep a quiver of Heals for the bad times.) I think channeling is one of the most brilliant ideas in the Beta.
quickened channeling. There is no such feat.
quickened turning, yes. But turning and channeling is not the same. IMHO.
As for channeling it's weaker now when you come to the undead.
It's hard to destroy them and when incorporels fail their save they are seldom destroyed, they get some damage and flee into a wall or down through the floor. Then they come back and mess tings up again. Drain you or whatever.
|
|
I agree that the version in the Beta is very powerful.It is?
I don't like the way this is going...
Ya know, I have faith in Jason and the folks at Paizo, but I kind of don't like this either ...
I have found that the Cleric's energy channel / healing burst is not at ALL over powered but in fact a fantastic addition to the game. I REALLY hope it is not diminished in any significant way.
Eric or Jason, please reassure us there are no big changes to this that reduce this ability.
Please ...
I have to second this one... my players have been thrilled about not having to "waste" half their spell slots to healing (the party includes a cleric and a paladin) and we all feel this is one of the best additions to the game and not "overpowered" at all.
|
|
Umm.. KaeYoss?... What's that?keep your hats on
But.... but... *gasp* I'M NOT WEARING A HAT!
OH MY GOOD! WE WON'T RECOGNISE THE CLERIC!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGHH!!!!
*runs around in circles with his hands over his head*
It's not a hat -- Kae's dad was a Balor who had dreadlocks... that's why he looks the way he does. You see even weirder hairstyles in Cheliax. ;P
It's not a hat -- Kae's dad was a Balor who had dreadlocks...
Balor?? Keep your Evil out of my Chaos.
It's one of the advantages of aligning yourself with the Proteans - you can go for the look you want to, and reality be damned. Reality's days are counted, anyway (seriously - go to Axis, I bet those freeks have calculated how long it will take for the Maelstrom to take back what is its by right. Even though you cannot calculate anything reliably when the Cerulean Void or proteans get involved. Favoured Enemy (Mathematics) for the win!)
I think a strong argument is that channel energy is basically as powerful or more powerful than the mass cure spells, which are very high level.
The question is: Does that mean that channel is too powerful, or that mass cures are too weak? I tend to go for the latter.
quickened channeling. There is no such feat.
quickened turning, yes. But turning and channeling is not the same. IMHO.
As for channeling it's weaker now when you come to the undead.
It's hard to destroy them and when incorporels fail their save they are seldom destroyed, they get some damage and flee into a wall or down through the floor. Then they come back and mess tings up again. Drain you or whatever.
I'm curious, what's the cost to quicken a turning normally? Two extra uses?
quickened channeling. There is no such feat.
quickened turning, yes. But turning and channeling is not the same. IMHO.
As for channeling it's weaker now when you come to the undead.
It's hard to destroy them and when incorporels fail their save they are seldom destroyed, they get some damage and flee into a wall or down through the floor. Then they come back and mess tings up again. Drain you or whatever.
Well, we're one of those silly "use our old 3.5e books" groups, so for us Quicken Turning = Quicken Channeling, for the obvious reason. Edit: note that Pathfinder makes the same equivalency:
Extra Turning
You can channel positive or negative energy more times per day than most.
Prerequisite: Ability to channel energy.
Benefit: You can channel energy two additional times per day.
And true, it is weaker in terms of pure undead destroying; especially you can't do disciple of the sun or greater turning on top of it and totally super destroy undead. But it is more even, extendable, and does sweet sweet healing. I like it better, the old D result was a low percentage save-or-die, and this is a more consistent power.
I'm curious, what's the cost to quicken a turning normally? Two extra uses?
No additional cost, with the feat. CD p.84.
Quicken Turning [General]
...
You can turn or rebuke undead as a free action. You may still make only one turning attempt a round.
The only changes I would make for a "Quicken Channeling" is to change it from a free action to a swift action - CD was before they figured out all that action stuff, so you probably don't want it to double up with other swift actions.
No, they can heal also. CoDzilla refers to the thought that a properly built cleric or druid is a beast who isn't dependent on anyone else to handle just about anything. The build usually involves the Leadership feat, though.I hear it thrown around a lot, but in a lot of different contexts, usually with prayer beads and a few spells, or persistant metamagic. So I was just wanting a clear understanding.
So am I right in saying it is a cleric that decides not to be the party healer?
What's with the Leadership feat? Can you explain it?
And agree, there is something to it... or there was something to it.
Well, we're one of those silly "use our old 3.5e books" groups, so for us Quicken Turning = Quicken Channeling, for the obvious reason. Edit: note that Pathfinder makes the same equivalency:
Extra Turning
You can channel positive or negative energy more times per day than most.
Prerequisite: Ability to channel energy.
Benefit: You can channel energy two additional times per day.
Quicken Turning does not equal Quicken Channeling. Pathfinder does not make the same equivalency. Channeling would not work with the 3.5 rules
because it's adifferent game. Let me quote you:You have to remember that spells like Cure Light Wounds were created back in the early days of D&D, when people had many fewer hit points and did much less damage. "
So Extra Turning matches Extra Channeling. That does not mean you can just add Quicken Channeling because there was a (unbalansed?) feat called Quicken Turning. Why can't you? Channeling now heals. A quickened CLW would uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. A Quicken Channeling have no 'cost. Unbalenced for sure.
And this stuff that are picked from the Complete Series. I think a lot of the stuff (feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) are very unbalanced. To me it just seems like WOTC wanted to sell more and more books. When I say unbalenced I mean some of the stuff was too good and some of the stuff was far from good.
Taking something unbalanced and make it more unbalanced is no good.
IMHO.
CLERICZILLA
PRONOUNCED Cle-Rick-Zilla
Noun
1. Refers to a means of playing clerics (or somtimes druids, see Druidzilla for more info) in which the players realise that actually using their spells rather than healing can be vastly more effective, since in using their spells they can prevent their foes from dealing damage in the first place, either by stunning them, using enchantments to halt their movements, or out-right killing them.
This is coupled with that fact that some of the more powerful buffing spells avavalible to the cleric are Self-Only buffs, which further provide the cleric with a high degree of power especially when compared to melee focused classes, as a cleric who focuses all of his buffing spells on himself will be more effective, even if only for a few rounds at a time.
The term is often use as a means for exarggerating the cleric's power (though in a few particular cases, such as Divine Metamagic Abuse, the term is appropraite). Clerizilla only became a factor for games of 3rd Edition or higher, since 2nd Edition was designed with the idea of "Warrior" clerics in mind (or more specifically, any cleric) as opposed to 3rd Edition writing, in which the writers didn't actually expect players wanted to play the cleric for any reason other than to heal (even though 2nd Edition cleric's could only heal if they had access to the Healing Spehere or to a lesser extent the Nature Sphere).
Use in a sentence
1. "I just got wtfpwned by Clerczilla over there."
2. "What do you mean you don't heal? Quit destorying that army and get over here Clericzilla."
3. "He's not going to heal? Nope, he's gonna go all Clericzilla on us."
4. "I hope you washed your *censored for your protection* this morning, it's about to be kicked by clericzilla."
5. [Lips out of Sync] "Run! It's Clericzilla!"
Well, we're one of those silly "use our old 3.5e books" groups, so for us Quicken Turning = Quicken Channeling, for the obvious reason. Edit: note that Pathfinder makes the same equivalency:Extra Turning
You can channel positive or negative energy more times per day than most.
Prerequisite: Ability to channel energy.
Benefit: You can channel energy two additional times per day.
That's what I was thinking of, too. It's still called Extra Turning. Not extra channeling. That creates a precedent for "channeling is the new turning." It's still Raider in all but the name.
And true, it is weaker in terms of pure undead destroying
In some cases: Undead weak enough that an old turn undead would have destroyed them, but with too many HP for you to destroy with one use of channel energy.
But against powerful undead, it will be so much more useful. Back in the day, your turn undead was useful only to weaker undead. Stronger ones were simply immune because of their HD and turn resistance. But channel energy can hurt even them.
And it's no longer all or nothing. In the past, if you didn't turn the ghoul, you did nothing. A second turning wasn't bolstered by your first.
But nowadays, you can keep turning until they're turned to ashes. Or you go some of the way with your channeling, and your warrior or expert or arcanist friend does the rest.
CD was before they figured out all that action stuff
As far as I know, CD came out after the XPH, which first introduced swift and immediate actions (as far as I remember)
Put my group in the super completely over the top emphatic love for channel crowd. We are also kicking around the idea of allowing quicken turning to be applied as a feat in the next campaign. As someone who got bored playing clerics I salivate over this idea as I can supply the healing for my party and still actually play !....miracle of all miracles.
We've been playtesting gestalt characters, and of course one of our guys put together a cleric/paladin. He hasn't been using the channeling every round put he sure has a lot of flexibility now. And he's loving it. But it has pretty much nuked me using skeletons and zombies out of the box. They're not much of a threat. And of course he grabbed selective channeling right away. High charisma and the ability to default to healing spells, and this guy can both dish it out and help the party.
I'm running D1.5, Revenge of the Kobold King and am thinking of making the undead area an Unhallow zone just to make it challenging. Also, noodling LIMITED channeling free zones in future adventures to keep things challenging.
Also, when the final rules come out I'm thinking of a reboot of our game without gestalt. (Though my players love the flexibility)
Summary - Like the channeling, but like to throw curve balls at my players once in a while.
Well, we're one of those silly "use our old 3.5e books" groups, so for us Quicken Turning = Quicken Channeling, for the obvious reason. Edit: note that Pathfinder makes the same equivalency:
Extra Turning
You can channel positive or negative energy more times per day than most.
Prerequisite: Ability to channel energy.
Benefit: You can channel energy two additional times per day.Quicken Turning does not equal Quicken Channeling. Pathfinder does not make the same equivalency. Channeling would not work with the 3.5 rules
because it's adifferent game. Let me quote you:You have to remember that spells like Cure Light Wounds were created back in the early days of D&D, when people had many fewer hit points and did much less damage. "
So Extra Turning matches Extra Channeling. That does not mean you can just add Quicken Channeling because there was a (unbalansed?) feat called Quicken Turning. Why can't you? Channeling now heals. A quickened CLW would uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell’s actual level. A Quicken Channeling have no 'cost. Unbalenced for sure.
And this stuff that are picked from the Complete Series. I think a lot of the stuff (feats, spells, prestige classes, etc.) are very unbalanced. To me it just seems like WOTC wanted to sell more and more books. When I say unbalenced I mean some of the stuff was too good and some of the stuff was far from good.
Taking something unbalanced and make it more unbalanced is no good.
IMHO.
Agree to disagree. I'm with Ernest on this one.
It's still Raider in all but the name.
Are you talking about Twix/Raider candy bars? [total favorite!]
As for the debate: Extra Turning =/= Extra Channeling.
Extra turning gave *4* extra turns per day. Now you only get two extra channels. That indicates that channeling *is* more powerful than turning and, perhaps, that quicken channeling at no cost would be over powered (as if it wasn't already).
If the rest of the feats (empower turning, etc.) were also at no cost, this applies equally.
I could see burning extra uses as the cost, though it would probably be unpopular.
For Quicken channeling, I'd make it a tree:
- Fast Channeling: As a move action.
- Quicken Channeling: As Swift action, Fast Channeling prerequiste.
For Selective channeling:
The charisma requirement makes it "a not so sure" thing, that 12 (+1) cha. the cleric gets for fluff and a bit of a boost on turning doesn't make it a great feat choice. A good feat build, IMO.
Also, don't forget the will save for 1/2 dam. that make a big difference for inteligent undeads and I can't wait to see how the turn resistance of certain undead turns out vs channeling.
As for the debate: Extra Turning =/= Extra Channeling.
Extra turning gave *4* extra turns per day. Now you only get two extra channels. That indicates that channeling *is* more powerful than turning and, perhaps, that quicken channeling at no cost would be over powered (as if it wasn't already).
If the rest of the feats (empower turning, etc.) were also at no cost, this applies equally.
I could see burning extra uses as the cost, though it would probably be unpopular.
Empower turning were at no cost, true. The same can be said for spell focus, it comes at no cost. That don't mean Quicken spell shouldn't come at no cost, does it?
I know Channeling is the new turn undead but the mechanics differ. So you can't automatically apply all the old feats to the new rules. ....well you can of course do anything you want, but that don't mean it's balenced.A 9 level cleric with char 16 and quicken channeling and the rest of the channeling feats would be able to do 10d6 of healing to his party and 10d6 harm to the undeads each round. I don't think that's balanced.
"Extra turning gave *4* extra turns per day. Now you only get two extra channels. That indicates that channeling *is* more powerful than turning"
Yes. Also in 3.5 you could pick it multiple times. Now you can't.
That also "indicates that channeling *is* more powerful than turning"
IMHO.
For Quicken channeling, I'd make it a tree:
- Fast Channeling: As a move action.
- Quicken Channeling: As Swift action, Fast Channeling prerequiste.For Selective channeling:
The charisma requirement makes it "a not so sure" thing, that 12 (+1) cha. the cleric gets for fluff and a bit of a boost on turning doesn't make it a great feat choice. A good feat build, IMO.
Also, don't forget the will save for 1/2 dam. that make a big difference for inteligent undeads and I can't wait to see how the turn resistance of certain undead turns out vs channeling.
This is how we plan to do it..actually I dont beleive we are even giving an option to get to swift. Just Quicken = move action. Thus limiting the amount of abuse possible, but keeping the spirit of the feat...IE: not taking your whole round away to be heal bot.
I found Channel Energy to be an enormous power boost, particularly when the party goes against undead. When fighting living creatures it's not too bad, but undead are an important class of creatures that should not be rendered effectively useless if there is a Cleric in the party.
To be honest, I don't really have a problem with the amount of healing it enables the Cleric to do per day. Nor do I have a problem with Channel Energy hurting undead - it enables the Cleric to heal and damage (which for some reason is often considered to be more exciting) at the same time. Indeed, I love the concept of te Channel Energy rules in principle and would not want to go back to the 3.5E version of Turning Undead.
What I have a problem with is the amount of healing/hurting that Channel Energy does per use. As a result, I was forced to modify the Channel Energy rules. I have basically made Channel Energy similar to the appropriate level Cure/Cause X Wounds spell in terms of the amount of healing/damage done. That means that for Clerics of levels 1-8 Channel Energy does healing/damage only to a single target touched, though the actual turning effect still works as a burst. 9th level Clerics and higher can use Channel Energy as a true area effect, but if they do so, they only do the amount of healing/damage per target that the first level (or Cleric Level - 8 if higher than level 9) Cleric would have done under the old Channel Energy rules. This ensures that the rate of healing/damage dealing in Combat is similar to the equivalent-level Cure/Cause X Wounds spell and is therefore balanced in my eyes.
That said, I have done some things to compensate, notably increasing the number of times the Cleric can Channel Energy per day, so that the total healing/damage capacity of the Cleric remains approximately the same as prior to my change and it is only the rate of healing/damage that is nerfed. Unless the final Pathfinder RPG rules do a nerf of similar magnitude and direction, I will probably stick with my rules. I am also experimenting with making the new Channel Energy into a move action, so that the Cleric can heal and do other things at the same time. Another experimental rule I am trying is that if the Cleric channels energy, he cannot spontaneous cast a Cure/Cause X Wounds spell in the same round. The in game rationale is that his body cannot channel so much energy at the same time, but the meta-game rationale is to ensure that the Channel Energy allows the Cleric to heal, but he can still single-attack or cast a spell (that does not heal with dealing - the inability to spontaneous cast the healing spell in the same round is designed to remove the pressure on the Cleric to do so [though I have toyed with implementing spontaneous domain casting and removing CXW spontaneous casting altogether] in the same round).
|
|
No, they can heal also. CoDzilla refers to the thought that a properly built cleric or druid is a beast who isn't dependent on anyone else to handle just about anything. The build usually involves the Leadership feat, though.I hear it thrown around a lot, but in a lot of different contexts, usually with prayer beads and a few spells, or persistant metamagic. So I was just wanting a clear understanding.
So am I right in saying it is a cleric that decides not to be the party healer?
What's with the Leadership feat? Can you explain it?
And agree, there is something to it... or there was something to it.
With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, so a wizard can have a fighter to use as a meat shield, a cleric can have a wizard to fill in spell casting gaps in divine magic, or they can grab a rogue to find traps for them. Basically, it's just another way to make other PCs redundant and vestigial. That way, you can have the classes that are merely useful in limited situations at high level without having a player have to take a class that winds up as a spectator while the cleric does their thing (or the wizard).
A druid (3x) with an animal companion, natural spell and a rogue cohort is a scary thing. I've DMed one, it wasn't pretty...
With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, so a wizard can have a fighter to use as a meat shield, a cleric can have a wizard to fill in spell casting gaps in divine magic, or they can grab a rogue to find traps for them. Basically, it's just another way to make other PCs redundant and vestigial. That way, you can have the classes that are merely useful in limited situations at high level without having a player have to take a class that winds up as a spectator while the cleric does their thing (or the wizard).
A druid (3x) with an animal companion, natural spell and a rogue cohort is a scary thing. I've DMed one, it wasn't pretty...
Thanx. By the way. I'm really starting to get the whole 'fighter lobby' thing. Thanx for showing me the light :-)
With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, etc...
I don't allow the leadership feat in my games. I feel like any NPCs should be a natural extension of the game. Companions, cohorts, henchmen or whatever, should be brought into the party through roleplaying and not a feat. Even then, I typically don't put extra NPCs in my PC's party. I guess I just don't get the point. That's what the other PCs are for...
Anyway, this is obviously just my personal taste.|
|
With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, etc...I don't allow the leadership feat in my games. I feel like any NPCs should be a natural extension of the game. Companions, cohorts, henchmen or whatever, should be brought into the party through roleplaying and not a feat. Even then, I typically don't put extra NPCs in my PC's party. I guess I just don't get the point. That's what the other PCs are for...
Anyway, this is obviously just my personal taste.
i use the feat mostly for thosw who want a keep or a temple... they need followers after all..
|
|
Thanx. By the way. I'm really starting to get the whole 'fighter lobby' thing. Thanx for showing me the light :-)With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, so a wizard can have a fighter to use as a meat shield, a cleric can have a wizard to fill in spell casting gaps in divine magic, or they can grab a rogue to find traps for them. Basically, it's just another way to make other PCs redundant and vestigial. That way, you can have the classes that are merely useful in limited situations at high level without having a player have to take a class that winds up as a spectator while the cleric does their thing (or the wizard).
A druid (3x) with an animal companion, natural spell and a rogue cohort is a scary thing. I've DMed one, it wasn't pretty...
One down, legion to go...
;)
|
|
With the Leadership feat, you get a cohort a couple levels lower than you, etc...I don't allow the leadership feat in my games. I feel like any NPCs should be a natural extension of the game. Companions, cohorts, henchmen or whatever, should be brought into the party through roleplaying and not a feat. Even then, I typically don't put extra NPCs in my PC's party. I guess I just don't get the point. That's what the other PCs are for...
Anyway, this is obviously just my personal taste.
AFAICT, it is a nod to old school playing, poorly executed. Henchmen and hirelings were a big part of OD&D/AD&D 1e gaming, and it kind of fell to the wayside with 2e. In 3x, with that game's assumptions (characters are more "heroic", and who's carrying the 10' pole, the treasure, tending the horses, etc, became less important), cohorts are just another way to work the system.
... I don't allow the leadership feat in my games. I feel like any NPCs should be a natural extension of the game. Companions, cohorts, henchmen or whatever, should be brought into the party through roleplaying and not a feat. Even then, I typically don't put extra NPCs in my PC's party. I guess I just don't get the point. That's what the other PCs are for...
Anyway, this is obviously just my personal taste.
I use the feat as the "in rule" support of the evolution of a character in that direction.
Basicaly pluging the XP drain that a "regular" NPC will cause to the rest of the party who don't get to use it like the one who recruited the mercenary, built the guild, hired the boat's crew and declared herself captain, etc.
|
We could start a whole thread on that one Leadership feat.
I'd rather let the PCs have help when they've earned it.
But in brief, my gripes are,
- PCs customising cohorts and henchmen, instead of picking from the talent that's available (and willing to work with them),
- the removal of any incentive to actually treat NPCs with respect, or build a reputation during play (just take a feat, and they will come),
- the assumption that they are automatically 100% loyal (rather than the old 1E loyalty rating), even when treated bad (lower Leadership score only officially reduces their max no and level, not their loyalty),
- and the utterly bizarre, free, bonus, phantom xp, handed out to keep them level with the PCs, in addition to the xp the PCs get. The party effectively get more xp, for bringing more people, and waltzing through the adventure more easily.
WTF?
Thanx. By the way. I'm really starting to get the whole 'fighter lobby' thing. Thanx for showing me the light :-)Hallelujah! Step into the light, brother!
(Congratulations, Derek and Kirth; it only took you a thousand posts each to convince him!)
LOL!
Well I still don't agree on everything that Derek and the rest of you have to say. I'm not sure I think spellcasters totaly rock and fighters suck enormously, but you, Derek, Jason Nelson and the rest of you have made me adjust my perspective somewhat.Let's hope Paizo has nerfed casting on the defensive, etc.
The new PA seems nice. Less penalty on the attack and more damage. Very Nice. I still don't like the idea of full attack as a standard action. But I hope:
- there are (high level?) feats that give melee charecters some iterative attacks.
- they have given the Sword&Board characters some love.
- that Animated Shield has disappeared/been nerfed.
IMHO.
And leadership. It's good when there aren't enough players. We had a cohort wizard. He was two levels lower then the rest of us. Worked fine. He never outshined the 'real' characters.
The reason people seldom see eye to eye on balance amongst classes is two fold....The first being most people have a tendancy to side with their preference turning minor blemishes into boils and minor advantages into gargantuan game breaking superman feats of daring. The other that I often notice is that people zero in on a specific level range and point exclusively to it as their only arguement...for example Wizards are gimped because they arent the best at levels 1-5...or Fighters are gimped because they arent the best at level 25+. The truth to me has always been that the classes all have a time when they shine, a sweet spot if you will. Paizo has gone a long way towards evening out the hills and valleys, but I imagine it this will always be the case. We like Channeling because it is a huge boon to the party that doesnt impede on another classes role, and also makes the class more fun for the person playing it....ymmv.
Another issue is the "wizard with infinite spells and unlimited access to everything, while the fighter has nothing, never gets anything can't have anything and starts with no stats other than straight 8's" I'm fairly sure that's some sort of fallacy.
Spell casters have some nice stuff going for them, they also have several problems they must address regularly that the other classes don't have to worry about at all. Clerics probably have the lest over all mechanical problems -- but what do you expect from a class that gets it power from (and must obey) the gods?
I didn't mean to start a fighter vs. cleric war. I hope I didn't.
All I meant was that I now see stuff more from a fighter/melee class Point of view. Therefore I'm not a big fan of boosting the cleric by giving him quickened channeling (and I'm certainly don't want the wizard boosted). Although I must admit I don't like the domain powers in the Beta so I hope Jason has changed them closer to 3.5. Much of the stuff isn't good enough and some is too good. Stuff like Dimensional Hop (Travel domain) is just too good.
Our house rule is: the cleric must have line of sight. No teleport thru doors.
I'm also thinking: If the Cleric brings one other willing creature, it would probably be more balanced if it's a standard action using the Dimensional Hop. If not, it's a swift action. What do you say?
I'm thinking Teleport at level 1 is a bad thing. But that's neither here nor there on subject.
Over all I think the spell chuckers in general are alright (cleric could stand to lose a little IMO but they're the Gods' Favorite so it still makes sense). Fighters need a little love, and people need a little intelligence. Anyone playing a "Melee class" isn't playing D&D, at least not smartly. Please note I didn't say anyone playing a fighter, paladin, ranger or barbarian -- I said "Melee class" such a thing does not exist in 3.x D&D and would be a bad idea -- unless you are into running D&D like the final fantasy series.
ON Subject:
I hated the 3.x turn undead. It was stupid, and mostly useless. Even in second and first edition I wasn't a huge fan of Turning, but at least then it could affect outsiders too.
The idea of channel energy comes a lot closer to what I would like to see out of the cleric (or a priest) class -- someone who uses more direct "divine" (in whatever flavor you like) energy to have an effect on the world. I've always seen clerics as the miracle workers that don't know what they are doing (and have occasionally told players what their spell list for the day was -- because those where the spells that their god felt they should prepare... Gods don't take arguing well either).
|
|
Anyone playing a "Melee class" isn't playing D&D, at least not smartly.
Sorry, my terminology is stuck in 1e (read the 1e DMG sometime). My counterpoint would be, of course, anyone playing something not written by Gygax isn't playing D&D, but then, that would be insulting to the company that turned D&D into Rolemaster...
In some cases: Undead weak enough that an old turn undead would have destroyed them, but with too many HP for you to destroy with one use of channel energy.But against powerful undead, it will be so much more useful. Back in the day, your turn undead was useful only to weaker undead. Stronger ones were simply immune because of their HD and turn resistance. But channel energy can hurt even them.
And it's no longer all or nothing. In the past, if you didn't turn the ghoul, you did nothing. A second turning wasn't bolstered by your first.
But nowadays, you can keep turning until they're turned to ashes. Or you go some of the way with your channeling, and your warrior or expert or arcanist friend does the rest.
OK. Back to channel energy.
I never could understand people who think it's overpowered. It's just nice the party no longer have to go back and sleep after one fight. Also. As a 3 LVL fighter, what do I prefer? 2d6 chenneling or 2d8+3 CMW?In a fight some characters are hurt more (usually the tank) and some less (or not hurt at all). Also comming up agains 7 orks or 12 orks. Unless you have a charisma score of +24 you are going to heal some of the enemy.
True the new channel energy no longer is "all or nothing" but the damage isn't that great even if the undead fail their save. And this who save hardly get any damage.
Cleric: 2d6 = 7.
The seven undead: save, save, save, failed, failed, failed, failed.
Thouse who saved get 3 damage. Great? Not! And then you have to play it out when you waste the last four undead hoe failed their save....or not?
We will probably add a house rule. If the undead is halv your cleric level they are destroyed. (or one third your cleric level). I still say channeling is weaker (or just as good?) than turning when talking about killing undead because if they save, it's more or less nothing anyway unless your damage roll is great, and because you can't destroy them.
One way would be to creat a feat: If the undead fail their save and are half your cleric level they are destroyed. Prerequisites: Charisma 13 and Improved Turning.
One down, legion to go...
;)
Oh lord Darth houstonderek, Perhaps I've joined the dark forces ;-) LOL
|
|
Yeah, for the record, I think channel energy is a good thing. Casual players who aren't aware of the CoDzilla possibilities (and old school guys who remember how boring 1e clerics were), in my experience, were put off by the "heal-bot" stereotype. By allowing them to focus spell slots to spells they know they'll get to cast (instead of having to spontaneously cast them as cure spells), it made the class more appealing to play.
Plus, 3x turning rules were just goofy, imo.
We Sith have cookies.
Nah. All Sith have is silly names! ;-P
The Dark Side got boring by the time the word "Sith" became popular.
But never fear, we're the real Dark Forces here. We know there's more to Evil than giving yourself names like Darth Tyrannous and making dunces kill children to feel evil.
We make Richard look like a benefactor.
We make Richard look like a benefactor.Richard IS a benefactor
Seconded. If you really want to start looking at evil, Congress is kind of bad and then we can start down the stairway over here.