The Text:
Channel Smite (Combat)
You can channel your divine energy through a melee
weapon you wield.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can
choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability
as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you
hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount
of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your
channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative
energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an
amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by
your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make
a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage.
If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still
expended with no effect.
The Difference:
- Only effects 1 undead creature instead of every undead creature in a 30' radius.
- Chance to fail outright if you miss your melee attack where there was no chance before.
- You have to spend a feat to get this ... disadvantage?
The Question:
Enlighten me. Why/when would you ever use this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get to make a melee attack as well.
If your melee attack was good to begin with, then this basically lets you deal channel damage as a swift action. Honestly, this looks pretty freaking brutal to me (especially for paladins), but I'm not going to judge it until I've seen it in play.
If your melee attacks aren't any good to begin with, then no, you probably shouldn't bother spending a feat to improve them. Just channel energy normally, or cast flamestrike
It's more beneficial if you channel negative energy; then you don't hit all of your (living) buddies with a blast of damage, just one of your enemies.
You get to make a melee attack as well.
If your melee attack was good to begin with, then this basically lets you deal channel damage as a swift action. Honestly, this looks pretty freaking brutal to me (especially for paladins), but I'm not going to judge it until I've seen it in play.
If your melee attacks aren't any good to begin with, then no, you probably shouldn't bother spending a feat to improve them. Just channel energy normally, or cast flamestrike
Ok, I could see it if your are a paladin and you are only fighting one undead creature. If there are 2 or more then you are really just doing half the damage you could otherwise have done. But for a feat?
It's more beneficial if you channel negative energy; then you don't hit all of your (living) buddies with a blast of damage, just one of your enemies.
Ok now that makes sense. So it's really for evil characters or for NPCs the DM is using against the party.
|
If you channel negative energy you may not want to have your entire party take negative energy damage. If you are facing just one undead creature then you get both your attack and channel damage, logistically it makes more sense to smite+channel against a single powerful foe than to channel alone. Against multiple undead it makes less sense, but YMMV
It's more beneficial if you channel negative energy; then you don't hit all of your (living) buddies with a blast of damage, just one of your enemies.Ok now that makes sense. So it's really for evil characters or for NPCs the DM is using against the party.
You don't have to be evil (or an NPC) to channel negative energy.
Yep, it's pretty much for
1. an energy-channeler who is good at melee to begin with, and
2. when said energy-channeler is fighting a single undead (or where the undead aren't clustering in a nice 30' circle around you).
I'd see it as especially useful against tougher undead, because even if they save, they're still taking the physical damage from your weapon on top of everything else, which is better than just doing the positive energy damage. I've got a fighter-cleric with a holy flaming quarterstaff who could make very nice use of the feat, and as mentioned, paladins could do some nasty stuff with it.
And again as someone noted, negative energy channelers with the ability... ouch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a feat slot open for a cleric, and I did not know what to choose. My players wont be thanking anyone for this thread, but I will.
If you channel negative energy you may not want to have your entire party take negative energy damage. If you are facing just one undead creature then you get both your attack and channel damage, logistically it makes more sense to smite+channel against a single powerful foe than to channel alone. Against multiple undead it makes less sense, but YMMV
Focused damage is much better than spread damage. Dealing 6d6 to the Lich Lord is probably better than dealing 5d6 to him and to all his skeleton mooks.
This is less (though still somewhat) true against mobs of enemies of equal strength. In general, though, yea; having the option to focus-fire on one guy (for channel damage and melee damage) is definitely worth a feat. What you're overlooking is that mid-level clerics can be built and buffed up to deal serious damage with their melee attacks alone.
Even at low levels, though, 1d8+3+1d6 to one guy is often better than 1d6 to everyone.
And paladins? Phff. At tenth level he could easily (read: effortlessly) be dealing 2d6+10+2d6(holy)+20(smite), and that's with one attack. Another 5d6 points of channel damage is just gratuitous. But he's certainly not going to waste his standard action dealing 5d6 to everyone, at least not unless there are a whole lot of weak undead to toast.
Dealing 6d6 to the Lich Lord is probably better than dealing 5d6 to him and to all his skeleton mooks.
I actually disagree in this specific example. 5d6 damage is likely enough to slay all those skeleton mooks, or at least severely wound them, while the extra 3.5 average damage isn't going to drop the lich when the first 17.5 damage didn't.
Dealing 6d6 to the Lich Lord is probably better than dealing 5d6 to him and to all his skeleton mooks.I actually disagree in this specific example. 5d6 damage is likely enough to slay all those skeleton mooks, or at least severely wound them, while the extra 3.5 average damage isn't going to drop the lich when the first 17.5 damage didn't.
I am going to assume that he meant +6d6 to one is better than 5d6 to all, but I think that is situational, depending on what/who the main bad guy has for backup.
Its also good whe your in a position to make a full attack. It converts the channel energy to a swift action, it doesn't say the attack has to come from a standard action. Gives it much more versatility beyond just a full attack as well. Charging, feat usage with so many combat feats going to standard actions, I'm sure someone more awake can think of some more...
|
Its swift action damage to one target or standard action damage to multiple targets. It could be useful for negative energy, but in terms of what it's capable of doing, its either hammer a lot of damage on a singular target or hit multiple. Really its helpful for paladins who basically get "mini-smites" by using this feat.
Its swift action damage to one target or standard action damage to multiple targets. It could be useful for negative energy, but in terms of what it's capable of doing, its either hammer a lot of damage on a singular target or hit multiple. Really its helpful for paladins who basically get "mini-smites" by using this feat.
I'd say the swift action is needed to trigger the channel smite. You would still have to use a standard action to commence your attack.
|
|
Its swift action damage to one target or standard action damage to multiple targets. It could be useful for negative energy, but in terms of what it's capable of doing, its either hammer a lot of damage on a singular target or hit multiple. Really its helpful for paladins who basically get "mini-smites" by using this feat.I'd say the swift action is needed to trigger the channel smite. You would still have to use a standard action to commence your attack.
True enough, but even then its a question of Standard action to hurt one guy, or weaken the audience...
i am assuming this extra damage isn't multiplied on a crit? (like most extra damage ) otherwise keen scythe + this feat = nasty
Ben
There are exceptions, but the rule of thumb is that extra dice are never multiplied, while nonvariable bonus damage (ie, +2 damage from Weapon Specialization) is always multiplied.
For trivia's sake, I'm not aware of any exception to the "never multiply extra dice" side of that rule of thumb.
For the most part, the OP is right. Channeling Smite is a probably not worth a feat, at least not for a PC. If you want to maximize (specialize) your damage potential against undead BBEGs and possibly evil outsider BBEGs with another feat, this would be the way to go. Battle Priests who channel negative energy and don't focus much on CHA could use it too but chances are, you won't do much extra damage with it unless your target rolls bad on his save.
It would be a much better feat if you didn't lose it on a miss or only needed to meet their touch AC in order to deliver the channel damage if the attack didn't pierce through their armor or perhaps didn't allow for a save. It's close to being useful but not quite there. I have a feeling that a lot of people will eventually house rule this to one (or some) of the options that I listed. I kind of like the touch AC one myself. It would be cool to use it as a touch attack if need be.
I could see it being useful, say for an evil cleric to use on a necromancer summoning undead, since it could hurt him without bolstering his allies.
However it does seem too situational to be of much use.
As I've suggested, multiple die of bonus damage as a swift action doesn't strike me as underpowered, nor as something that needs a boost.
But to those of you playing crazy non-good negative-channeling priests, tell us how it works out!
I could see it being useful, say for an evil cleric to use on a necromancer summoning undead, since it could hurt him without bolstering his allies.
However it does seem too situational to be of much use.
Depends on your campaign. My paladin took it and combined with his smite and holy weapon took a rather deadly (til that point) vampire down almost to 0. take a 5d6 channel energy, plus a holy weapon, and smite evil and that was something that definitely left a mark on the baddie.
I agree that its situational to a lot of campaigns and the enemies you'll be fighting but then so are a lot of feats. All those grapple feats are situational too...but in the right circumstances...deadly :)
I think this has been pointed out, but the benefit of the feat is that it "Bursts" damage on a single target.
Take just a 6th level Paladin - two attacks, no buffs, dealing roughly 1d8+3 on the low end, without even smiting. That's a potential 15 points of weapon damage. Or he can channel in 30' radius to do 10.5, Will save for half. Which is better? Depends on his attack bonus, the number of enemies hurt by the channel, etc.
But assuming the weapon damage is at least on par with the channel - and it could be a *lot* higher than I list - then adding a turning smite on top of the weapon damage is a great option to have available. It peaks the Paladin's damage - using up one resource (channeling) to stack onto an unlimited resource (swinging his sword).
True enough, but even then its a question of Standard action to hurt one guy, or weaken the audience...
Or even more to the point: its a question of swift action to hurt one guy with a good chance of missing and losing the channel, or standard action to hurt the audience guaranteed - no chance to not do any damage.
I still only see this as advantageous to something that channels negative energy as a way to avoid hurting his companions when selective channeling won't let him exclude all of them.
All in all, I doubt I'd ever have a PC that takes this feat.
For the most part, the OP is right. Channeling Smite is a probably not worth a feat, at least not for a PC. If you want to maximize (specialize) your damage potential against undead BBEGs and possibly evil outsider BBEGs with another feat, this would be the way to go. Battle Priests who channel negative energy and don't focus much on CHA could use it too but chances are, you won't do much extra damage with it unless your target rolls bad on his save.
It would be a much better feat if you didn't lose it on a miss or only needed to meet their touch AC in order to deliver the channel damage if the attack didn't pierce through their armor or perhaps didn't allow for a save. It's close to being useful but not quite there. I have a feeling that a lot of people will eventually house rule this to one (or some) of the options that I listed. I kind of like the touch AC one myself. It would be cool to use it as a touch attack if need be.
Agreed! :=)
As I've suggested, multiple die of bonus damage as a swift action doesn't strike me as underpowered, nor as something that needs a boost.
But to those of you playing crazy non-good negative-channeling priests, tell us how it works out!
No, I don;t think it needs a boost... I'm just wondering why something so situational or non-advantageous it's included at all.
|
This is really simply for a cleric who has much more melee potential or for a paladin. This can be combined with other melee feats as well as channel feats (as I would allow alignment channel to work with this as well). Vital Strike + power attack + smite + channel energy could very well absolutely destroy the lich boss in one hit. Or change that to an evil outsider and it's the same idea.
Switching the idea, as a neutral or evil cleric you can channel negative energy (as others have pointed out) and this could be even more effective that a normal channel. As a PC this is better than Selective Channel for a cleric for focus, as a cleric is bound to only have +1 or +2 cha base, which would only exclude 1-2 other PCs. If you have any more party members near you, you're going to hurt them. You can also choose to channel normally if you want to, and then smite channel otherwise. Yeah it's not the best feat in the world, but it's pretty balanced compared to most of the other feat options for a cleric in my opinion.
Yeah it's not the best feat in the world, but it's pretty balanced compared to most of the other feat options for a cleric in my opinion.
This says a lot more about the feat options for clerics than it does about the usefulness of Channel Smite, unfortunately.
I could also see it being useful for a good cleric hitting an undead when he didn't want to heal the enemy cleric standing 10 feet away from him as well...
Channel Energy doesn't work that way in the final rules; you have to choose to either damage undead or to heal, it doesn't do both.
|
I could also see it being useful for a good cleric hitting an undead when he didn't want to heal the enemy cleric standing 10 feet away from him as well...Channel Energy doesn't work that way in the final rules; you have to choose to either damage undead or to heal, it doesn't do both.
Oh. Interesting.
|
I don't have my Core book with me atm, but I am assuming channel smite, since it requires a melee attack roll, does not allow a save for half like channel energy? This might be the reason to have this feat, if you fight higher level undead that are likely to save for 1/2 damage vs a regular channel energy use.
*Edit* - NM, I just checked out the SRD, they still get a save for half, which does not seem to fit the general mechanic. I think I would house rule that if the attack succeeds, there is no save for half damage, otherwise this is, as the OP mentioned, a far less useful feat. Or if you wanted a middle ground somewhere, like facing powerful undead, you could take the melee attack damage and add it to the DC of the channeling save, like a concentration, ahem, spellcraft check. This would still allow the creature a possible save, it would just be very hard.
|
|
I could also see it being useful for a good cleric hitting an undead when he didn't want to heal the enemy cleric standing 10 feet away from him as well...Channel Energy doesn't work that way in the final rules; you have to choose to either damage undead or to heal, it doesn't do both.Oh. Interesting.
I'm gonna start carrying my book with me, to check it before I talk. And get buff like Conan on that flour mill or whatever.
|
Ok, I could see it if your are a paladin and you are only fighting one undead creature. If there are 2 or more then you are really just doing half the damage you could otherwise have done. But for a feat?You get to make a melee attack as well.
If your melee attack was good to begin with, then this basically lets you deal channel damage as a swift action. Honestly, this looks pretty freaking brutal to me (especially for paladins), but I'm not going to judge it until I've seen it in play.
If your melee attacks aren't any good to begin with, then no, you probably shouldn't bother spending a feat to improve them. Just channel energy normally, or cast flamestrike
Not necessarily. The first few levels of Channel Energy damage is pretty small. You can maybe do full damage to a bunch of undead, small though it is, or half damage if they save, making a very small contribution to combat, or you can take a swing and add a variable amount of damage to it with no other penalties. Even +1 damage is worth a swift action if you hit with most weapons, compared to using your whole round to do 1-6 damage to a few undead.
It's really all about the kind of character you're building. If you don't intend to buff yourself with spells and fight as a cleric, then no, Channel Smite is not likely to be a useful feat for you.
|
|
I don't have my Core book with me atm, but I am assuming channel smite, since it requires a melee attack roll, does not allow a save for half like channel energy? This might be the reason to have this feat, if you fight higher level undead that are likely to save for 1/2 damage vs a regular channel energy use.
*Edit* - NM, I just checked out the SRD, they still get a save for half, which does not seem to fit the general mechanic. I think I would house rule that if the attack succeeds, there is no save for half damage, otherwise this is, as the OP mentioned, a far less useful feat. Or if you wanted a middle ground somewhere, like facing powerful undead, you could take the melee attack damage and add it to the DC of the channeling save, like a concentration, ahem, spellcraft check. This would still allow the creature a possible save, it would just be very hard.
Since it's potentially 10d6 additional damage and not a fixed amount like the flaming property of a weapon, the feat might be overpowered without the standard save. Evil clerics wielding powerful buffs and melee weapons could slaughter players pretty handily.
It should wave the possibility of a save, then it would be worth it.
|
|
Possibly, though by the time the channel damage is 10d6, there are more powerful spell options than channel smite. It might be a better option than regular smite for a paladin of that level, so your point is well made. Basically I can't see this option being worth a feat for the most part, unless you are expecting to fight 1 or 2 hard undead at higher level, in which case, area channeling gains you nothing vs a single target channel.
|
|
Possibly, though by the time the channel damage is 10d6, there are more powerful spell options than channel smite. It might be a better option than regular smite for a paladin of that level, so your point is well made. Basically I can't see this option being worth a feat for the most part, unless you are expecting to fight 1 or 2 hard undead at higher level, in which case, area channeling gains you nothing vs a single target channel.
By that point there are more powerful spell options, but I'd wager most aren't swift actions to complete.
|
|
Dealing 6d6 to the Lich Lord is probably better than dealing 5d6 to him and to all his skeleton mooks.I actually disagree in this specific example. 5d6 damage is likely enough to slay all those skeleton mooks, or at least severely wound them, while the extra 3.5 average damage isn't going to drop the lich when the first 17.5 damage didn't.
Well, just having the feat doesn't mean it's always the first option. It's more like:
Round 1) Channel Energy and kill the mooks.
Round 2) Channel Smite and go after the lich.
Possibly, though by the time the channel damage is 10d6, there are more powerful spell options than channel smite. It might be a better option than regular smite for a paladin of that level, so your point is well made. Basically I can't see this option being worth a feat for the most part, unless you are expecting to fight 1 or 2 hard undead at higher level, in which case, area channeling gains you nothing vs a single target channel.By that point there are more powerful spell options, but I'd wager most aren't swift actions to complete.
Neither is Channel Smite. Channel Smite is a swift + a standard or swift + a full-round, because you have to make a melee attack with it.
|
|
Ooh, here's a question:
What if you choose to attack one of your own party with an unarmed strike and a channel smite? Is it possible to direct-heal them with the positive energy that way instead of using a cure spell or healing all the mooks who would be caught in the channel energy burst?
(I realize that it's more effective to take the Channel Energy feat that lets you exclude people if you usually just heal people, but if you wanted to smackdown undead AND be able to single-heal without using up spells, could be an option)
No. Channel Smite doesn't follow the same rules as normal channeling. You use a channel to activate the feat, and the feat either damages undead with positive energy or damages the living with negative energy. You get no choice in the matter.
The only way that'd work is if you were a negative channeller attacking a level 8+ cleric of the Death domain, who absorb negative channeled energy.
|
|
Neither is Channel Smite. Channel Smite is a swift + a standard or swift + a full-round, because you have to make a melee attack with it.Possibly, though by the time the channel damage is 10d6, there are more powerful spell options than channel smite. It might be a better option than regular smite for a paladin of that level, so your point is well made. Basically I can't see this option being worth a feat for the most part, unless you are expecting to fight 1 or 2 hard undead at higher level, in which case, area channeling gains you nothing vs a single target channel.By that point there are more powerful spell options, but I'd wager most aren't swift actions to complete.
My point was that you can't attack and cast one of those high-level spells in the same round. I'm not sure what you thought I meant or why you felt like nitpicking it. The Channel Smite ability *is* a swift action. It can be added to an attack as a swift action, unlike most spells of equivalent damage, which require standard actions to cast.
|
|
No. Channel Smite doesn't follow the same rules as normal channeling. You use a channel to activate the feat, and the feat either damages undead with positive energy or damages the living with negative energy. You get no choice in the matter.
The only way that'd work is if you were a negative channeller attacking a level 8+ cleric of the Death domain, who absorb negative channeled energy.
Well, that's unfortunate, but not surprising given the flavor of the feat. It would be a very strange cleric who goes around smiting people with healing magic(though there are probably a few gods who would be amused).
No. Channel Smite doesn't follow the same rules as normal channeling. You use a channel to activate the feat, and the feat either damages undead with positive energy or damages the living with negative energy. You get no choice in the matter.
The only way that'd work is if you were a negative channeller attacking a level 8+ cleric of the Death domain, who absorb negative channeled energy.
This is also why you can't use channel elemental to Channel Smite an elemental for example.
My point was that you can't attack and cast one of those high-level spells in the same round. I'm not sure what you thought I meant or why you felt like nitpicking it. The Channel Smite ability *is* a swift action. It can be added to an attack as a swift action, unlike most spells of equivalent damage, which require standard actions to cast.
The point is that it doesn't matter that the spells aren't swift actions. A 9th level spell is going to beat out an attack + a channeled smite and still have a swift action left over for a quickened 5th level spell. And, please note, quickened 5th level spells are swift actions and will outperform channel smite. Hell, a quickened 3rd level spell (fireball) will outperform channel smite. Heck, even a quickened magic missile will do the same amount of damage on average as a smite that's saved against.
|
|
This is also why you can't use channel elemental to Channel Smite an elemental for example.No. Channel Smite doesn't follow the same rules as normal channeling. You use a channel to activate the feat, and the feat either damages undead with positive energy or damages the living with negative energy. You get no choice in the matter.
The only way that'd work is if you were a negative channeller attacking a level 8+ cleric of the Death domain, who absorb negative channeled energy.
I think the problem is the text of the Channel Smite feat. It might be possible to get official errata, since the Elemental Channel and Outsider Channel feats don't require an action to activate and it seems odd that the channel feats can't be used with one another.