Hi all.
I found another problem with Channel Energy and I must say it is bothering me.
It is about the huge difference in power between good and evil clerics.
And I am not talking about their usefulness in a party which is another huge problem.
What I am talking about is good/neutral cleric with this party against an evil cleric and its party.
Evil cleric channeling negative energy has to have selective channeling to not damage his allies, and if he cannot ignore all he has to damage some of them.
Good cleric that heals everyone in the area if he cannot avoid healing all his enemies can choose to avoid the damaged ones and heal the full or close to full HP ones for practically no effect.
When an evil cleric is channeling negative energy his targets get a will save for half effect, but a good cleric healing them afterwards gets to do it without a save for half. This makes healing always a more effective option. It makes cleric battles always end up on the healing side, making an option of an evil cleric to damage foes using channel energy a very subpar option if there is a good cleric on the other side (and there usually is). So that evil cleric has to use disable spells or death spells. Even cleric's area damage spells like sound burst (at the respective level) or Unholy smite very subpar and useless. Even Flamestrike becomes very much useless or at least a weak option.
This was not a problem before channel energy. Channel energy was put into the game but it was not balanced properly. Either for all kinds of cleric or for different spells or classes.
This whole thing makes me think what to do.
So far I figured out two options:
1. Channel positive energy to heal allies heals 1d4 per two levels (instead of 1d6).
2. Both channel positive and negative energy only work on undead. Either damaging them or healing them. Cleric still needs to take additional feat if he wants to turn or control them.
|
I know the only evil cleric we've run up against so far has held us at bar and been quite terrifying because of her ability to channel negative energy. It was a remarkably epic fight that lasted quite a while, the DM not pulling any punches.
No one died at the end but we had a few people unconscious and she'd used all 6 of her channel energy. If the DM had rolled a little better or our cleric had rolled a little worse we'd have had a TPK.
All in all we were very happy with how channel energy worked and now are a bit wary to get within that 30' radius of black death.
|
Evil cleric channeling negative energy has to have selective channeling to not damage his allies, and if he cannot ignore all he has to damage some of them.
The traditional response when I've brought this up (multiple times) is to travel with a party full of undead.
I eagerly await the DM who will allow me to dictate that every other player in the game has to play an Undead, so that I can use my class ability effectively. It's the common 'solution' that's been offered up, and I'm happy to offer it right back, in all it's dismissive absurdity.
As for a house rule, I would allow *any* Cleric (pos or neg) to get the equivalent of a selective channeling feat for free and allow them to take a feat that allows them to pick and choose as many (or as few) targets in their channeling radius to heal/harm as they wish.
The 'standard' Cleric with a 12 Charisma could choose to not heal/harm a single person (other than himself), or two people with a 14 Cha, three other people with a 16 Cha, etc. One with the Feat could channel to his black little heart's content, knowing that he'll never harm an ally (unless he wants to) or heal a foe (unless he wants to).
Still doesn't help the Will save for 1/2 disparity, but that's *always* been the case. Healing is more efficient than damage. Cure Light Wounds just works. Inflict Light Wounds gets a save for 1/2.
I do encourage players to come up with unique abilities that they might want as Feats, so if one came up to me and said, 'I want Vampiric Channeling, that heals me when I damage others,' or 'I want Sanctified Channeling, that gives people an extra save vs. poison or disease when I heal them,' I'm all over that sort of stuff, particularly if it fits the god they worship (Urgathoa or Zon-Kuthon for Vampiric Channeling, for example, drawing strength from the suffering of others, or Sarenrae for the Sanctified Channeling).
I'm all about the options.
|
The roleplayer's response to this imbalance is "so what?"
In-game, an evil cleric is not likely to care if his followers are harmed by a necessary blast of negative energy. And like the good cleric, they can always maneuver to provide the optimum area of effect.
Granted, it's not as useful out of combat - except the now classic argument that one 1st-level evil cleric can slaughter a whole marketplace of commoners with a standard action.
Why would a evil cleric kill his own followers whose purpose is to keep him alive or die for him with this own ability?
He would do that if there was a gain for him (like them raising as undead a round later) which in this case there isn't. It only means the party will get to him sooner then later.
Also here I was mostly comparing evil NPCs cleric that the party with a good cleric is against. In these cases party cleric is always more efficient then the enemy unless the enemy cleric is 2+ levels higher then the party cleric and with hench of his own in which case it is not a standard encounter.
It is true that Cure Light Wounds was always better then Inflict Light Wounds in direct competition. But those kind of duels were not common. A upfront melee cleric would usually do more damage with 2-3 buffs and a melee weapon. Also these spells were not ranged, not area effects and not Supernatural (as in almost cannot be stopped unless the cleric is pinned, stunned or paralyzed).
Actually the way things are now, if the party has a cleric their enemies are always better of with a neutral cleric that channels positive energy for support. The evil cleric cannot provide a worthy encounter.
Yes, evil clerics will sometimes have undead mooks with them but this is not always the case. Actually in any civilized place this will be rare, as nobody will stand having people around that walk around with skeletons and zombies. But having undead mooks only saves that cleric one feat and a bit of Charisma which he needs anyways as to have more channels and higher DC.
I'm currently playing one of these "weaker" negative energy channeling clerics and I can safely say, that at low levels at least (we're only level 2) he's one of, if not the most powerful character in the party.
Now this kind of revolves around my build. He's not a typical Cleric who places his second or third best stat on CHA. He specializes in channeling negative energy. With a 20 CHA, Improved Channeling and the Sacred Consuit trait, he's got a whopping DC 19 WIL save at second level...and it just continues to scale up by level. Not many enemies make their save.
I have other advantages as well. Being a specialist, I already have 8 uses per day and will likely take Extra Channeling every four to six levels. I can filter five friendlies out of my blast which will also go up as boost my CHA. And I am always damaging all of my enemies as I never burn channels on emergency heals for one person when they are across the battlefield and can't be reached in time.
I would likely hold my own or come out on top against a good cleric. Not many positive energy channelers specialize in it. I can do it more often and like I mentioned before, not many will save from it. I am also more likely to seek out and use the magic item that boosts my damage potential.
At the moment, I'm much more destructive than a Evocation Wizard or Blaster Sorcerer and might even be so at higher levels as well. They can't drop a Fireball at their feet and not hurt their allies. I do have to spend a lot of feats to make this work well so I will lack in other areas.
So in conclusion, if you just take the raw, optimal numbers and stack them against each other, the positive energy channeler will come out on top. In real life game situations, it's about even and nicely balanced with respect to each other. Many times, healing is lost on those that haven't taken damage. Any lost damage on an enemy you take down is pretty much ignored as you accomplished what you wanted to do to begin with.
This was not a problem before channel energy.
This I really can't believe. Negative energy clerics have *always* had it rough trying to compete. Having to memorize cure spells severely cuts down on their versatility (how many good clerics do you typically see memorizing Inflict wound spells?).
Channel Energy has made them more equal - adding a lot of options to both. (Consider which is more equal $10 vs. $1, or $20 vs. $10)
Also, offense is always stronger than defense in this respect: You go first. You can't channel to heal your allies if they aren't hurt yet. A negative channeler can always cause damage, unless they've already killed PCs.
I'm currently playing one of these "weaker" negative energy channeling clerics and I can safely say, that at low levels at least (we're only level 2) he's one of, if not the most powerful character in the party.
Now this kind of revolves around my build. He's not a typical Cleric who places his second or third best stat on CHA. He specializes in channeling negative energy. With a 20 CHA, Improved Channeling and the Sacred Consuit trait, he's got a whopping DC 19 WIL save at second level...and it just continues to scale up by level. Not many enemies make their save.
I have other advantages as well. Being a specialist, I already have 8 uses per day and will likely take Extra Channeling every four to six levels. I can filter five friendlies out of my blast which will also go up as boost my CHA. And I am always damaging all of my enemies as I never burn channels on emergency heals for one person when they are across the battlefield and can't be reached in time.
I would likely hold my own or come out on top against a good cleric. Not many positive energy channelers specialize in it. I can do it more often and like I mentioned before, not many will save from it. I am also more likely to seek out and use the magic item that boosts my damage potential.
At the moment, I'm much more destructive than a Evocation Wizard or Blaster Sorcerer and might even be so at higher levels as well. They can't drop a Fireball at their feet and not hurt their allies. I do have to spend a lot of feats to make this work well so I will lack in other areas.
So in conclusion, if you just take the raw, optimal numbers and stack them against each other, the positive energy channeler will come out on top. In real life game situations, it's about even and nicely balanced with respect to each other. Many times, healing is lost on those that haven't taken damage. Any lost damage on an enemy you take down is pretty much ignored as you accomplished what you wanted to do to begin with.
OK, you are mentioning lvl 2 and have completely maxed your caster for this. Not many will do this. This is not a standard evil cleric unless you are saying for the evil cleric to be effective with negative channel energy he has to do something as crazy as this?
That only confirms my case.Anyways when you come upon a equal lvl good cleric you will see what I am talking about. Some will save against your effect while they will always get full healing from the good cleric.
In real life situations it is not balanced, not even close. In any fight where the other side will have a cleric he will outdo you.
And any extra healing will then heal wounds done by your other party members while your channel will do nothing for them.
A smart cleric will not waste channel on healed allies, he can always delay and then use the ability especially if he recognizes an evil opponent on the other side. Actually casting silence or some disable on you would be his good choice as he didn't need to max Cha to be even remotely useful, but can have great Wis and his spells will have good DC.
And I cannot believe you are actually comparing yourself to a wizard at lvl 2. Let see you compare yourself with Greatsword fighter or Barbarian with Cleave feat. 1d6 to all enemies in 30-foot radius (at that level probably not many of them) from you (probably nobody dies) against 2d6+x to two opponents. Hmm, who is more powerful?
This was not a problem before channel energy.This I really can't believe. Negative energy clerics have *always* had it rough trying to compete. Having to memorize cure spells severely cuts down on their versatility (how many good clerics do you typically see memorizing Inflict wound spells?).
Channel Energy has made them more equal - adding a lot of options to both. (Consider which is more equal $10 vs. $1, or $20 vs. $10)
Also, offense is always stronger than defense in this respect: You go first. You can't channel to heal your allies if they aren't hurt yet. A negative channeler can always cause damage, unless they've already killed PCs.
No, they didn't because they had access to good buffs and disables and the other side didn't have access to a ranged area powerful healing ability. Good clerics can now heal like crazy, so much that area spells are pretty much useless (depending from level to level).
Anyways, what do you others think. Which change would be better:
1. Healing from channel does 1d4 instead of 1d6
2. Both positive and negative channel can only affect undead (damaging or healing and with appropriate feat, turning or controlling).
Neither.
Channeling scales horribly. It doesn't need a nerf. It's functionally almost identical to casting a level-appropriate mass cure X wounds; in other words, it's not a strong in-combat heal unless you're fighting a large number of weak foes. It's not even strong enough to counteract a level 10 caster's fireball until cleric level 19! It never grows strong enough to counteract any spell higher level than fireball.
Channel positive energy is fine. Leave it alone.
I already have 8 uses per day and will likely take Extra Channeling every four to six levels.
If you are playing with the Pathfinder rules as written then if you take extra channel more than once teh effects do not stack. From the 'Benifit' section of the Feat chapter in the PRD " If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
I am in the same boat as you (I currently play a negtive channelling cleric), personally I like to go in with weapons and use channel smite to get an extra 6d6 damage (save for half) per round on my attacks.
One thing to note is that clerics with the Death domain who are 8th level or over mitigate some of this issue as they are healed by negative channeling. As the channeler can always opt to include themselves they can heal themselves as the harm other living creatures, and if their associates are also 8th level+ death domain clerics they get the same benefit :)
|
|
The Scarred Lands had a healing-centric Paladin PrC called the Gold Knight who could craft gold tokens and hand them to allies, allowing him to use his cure spells and lay on hands on them at close range, so long as they were holding the tokens.
It might be a neat option for the negative energy channeling Cleric to be able to craft little skull-tokens of obsidian and black iron (or whatever) to hand to his allies and protect them from his negative energy channelings. (Obviously, such a token falling into the hand of an enemy could be annoying, but that's a cool story option in it's own right, a BBEG stealing such an item to protect himself from the Cleric.)
It could presented as a Feat, with the tokens costing about as much as a silver holy symbol, or perhaps 50 gp, and the Cleric being able to create a number of them equal to his Wisdom modifier. The tokens wouldn't protect the holder against any negative energy, only the channeling (and inflict spells) of the Cleric who made them. If a token is lost, and the Cleric is aware of that loss, he can make replacement tokens, which replace the first-created token if he's already made his maximum number of tokens.
Since Clerics are more likely to have a higher Wisdom score than Charisma score, it would be at least slightly better than Selective Channeling, with an an associated cost, and the option that the tokens could be sundered, lost, etc. making the protection they provide not as firmly under the Cleric's round-by-round control as Selective Channeling.
By having both Feats, which a Cleric could at 1st level, if Human, a negative energy channeler could make Wis+Cha allies immune to his negative energy blasts.
Negative energy channeling has always been weak, and Evil Clerics have always been intentionally designed to be worse than their Good counterparts.
Right now, I'm allowing Clerics to take a feat at 5th or higher that allows them to channel either kind of energy-- so they can heal or harm the living and heal or harm the Undead. (And because of my house rules, use either Lay on Hands or Death Touch.) I'm not entirely convinced that the feat is necessary, as long as Clerics are mindful of their deities' ethos concerning channeling energy.
Neither.
Channeling scales horribly. It doesn't need a nerf. It's functionally almost identical to casting a level-appropriate mass cure X wounds; in other words, it's not a strong in-combat heal unless you're fighting a large number of weak foes. It's not even strong enough to counteract a level 10 caster's fireball until cleric level 19! It never grows strong enough to counteract any spell higher level than fireball.
Channel positive energy is fine. Leave it alone.
It counters it just fine for those who make their reflex saves. Healing by it's nature doesn't do what damage spells do, and that's on purpose. Damage can be avoided, diminished DR, and healing is always taken at full value rolled. And the cleric can't fail to cast it, it can't be counter spelled, he can do it many times a day without costing him a spell slot. Channeling is very powerful.
It counters it just fine for those who make their reflex saves.
Those who will make their reflex saves regularly have Evasion, except for the Bard, and thus don't need healing.
Channeling is very powerful.
It's very powerful at extending the 15-minute workday. It's not very powerful at extending the life of your party members as they're being beat on.
|
|
Why would a evil cleric kill his own followers whose purpose is to keep him alive or die for him with this own ability?
He would do that if there was a gain for him (like them raising as undead a round later) which in this case there isn't. It only means the party will get to him sooner then later.
Because they are evil. No, the evil cleric won't willy-nilly spread negative energy all over the place (unless they're CE). But they would certainly weight their options...deal damage to all my enemies and my followers, but not me? Sounds good. All depends on what tactics you prefer, but it is a possible, even useful, tactic for an evil character.
Also here I was mostly comparing evil NPCs cleric that the party with a good cleric is against. In these cases party cleric is always more efficient then the enemy unless the enemy cleric is 2+ levels higher then the party cleric and with hench of his own in which case it is not a standard encounter.
That's not a fair comparison as NPCs are always worse than the party - lower ability scores, lower wealth, usually sub-optimal choices. A lot of people agree that casting healing spells (or positive channel at mid-high levels) in combat is a waste of actions. Since the NPC typically does not have to worry about doing so after combat (unless they are a recurring encounter) one might argue the evil cleric is more powerful.
Again, I reiterate that challenging the party beyond a straight-up fight is just as meaningful. Imagine a LE cleric holding the king hostage or he will wipe out his dinner party.
Neither.
Channeling scales horribly. It doesn't need a nerf. It's functionally almost identical to casting a level-appropriate mass cure X wounds; in other words, it's not a strong in-combat heal unless you're fighting a large number of weak foes. It's not even strong enough to counteract a level 10 caster's fireball until cleric level 19! It never grows strong enough to counteract any spell higher level than fireball.
Channel positive energy is fine. Leave it alone.
Against fireball and other area damage spells there are countless counters like SR, save, evasion, immunities, resistances and magical items.
Even things like cover help!!On the other hand positive energy channel has none of those problems, NONE! So it is more then effective. A wizard attacking a party with area spells will die easier and be even more useless then before. Cleric restores HP fast to all and the party kills the wizard/sorcerer.
It is not that strong if only one of parties members is being damages, but I was not comparing it against that, I was comparing it against evil cleric channel negative energy which is supposed to a opposite effect while it is much, much weaker.
I was thinking about mentioning how area spells became even more useless now, but you done that for me now. Tnx. Any official adventure is going to have to take into consideration a standard party playing it, as in having a good/neutral cleric in it. It is going to have to count on clerics casting these heals in combat as the ability is powerful enough that it should be done. Any party without a cleric (or a paladin) will suffer because of this.
It counters it just fine for those who make their reflex saves.Those who will make their reflex saves regularly have Evasion, except for the Bard, and thus don't need healing.
Sure never make reflex saves on my fighters, never use resist fire, or have rings of fire protection by level 10. Any of those things eat up the incoming damage, the channel energy works just fine to fix the rest.
Channeling is very powerful.It's very powerful at extending the 15-minute workday. It's not very powerful at extending the life of your party members as they're being beat on.
Only when it is only one member taking the beating, in all other situations channel energy is very powerful in combat. Better in combat when you can't get out of melee because it can't be stopped.
One thing to note is that clerics with the Death domain who are 8th level or over mitigate some of this issue as they are healed by negative channeling. As the channeler can always opt to include themselves they can heal themselves as the harm other living creatures, and if their associates are also 8th level+ death domain clerics they get the same benefit :)
I though so too, but I was told this does not work. You cannot heal and damage at the same time. If you use the ability to heal undead in the area then you also heal clerics with Death Domain. If you use it to damage living in the area you do not heal them (but it is not stated if you also damage them, my ruling would be no).
Sure never make reflex saves on my fighters, never use resist fire, or have rings of fire protection by level 10. Any of those things eat up the incoming damage, the channel energy works just fine to fix the rest.
Please read what I wrote and then respond again, instead of responding purely on emotion.
Only when it is only one member taking the beating, in all other situations channel energy is very powerful in combat. Better in combat when you can't get out of melee because it can't be stopped.
I can count on zero fingers the number of times I've ever had my cleric utterly unable to get out of melee.
And, again. 1.75 HP per cleric level. One and three-quarters hit points. That's all CPE gets you.
I've been using CPE since it was introduced, and never has it been the best option. Not in the more-than-a-year I've been playing campaigns using the Pathfinder rules, and that's including two custom campaigns and two Paizo adventure paths.
EDIT: Note, except when it both healed the party AND damaged undead at the same time. Then it was a no-brainer.
Negative energy channeling has always been weak, and Evil Clerics have always been intentionally designed to be worse than their Good counterparts.
Right now, I'm allowing Clerics to take a feat at 5th or higher that allows them to channel either kind of energy-- so they can heal or harm the living and heal or harm the Undead. (And because of my house rules, use either Lay on Hands or Death Touch.) I'm not entirely convinced that the feat is necessary, as long as Clerics are mindful of their deities' ethos concerning channeling energy.
Personally I didn't feel this until now. Playing 3.5e I didn't find evil clerics as much weaker. Good clerics in the party would go melee to be damage dealers as their spells were to weak. Or they would buff/debuff/disable. Then they would need to lose a round to run to ONE of the party members to cast a healing spell. Now they can stand outside and spam spells and spam healing. Healing that cannot be stopped, not even by grappling. Negative energy channeling cannot be stopped as well but it is only dangerous when a party has no good/neutral clerics in its midst.
I though so too, but I was told this does not work. You cannot heal and damage at the same time. If you use the ability to heal undead in the area then you also heal clerics with Death Domain. If you use it to damage living in the area you do not heal them (but it is not stated if you also damage them, my ruling would be no).
One thing to note is that clerics with the Death domain who are 8th level or over mitigate some of this issue as they are healed by negative channeling. As the channeler can always opt to include themselves they can heal themselves as the harm other living creatures, and if their associates are also 8th level+ death domain clerics they get the same benefit :)
It works just fine. The 8th level Death cleric absorbs negative energy damage instead of taking damage from it. "You heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy". Thus, you channel energy to damage living creatures, and as a living creature you're damaged by it. However, the Death domain ability triggers, meaning you're healed instead.
I think my house rule will be that good channeling to heal living and negative channeling to damage living will need to be cast for 1 minute effectively making an out of combat heal and letting evil clerics have it and use it for plot hooks.
It works just fine. The 8th level Death cleric absorbs negative energy damage instead of taking damage from it. "You heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy". Thus, you channel energy to damage living creatures, and as a living creature you're damaged by it. However, the Death domain ability triggers, meaning you're healed instead.I though so too, but I was told this does not work. You cannot heal and damage at the same time. If you use the ability to heal undead in the area then you also heal clerics with Death Domain. If you use it to damage living in the area you do not heal them (but it is not stated if you also damage them, my ruling would be no).
One thing to note is that clerics with the Death domain who are 8th level or over mitigate some of this issue as they are healed by negative channeling. As the channeler can always opt to include themselves they can heal themselves as the harm other living creatures, and if their associates are also 8th level+ death domain clerics they get the same benefit :)
I do not know, I had a topic about this and people told me differently.
It is a bit too powerful if it works the way you want it. I done one encounter against players with clerics using it your way and it was really though for them. Close to couple of them dying.
So nerf it to useless then?
Nerf is to make clerics heal during combat like before while between combats can heal all and extend the 15-min work day (which I was told is the real reason why it was implemented).
As a DM I noticed that I will need to design encounters differently with the cleric in the party only because of this healing. I really do not need this to complicate stuff for me.
I didn't like this change even in Beta but I didn't get to playtest it until now.
|
|
So nerf it to useless then?Nerf is to make clerics heal during combat like before while between combats can heal all and extend the 15-min work day (which I was told is the real reason why it was implemented).
I was talking about the negative energy option if it takes 1 whole minute to use then that means he has to wait 10 rounds at which point your just as well removing any combat use for it and simply call it a fluff affect.
As for the cure affect again its not a big deal Healing is almost always a suboptimal choice in combat on top of the fact that channel energy is somewhat limited in number to begin with
Sure never make reflex saves on my fighters, never use resist fire, or have rings of fire protection by level 10. Any of those things eat up the incoming damage, the channel energy works just fine to fix the rest.Please read what I wrote and then respond again, instead of responding purely on emotion.
See and I think your simply defending a powerful tool you don't want to see balanced. Now that I understand that it would be pointless to debate it with you. It's overpowered, you like it that way and don't want that threatened.
See I too can make it personal without making a logical defense of my point.
But most people by level 10 have bonuses to their poor saves and protection items against things they expect to face. In the end there is no better heal the party option so it doesn't really matter that channel energy doesn't completely remove the harm of the fireball, the cleric has nothing else that will do as much as channel energy will.
So nerf it to useless then?Nerf is to make clerics heal during combat like before while between combats can heal all and extend the 15-min work day (which I was told is the real reason why it was implemented).I was talking about the negative energy option if it takes 1 whole minute to use then that means he has to wait 10 rounds at which point your just as well removing any combat use for it and simply call it a fluff affect.
As for the cure affect again its not a big deal Healing is almost always a suboptimal choice in combat on top of the fact that channel energy is somewhat limited in number to begin with
Well that is an unfortunate result of this nerf, but as in my campaign evil character are not allowed it makes no problems for me. As I already seen NPCs clerics are weaker anyways in channel duels so this more helps them then the other side.
If I was running a campaign with evil cleric player then I would probably house rule it one of the other two ways I mentioned before.
And no, Channel energy is now a best healing ability short of Heal spell. And it cost no spells, ignores everything and can be used while grappled without penalties and does not provoke AoO.
And no, Channel energy is now a best healing ability short of Heal spell. And it cost no spells,You do not get more uses as you go up in lvl unlike spells and unlike spells all the healing by channelling is random.
Actually you do. Cha items and more feats means you can afford to take Extra channeling if you see you are using a lot of channels through your average adventuring day.
Also healing spells all heal 1d8+x or 2d8+x or 3d8+x which is pretty random I would say.
|
|
Right now, I'm allowing Clerics to take a feat at 5th or higher that allows them to channel either kind of energy-- so they can heal or harm the living and heal or harm the Undead.
That's a pretty sensible feat to allow for Clerics of dieties like Nethys and Pharasma and perhaps Calistria, in particular, as those dieties have stronger than normal 'naughty and nice' aspects.
|
|
Playing 3.5e I didn't find evil clerics as much weaker.
3.5 evil Clerics *rocked* the house. Being able to rebuke undead, enhanced by feats like Improved Turning (+1 effective level), Sacred Energy Boost, items like Amulets of Turning, etc. you could have a low-level Cleric with a *horde* of undead followers. Necromancers and Conjurers alike would cry at the number of units you could put on the board, and, with the right choices (incoporeal undead shadows, for instance), you wouldn't even have to worry about where to fit them all while travelling.
Between the Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Plant, Cold, Scalykind, Spider, Warforged, Ooze, Slime, Thirst, etc., etc. Domains, Initiate of Nature Feat, Spider or Dragon rebuking Alternate Class Features, etc. you could could make a Command Critter Cleric with exactly the choice of gumbies you want to field. Plus Undead.
Best 3.5 Cleric I ever played was a negative energy channeler (Wee Jas, Domains Magic and Death, headed for Master of Shrouds). His group steamrollered Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, and encountering a Spectre in the adventure only made it that much more glorious. (There were also ghouls and ghasts, but he wasn't actually evil, and found the idea of cannibalistic corpses to be grotesque. Those just got rebuked and slain.)
The only downside to a 3.5 evil Cleric is that you have to prepare Cure spells (and / or pack Wands of Cure Light Wounds) since all of your Spontaneous spells are going to be Inflicts.
I do not know, I had a topic about this and people told me differently.
It is a bit too powerful if it works the way you want it. I done one encounter against players with clerics using it your way and it was really though for them. Close to couple of them dying.
Any chance of a link to this thread? - I have kept an eye out for all threads discussing the channeling of energy but cannot remember any with the interpretation you are giveng.
The way the PRD reads to me is that if you take damage from channeled negative energy you instead heal ("you heal damage instead of taking damage from channeled negative energy"), plus if the negative energy is instead used to heal unded you also heal ("If the channeled negative energy targets undead, you heal hit points just like undead in the area").
As enegery used to heal undead never damages teh living it seems clear to me that the intention is that energy used to harm teh living does heal a death domain cleric.
One other thing to note - negative channelers are usually evil and are quite happy commanding and creating undead minions. This goes some way in balancing out the disparity between chenneling negative and positive energy.
Personally I didn't feel this until now. Playing 3.5e I didn't find evil clerics as much weaker. Good clerics in the party would go melee to be damage dealers as their spells were to weak.
Cleric's role in the party is to heal. Evil Clerics aren't any better at healing than Bards, and Bards have better buffing options.
Then they would need to lose a round to run to ONE of the party members to cast a healing spell. Now they can stand outside and spam spells and spam healing. Healing that cannot be stopped, not even by grappling.
If they don't mind healing their enemies at the same time. Hell, I used to think it was a serious problem-- mass cure at much lower levels-- until I realized that you don't get to designate allies.
If you really think Channel Positive Energy needs nerfed, ban Selective Channeling, and make sure a couple of enemies tumble past the front ranks to harass the healbot every once in a while. See how excited he is about his special power then.
That's a pretty sensible feat to allow for Clerics of dieties like Nethys and Pharasma and perhaps Calistria, in particular, as those dieties have stronger than normal 'naughty and nice' aspects.
Certainly. And if the connection between Clerics and Deities is a little more tenuous in your campaign world, it makes sense that someone who does extensive work with that kind of energy would learn its opposite.
I've never liked the automatic association between Evil and the Undead anyway. Certainly, most undead are evil and extensive reliance upon them is probably evil... but not all undead are evil. And certainly, not every evil deity is going to want their followers associating with the dead.
Personally I'm not letting this to be governed by alignment.
The holy light can both mend wounds or sear the flesh and the darkness can both soothe the pain or choke all life. If I'm sending a group of Zhentarim against the party, then I persume that Bane will offer me the means to keep the soldiers fighting. The same goes for spell conversion.
Upon praying for spells the cleric only has to beg the powers for the ability to heal, or to harm.
It doesn't change the game mechanically and it makes evil clerics a viable option for the party... more choice is good IMO.
Negative energy channeling cannot be stopped as well but it is only dangerous when a party has no good/neutral clerics in its midst.
Most encounters the PCs will run into won't have positive energy channeling clerics unless they are playing an evil campaign. You're only going to see this a handful of times throughout the length of the campaign. In these cases, you can use your actions to pretty much cancel out theirs but the rest of your party will still be hammering away on them.
OK, you are mentioning lvl 2 and have completely maxed your caster for this. Not many will do this. This is not a standard evil cleric unless you are saying for the evil cleric to be effective with negative channel energy he has to do something as crazy as this?
That only confirms my case.
Maybe this should be the standard evil cleric. I'd fear him more than what you consider the standard especially if my cleric was just some schmuck with a 12 or 14 CHA who casts bull's strength on himself and charges up into melee on the first round. He will quickly outpace him on the channeled energy once he's bone dry.
Anyways when you come upon a equal lvl good cleric you will see what I am talking about. Some will save against your effect while they will always get full healing from the good cleric.
How many will save a WILL DC of 19 at second level? 25-27 at 10th level? 35 at 20th level?
In real life situations it is not balanced, not even close. In any fight where the other side will have a cleric he will outdo you.
Maybe what you consider the standard negative energy channeling cleric but not me. I will out do him as the rest of my group dismantles the front lines.
And any extra healing will then heal wounds done by your other party members while your channel will do nothing for them.
Taking out enemies faster means less need for healing. Wands of cure light are cheap.
A smart cleric will not waste channel on healed allies, he can always delay and then use the ability especially if he recognizes an evil opponent on the other side. Actually casting silence or some disable on you would be his good choice as he didn't need to max Cha to be even remotely useful, but can have great Wis and his spells will have good DC.
Silence will not stop mine or any other negative energy channel. Clerics are the hardest to take out with disabling effects since they have a good FOR and REF. They'll likely go after the Wizard first.
And I cannot believe you are actually comparing yourself to a wizard at lvl 2. Let see you compare yourself with Greatsword fighter or Barbarian with Cleave feat. 1d6 to all enemies in 30-foot radius (at that level probably not many of them) from you (probably nobody dies) against 2d6+x to two opponents. Hmm, who is more powerful?
I never said anything about a head to head fight. Last week, my lowly level 2 cleric made a suicidal charge into the middle of a room with 30 goblins in it: 15 up front to engage in melee and 15 in the back shooting crossbows. I blasted all 30 of them once for 4 damage each (5% save chance). In the second round, the back 15 turned and ran because there was a 33% chance (9 HP each) that I would wipe out all but a few of the little critters. My second channel only hit the 13 or 14 left up front and I rolled another 4 (so close). After being swarmed by goblins for two rounds I did end up getting taken down but not before doing...ready for this?...164 HP worth of damage! Let's see your Fighter do that in two rounds! In real life PC encounters, negative energy channeling is balanced. For someone who specializes, it might even be broken. I'll let you know as I continue to level up.
|
The Scarred Lands had a healing-centric Paladin PrC called the Gold Knight who could craft gold tokens and hand them to allies, allowing him to use his cure spells and lay on hands on them at close range, so long as they were holding the tokens.
It might be a neat option for the negative energy channeling Cleric to be able to craft little skull-tokens of obsidian and black iron (or whatever) to hand to his allies and protect them from his negative energy channelings. (Obviously, such a token falling into the hand of an enemy could be annoying, but that's a cool story option in it's own right, a BBEG stealing such an item to protect himself from the Cleric.)
It could presented as a Feat, with the tokens costing about as much as a silver holy symbol, or perhaps 50 gp, and the Cleric being able to create a number of them equal to his Wisdom modifier. The tokens wouldn't protect the holder against any negative energy, only the channeling (and inflict spells) of the Cleric who made them. If a token is lost, and the Cleric is aware of that loss, he can make replacement tokens, which replace the first-created token if he's already made his maximum number of tokens.
Since Clerics are more likely to have a higher Wisdom score than Charisma score, it would be at least slightly better than Selective Channeling, with an an associated cost, and the option that the tokens could be sundered, lost, etc. making the protection they provide not as firmly under the Cleric's round-by-round control as Selective Channeling.
By having both Feats, which a Cleric could at 1st level, if Human, a negative energy channeler could make Wis+Cha allies immune to his negative energy blasts.
this... I really really like
|
|
And no, Channel energy is now a best healing ability short of Heal spell. And it cost no spells,You do not get more uses as you go up in lvl unlike spells and unlike spells all the healing by channelling is random.
Actually you do. Cha items and more feats means you can afford to take Extra channeling if you see you are using a lot of channels through your average adventuring day.
Also healing spells all heal 1d8+x or 2d8+x or 3d8+x which is pretty random I would say.
channeling is 1d6, 2d6, 3d6... even if both are random positive channeling is only a bit more useful because it covers area... otherwise check your math it heals a lot less...
and it DOES proveoque AoO
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I didn't feel this until now. Playing 3.5e I didn't find evil clerics as much weaker. Good clerics in the party would go melee to be damage dealers as their spells were to weak.Cleric's role in the party is to heal. Evil Clerics aren't any better at healing than Bards, and Bards have better buffing options.
i hate when people have this misconception...
as player of clerics I disagree entirely
I already have 8 uses per day and will likely take Extra Channeling every four to six levels.If you are playing with the Pathfinder rules as written then if you take extra channel more than once teh effects do not stack. From the 'Benifit' section of the Feat chapter in the PRD " If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
You are absolutely correct. I never realized this since all of the other "Extra" feats are stackable. I guess I'll only take it once then.
You are absolutely correct. I never realized this since all of the other "Extra" feats are stackable. I guess I'll only take it once then.I already have 8 uses per day and will likely take Extra Channeling every four to six levels.If you are playing with the Pathfinder rules as written then if you take extra channel more than once teh effects do not stack. From the 'Benifit' section of the Feat chapter in the PRD " If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description."
I really think that's an omission. There's additional Special: text for Extra Channeling compared to the other Extra feats; my guess is the copy/paste stacking text was lost when they put in the special paladin rules.
I really think that's an omission. There's additional Special: text for Extra Channeling compared to the other Extra feats; my guess is the copy/paste stacking text was lost when they put in the special paladin rules.
You're probably right. I imagine that they'd have granted more than two more uses if you were only allowed to take it once and it doesn't really seem to jive with all of the other "Extra" feats. Why would you be able to take Extra Rage or Extra Ki every other level if you wanted to but not Extra Channel? Like I said before, I just assumed that it worked the same way as the rest. I never thought to look that closely at it.
I wonder if anyone official can tell us if this was a simple omission or if this feat is intentionally unstackable and for what reason?
Deathmatches aren't balance.
I take issue with the presumption that an evil cleric would even have a party instead of a drove of undead. The game rules have been explicit that PCs are meant to be non-evil since first edition. ("Quoth the Gygax: "Evil sucks.")
While I have no problem with the style of play that includes evil characters, you can't simply say "a mirror match wouldn't be fair here" and call that an earnest flaw in the design.
When used for proper villainy, negative channeling is really scary.
OK, you are mentioning lvl 2 and have completely maxed your caster for this. Not many will do this. This is not a standard evil cleric unless you are saying for the evil cleric to be effective with negative channel energy he has to do something as crazy as this?
Question to Archangel and everyone else. Should the default evil cleric now be a channeler first and spell-caster second? Isn't the primary goal of the evil NPC cleric just supposed to be the one that tries to weaken or kill the PCs? Do as much damage as possible?
Am I really crazy for specializing in channeling negative energy? I know the damage doesn't scale as well as fireball or cone of cold but there are so many other advantages that channeling has over these other spells. I just saw the new ability, thought it looked cool and ran with it. Hopefully my guy doesn't totally suck at higher levels. The offensive spells on the cleric's list aren't really that great anyway and I don't really mind being the master of spam damage. Makes it really easy for those melee guys up front to take the bad guys down quickly.