Imagine if you will that somewhere in this world exists a Pathfinder group consisting of a bunch of grizzled old veteran D&D players. In this hypothetical group are several players who have been playing since the 70s, including three veteran DMs with about 90 years of collective DMing experience.
Now suppose this group is all of the opinion that a typical group of Pathfinder heroes has access to far more healing than any similar group of heroes in any previous iteration of D&D. So much so that all of these veteran DMs despair of finding suitable combat challenges for Pathfinder groups. To the point that they all throw impossible challenges at the players, challenges that would have surely resulted in a TPK in any of their previous game versions, only to see the players defeat these challenges easily.
So they begin discussion about Channel Energy, a class feature that can be used in Pathfinder, even as early as 3rd level, to restore well over 100 HP during a single combat. So when it really hits the fan, the cleric can pump out an extra 100+ HP of healing, which means the monsters need to pump out at least that much additional damage to keep pace and present a reasonable threat. Unless, of course, the cleric goes down, in which case suddenly we have these overwhelmingly powerful monsters without that fountain of nearly-endless healing to counteract it.
So what suggestions would the wise and creative community here offer to this hypothetical group to reduce the power of Channel Energy?
Remind the group that channeling energy while in combat will likely also heal the opposing forces; that should cut down on its use somewhat.
|
One of my earliest suggestions when I came here was that all Clerics get their choice of Channel Energy Feats at 1st Level. I am not really all that fond of the all Clerics must be healbots idea, so am not particularly partial to channel energy healing.
Implement this, and maybe beef up Turn Undead and a few others slightly, and you might avoid the problem all together my friend. You might also include a few 3.5 Channel Feats from Complete Warrior and PHB2, (and Complete Divinecrap if you must :) ).
Another thing you might concider is to have all Clerics be Spontanious Domain Casters rather than Spontanious Cure/Inflicters. That alone can go a long way, as only those with the Healing Domain can really go without preping some Cures, just in case.
|
Channeling could be changed into a targeted spell effect ("Target: all creatures within 30 ft of the cleric") which means the cleric would need line of sight to anyone within 30 feet who would receive healing; the stealth'd or invisible rogue wouldn't be healed.
As others have said, force the cleric to be separated from the tanks by more than 30 ft. Wall of fire might be good for this, but spells like Entangle when the party is 35 feet into the AoE might work well (the cleric would have to step into the spell area). Assuming an NPC party with access to 5th level spells, a Wall of Force would work quite nicely and would block the burst effect. (And if the cleric doesn't know the wall is there they might even waste a channeling. :))
Deal in something other than "It hits you for x damage in this many attacks."
True legendary creatures don't need to hit you to end you. Consider medusa, the gorgon, or any other of the "You are over" creatures... like the cockatrice.
So what suggestions would the wise and creative community here offer to this hypothetical group to reduce the power of Channel Energy?
My suggestion is that you go back, re-examine your assumptions, and take note of those that are false (or at least not necessarily true), such as the assumption that monster damage must keep pace with cleric healing. Then, let the players enjoy their characters' abilities and focus on designing encounters that are fun and memorable rather than those that treat the game as if it were a competition between the players and the DM.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
So what suggestions would the wise and creative community here offer to this hypothetical group to reduce the power of Channel Energy?My suggestion is that you go back, re-examine your assumptions, and take note of those that are false (or at least not necessarily true), such as the assumption that monster damage must keep pace with cleric healing. Then, let the players enjoy their characters' abilities and focus on designing encounters that are fun and memorable rather than those that treat the game as if it were a competition between the players and the DM.
Well, this doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe it's just me, but looks like the group is having difficulty with the abundence of healing and it is staining their fun and belief. As for Blake, it sounds like he/she is having difficulty creating challenging encounters specifically because of healing. Maybe they like a more realistic, gritty game where miraculous healing is still miraculous.
I don't know what your doing that I'm not, or vice versa, but I wish our cleric could keep up with the damage we take. He can heal us half as fast as we get hurt for one, maybe two encounters. That leaves 3 more encounters with no Channels whatsoever.
The only way our party can keep up with healing is to drop hefty chunks of change on wands of CLW and heal between encounters.
I don't know what your doing that I'm not, or vice versa, but I wish our cleric could keep up with the damage we take. He can heal us half as fast as we get hurt for one, maybe two encounters. That leaves 3 more encounters with no Channels whatsoever.
The only way our party can keep up with healing is to drop hefty chunks of change on wands of CLW and heal between encounters.
Level 5 cleric=3d6= 10 points of healing
Earth Element CR 5
Melee 2 slams +14 (2d6+7)= equals 28 points of damage per round
Ok so Earth Elementals are known for hitting hard
Barbed Devil CR 5
Melee glaive +11/+6 melee (1d10+6 plus infernal wound) or 2 claws +10 melee (1d6+4)
Even the claw attacks do about 14 on average.
The damage dealt will always outdo the channeling if the players are getting hit.
This is always true no matter what level the party is.
Have them fight an evil cult, or some other excuse to include a number of evil clerics that can channel negative energy.
Of course the party will get a save against it that is easy to make, but that could cut down on the healing's benefits.
Another option is to have a spell that cuts off divine influence in the area, which would stop spontaneous conversions and that positive energy or negative energy channeling.
|
So they begin discussion about Channel Energy, a class feature that can be used in Pathfinder, even as early as 3rd level, to restore well over 100 HP during a single combat. So when it really hits the fan, the cleric can pump out an extra 100+ HP of healing, which means the monsters need to pump out at least that much additional damage to keep pace and present a reasonable threat. Unless, of course, the cleric goes down, in which case suddenly we have these overwhelmingly powerful monsters without that fountain of nearly-endless healing to counteract it.
If the numbers offend thee, pluck them out.
Or, in this case, just change them, and have Channel Energy start at 1d6, and add either +1 / odd level thereafter, +1 / level thereafter or +1d6 / three or four or five levels, whichever suits your preference.
So you could go with the last option, and start with 1d6 Channel Energy at 1st level, 2d6 Channel Energy at 5th level, 3d6 at 10th level, 4d6 at 15th level and 5d6 at 20th level.
Or the first option, with 1d6 Channel at 1st level, 1d6+1 at 3rd, etc. up to 1d6+9 at 19th level.
In that case, I'd be tempted to have a Quicken Channel feat available, to make it less of a 'crappy cure light wounds wannabe' and more of a 'AoE Close Wounds spell that doesn't steal the Cleric's action.'
Create situations where the party is unable to recover uses of channel energy due to time constraints. Attrition will force clerics to use their channel energy early but have little left for later, or to use other means of healing.
Examine the entire party more closely. Are they using good tactics to protect the cleric and remain close to him for channeling? Are they behaving in a tactically-poor manner, forcing the cleric to channel more often? Are they optimized on the whole?
Examine encounters. Are they getting fireballed, or are they getting hit by lots of little attacks in general from mooks? If so, then channel energy works well. A focused beating on one or two characters will reduce the effectiveness of channel energy.
Overall, look for ways to challenge the party despite channel energy over reducing its power mechanically. Unless the entire party agrees that channel energy is over-the-top, changing the abilities of a character in mid-campaign is to be avoided, as it can feel as though someone is getting picked on unfairly. Bad feelings aren't needed at the gaming table (dice will generate enough of those on their own)!
Also remember that yes, more healing is now available than in OD&D, 1E, 2E, or 3E. Also remember we have a lot more hp than in OD&D, 1E, and 2E. And monsters hit harder than they did in those editions too, in terms of raw hit point loss.
Finally, be proud. If you're hitting so hard that the cleric is channeling regularly, you've got the cleric (at least) off his game.
OK, it sounds like you are asking for suggestion on modifications to the Feat as opposed to strategy suggestions like most folk have been giving.
The trick to toning down a feat IMHO is to make it still fun for the character that has it. Perhaps you can accomplish what you need with very little change. What if you keep the same dice and uses per day, but limit the use to no more then once a turn? That would probably only let them use it once in combat, maybe twice for a long one, but still allow the same number of uses per day and still be very useful after combat where a turn between uses is no big deal.
As for strategy, I doubt you need help with that, but one thing that comes to mind is just put a cleric on the enemy side either channeling for the monsters or channeling negative to counter the channel positive.
Load up some Undead and make the Cleric choose whether to heal or destroy the Undead. This worked well for me and caught my 'healing aura' Cleric flatfooted. She had to choose between her standard role of mobile med-station and pulling duty as the primary damage dealer against a 'horde' of level draining Wraiths.
Remind the group that channeling energy while in combat will likely also heal the opposing forces; that should cut down on its use somewhat.
Ineed, the group knows this all too well. Selective Channeling solves the whole problem.
Disclaimer: YMMV since my players are around 12th and 13th level.
Concentrate damage instead of spreading it (Channel Energy cannot keep up due to relatively small amount of healing per target - it's actually less than same level Cure spell).
If you really must use area effects - acid fog, black tentacles to deal continuous damage.
Deal conditions. Daze. Hold. Charm. Waves of Fatigue. Oh, and use Difficult Terrain along with various Solid Fogs and tactic listed below.
Use minion-like opponents with beefed up hitpoints - enough to make them difficult to exclude from Channeling, healthy enough to survive until inevitable healing.
Keep healers occupied - any MMO player worth his salt can tell you, that killing (or otherwise hindering) the healer makes him much less effective.
Honorable mentions: Invisible Stalkers, Air Elementals (Whirlwind!), continuous damage, grappling Barbarians (grappled characters are practically unable to cast spells now).The only way for our cleric to keep up with damage, is to use Shield Other (to effectively double the effectiveness of Channeling), but that keeps him occupied.
Regards,
Ruemere
All of this is great advice, and I use all of it from time to time. But I don't rely on it. And as you said, much of that is impractical at fairly low levels.
I am especially fond of focused-fire rather than spreading damage, but in many fights the enemy numbers don't always allow for it (20 orcs need something to do, and once 5 of them are pounding on a PC, the other 15 start to look for other targets).
Keeping the cleric occupied is harder than it sounds. A set of good "battlefield control" tactics can usually keep the cleric relatively safe, and even when it doesn't, Channel Energy doesn't even provoke. Sure, I can get to him from time to time. Even snag him with Hold Person or something to take him right out of the fight. But I can't do that in every encounter, or even in most of them.
OK, it sounds like you are asking for suggestion on modifications to the Feat as opposed to strategy suggestions like most folk have been giving.
The trick to toning down a feat IMHO is to make it still fun for the character that has it. Perhaps you can accomplish what you need with very little change. What if you keep the same dice and uses per day, but limit the use to no more then once a turn? That would probably only let them use it once in combat, maybe twice for a long one, but still allow the same number of uses per day and still be very useful after combat where a turn between uses is no big deal.As for strategy, I doubt you need help with that, but one thing that comes to mind is just put a cleric on the enemy side either channeling for the monsters or channeling negative to counter the channel positive.
You hit the nail on the head. It's my fault for being unclear in the OP, but you're right: I don't need tactics to defeat it. I can easily whip up an encounter that dishes more damage than can be healed with Channel Energy, I can easily whip up encounters that turn people to stone or disintegrate them or stun them or grapple them or swallow them whole or whatever. And I can put enemy clerics on the other side of the battlefield.
But I don't want to limit myself to just these kinds of ecnounters all the time. Sometimes it's fun just to wade into a mob of orcs, ogres, trolls, giants, or whatever and hack them to bits.
Tactics are not the problem. Which is why I put this in the House Rules section.
What I'm looking for are some suggestions for House Rules that can tone down the power of beneficial Channel Energy.
I don't want to break the ability, or spoil the cleric's fun, and I don't want to simply gimp the number of dice because then it loses efficacy when used against undead.
I like your idea of using it once per "Turn" (although we haven't used the term "Turn" in that fashion for over a decade). But giving a recharge period to the ability was already at the top of my list of potential houserules. Probably not 10 rounds, but maybe 3 or 5 rounds. This would have a side effect of keeping the cleric from going pulse-nova on swarms of undead, too (which I also like).
OK, it sounds like you are asking for suggestion on modifications to the Feat as opposed to strategy suggestions like most folk have been giving.
The trick to toning down a feat IMHO is to make it still fun for the character that has it. Perhaps you can accomplish what you need with very little change. What if you keep the same dice and uses per day, but limit the use to no more then once a turn? That would probably only let them use it once in combat, maybe twice for a long one, but still allow the same number of uses per day and still be very useful after combat where a turn between uses is no big deal.As for strategy, I doubt you need help with that, but one thing that comes to mind is just put a cleric on the enemy side either channeling for the monsters or channeling negative to counter the channel positive.
You hit the nail on the head. It's my fault for being unclear in the OP, but you're right: I don't need tactics to defeat it. I can easily whip up an encounter that dishes more damage than can be healed with Channel Energy, I can easily whip up encounters that turn people to stone or disintegrate them or stun them or grapple them or swallow them whole or whatever. And I can put enemy clerics on the other side of the battlefield.
But I don't want to limit myself to just these kinds of ecnounters all the time. Sometimes it's fun just to wade into a mob of orcs, ogres, trolls, giants, or whatever and hack them to bits.
Tactics are not the problem. Which is why I put this in the House Rules section.
What I'm looking for are some suggestions for House Rules that can tone down the power of beneficial Channel Energy.
I don't want to break the ability, or spoil the cleric's fun, and I don't want to simply gimp the number of dice because then it loses efficacy when used against undead.
I like your idea of using it once per "Turn" (although we haven't used the term "Turn" in that fashion for over a decade). But giving a recharge period to the ability was...
Heh, I am dating myself, yea I was thinking 10 rounds, but pick what works for you of course. My cleric does not have selective channel yet, so I have not bumped into this, probably will next level.
My suggestion is that you go back, re-examine your assumptions, and take note of those that are false (or at least not necessarily true), such as the assumption that monster damage must keep pace with cleric healing. Then, let the players enjoy their characters' abilities and focus on designing encounters that are fun and memorable rather than those that treat the game as if it were a competition between the players and the DM.
I confess, Mark, to being a little offended by this reply. But then, you don't really know our group or our play style, so I'll let it slide.
Simply put, I don't feel I need to reexamine any assumptions. I want my players to be challenged. To feel like adventuring is dangerous. To believe their PCs can die in any encounter. No, I don't want them to die - but I want the threat of it to be at least credible. And when I'm playing, I want that same sense of trepidation.
With each passing edition of D&D it's felt a little less dangerous. 4th Edition where everyone can heal went too far. 3.x Edition still wasn't too bad, players were still challenged without being the fragile creampuffs of AD&D.
Pathfinder seems to have crossed the line a little too far into the realm of invincible PCs, at least as long as they travel with a cleric. And since the Cure X Wounds spells didn't really change, but Channel Energy changed massively, that's where the issue seems to lie.
A recent example from our 8th level party:
My wizard was the only 9th level character, the rest were 8th level. And our barbarian was unarmored (I gave him Mage Armor for 4 AC) and using a his backup weapon, a +1 mace (he'd given his armor and sword to a mage to "upgrade" them and we hadn't gotten them back yet).
This was not our first encounter, and many of our spells had been already used.
Despite all that, we took on a CR 14 encounter and won. No casualties. With a gimped barbarian and less than full resources. And we still had resources left afterward. That shouldn't be really possible, and the DM despaired of being able to find encuounters to challenge us if we can tear apart an encounter that is 5-6 CR higher than our average character level.
And the main reason for our success was the ability to summon some decent allies and keep everyone on their feet with Channel Energy/Selective Channeling which was able to wipe away 60+ HP of damage every round when needed, saving the Cure Serious Wounds and Cure Critical Wounds for the seriously injured. Just Channel Energy alone probably accounted for nearly 400 HP worth of healing during that fight (we were surrounded by giants - not the most tactical opponents in the Bestiary but definitely some heavy-hitters in the raw damage department).
We would have never survived that battle in 3.x, or if our cleric had been a druid instead (lacking Channel Energy).
So, yeah, maybe not an entirely typical example, but Channel Energy for healing really does change the damage/threat model that 3.x established.
Blake,
A cool down timer is a good place to start. You could also try:
1) Have Channel Energy be a 1-round action (similar to 1-round casting of spells like summoning and sleep) that provokes AoOs and requires a caster level check if damage is taken.
2) Have Channel Energy provide Fast Heal 1 for a number of rounds equal to the dice healed roll. (or a higher Fast Heal equal to the clerics charisma that lasts until the dice healed roll is equaled). With this option you could allow a cleric instead to do a burst heal as normal, but at 1/2 the normal amount (if having some sort of area instant healing is still desired).
So, yeah, maybe not an entirely typical example, but Channel Energy for healing really does change the damage/threat model that 3.x established.
I've had the same results in my game too Blake. In one of my games I instituted a changes to channel energy and healing spells in general because of it.
Channel problems
Disallow the selective channeling feat?
Blake,
A cool down timer is a good place to start. You could also try:1) Have Channel Energy be a 1-round action (similar to 1-round casting of spells like summoning and sleep) that provokes AoOs and requires a caster level check if damage is taken.
2) Have Channel Energy provide Fast Heal 1 for a number of rounds equal to the dice healed roll. (or a higher Fast Heal equal to the clerics charisma that lasts until the dice healed roll is equaled). With this option you could allow a cleric instead to do a burst heal as normal, but at 1/2 the normal amount (if having some sort of area instant healing is still desired).
I like your ideas.
I'm not sure I want to go in the direction of the 1-round casting time though. It seems that might be problematic when you want to use it against undead, and I would prefer just one mechanic for the entire ability rather than having different mechanics for each application.
Now, the Fast Healing idea is a good one. Better even than a cool-down timer. Almost nothing in the game has timers like that, and I don't want Pathfinder turning into a M:tG game, or into Warhammer FRP (both of which I really like, but Pathfinder is something else).
Building from there:
Fast Healing 1 that lasts for 15, 20, 30 rounds (whatever the healing dice total) is too extreme a change. Basing the amount/round on the cleric's CHA sounds fun but a bit too math-intensive ("So, I have a CHA of 15 and rolled 22 points healed, so that means I heal 3 points per round for 7 rounds and then one more point on round 8" - just a little too awkward).
But what about Fast Healing X where X = the number of dice, and the duration is random based on the roll of 1d6. So a first level cleric gives you Fast Healing 1 for 1-6 rounds, a second level cleric gives you Fast Healing 2 for 1-6 rounds, etc.
I almost like that, but it loses the curve. It's always 1d6 rounds at maximum effect. The official rule lets a level 11 cleric heal 6d6 (average 21) HP with one use of Channel Energy, and it's almost always going to be between 16-26 HP. But with the altered proposed rule, that same cleric would always grant Fast Healing 6 for 1d6 rounds, so you could get as few as 6 HP (about a 17% chance) or you could get 36 HP (about a 17% chance), etc. Seems just a bit too variable.
But it feels like we're getting close.
Channel problemsDisallow the selective channeling feat?
Oooh, harsh, but a very intriguing idea. Maybe Channel Energy is only part of the problem (maybe only the catalyst), and Selective Channeling is the real problem. My first concern is that this is one of the few mechanics that motivate clerics to invest in CHA. I hate the idea of CHA being a dump stat for clerics - it's antithetical to the very nature of pontification and conversion.
Not a good reason to cast out a good idea, but it does make me hesitate a little.
Side note: I'm not objecting to the house rule ideas. Far from it. I'm simply trying to provide counterpoint to spark a discussion to see what ideas might spring up from that discussion.
So please keep the suggestions coming!
Easiest suggestion might be to reduce the healing to 1d4 instead of 1d6. The average is a bit lower than it was, and the maximum is much lower.
My first objection is that this is one of the few mechanics that motivate clerics to invest in CHA. I hate the idea of CHA being a dump stat for clerics - it's antithetical to the very nature of pontification and conversion.
Not a good reason to cast out a good idea, but it does make me hesitate a little.
Well, they would still have channel energy, but using it requires a more tactical approach, more thinking.
A less extreme suggestions might be to change selective channeling to allow to simply limit the radius of channel energy. This way, they would still have 'more tactical' use factor, but it's not as 'evil' as disallowing it completely.
To clarify: Selective channeling would allow the cleric to channel energy only in a 20ft-radius, or 15ft, but still all creatures in the radius would be affected. This should also make it more interesting tactically, since there's now trade-off.
|
|
Blake,
A cool down timer is a good place to start. You could also try:1) Have Channel Energy be a 1-round action (similar to 1-round casting of spells like summoning and sleep) that provokes AoOs and requires a caster level check if damage is taken.
I'd suggest against this. It isn't very un for the Cleric player, and that is a big concideration here. At least I would think it is fun.
2) Have Channel Energy provide Fast Heal 1 for a number of rounds equal to the dice healed roll. (or a higher Fast Heal equal to the clerics charisma that lasts until the dice healed roll is equaled). With this option you could allow a cleric instead to do a burst heal as normal, but at 1/2 the normal amount (if having some sort of area instant healing is still desired).
I like this. It also solves a little more of the issue I have with Cleric Channel healing in that multiple uses in a short time (probably) will not do anything or stack. I would probably go with Fast Healing 1 per normal 1d6, or maybe Fast Healing 1 per 5 Cleric Levels.
It seems to me that the problem isnt channel energy itself, but selective channel. What if selective channel required a concentration check that scaled depending on how many enemies you had to avoid (still capped as normal by the feat)? Then you make spamming it less attractive because you might just heal your enemies by mistake. It will also partially even out the hit point duel you feel occurs with increased healing.
It seems to me that the problem isnt channel energy itself, but selective channel. What if selective channel required a concentration check that scaled depending on how many enemies you had to avoid (still capped as normal by the feat)? Then you make spamming it less attractive because you might just heal your enemies by mistake. It will also partially even out the hit point duel you feel occurs with increased healing.
That's an interesting idea. The best part is that it can stand on its own merit: whether or not I go with a some change to Channel Energy, I could still implement this as well.
So where is the swing point?
The Concentration check DC = 15 +2 per enemy excluded. No Take-10 allowed, of course. This sets a mark that a low-level cleric could hit with an average roll, and a mid-level cleric would almost never miss (10th level, WIS 24, adding +17 to the roll means he could exclude one enemy automatically, excluding two enemies only fails on a natural 1, three enemies fails on a 3 or less, etc.).
Failing the Selective Channeling means that the Channel Eenrgy goes off without applying Selective Channeling. No chance to say "Whoops! I blew the concenetration check so I don't use my Channel Energy". You decide to channel, you decide to make it selective, and if you fail the selective part the channel still happens.
That could work.
You could have selective channel take up two charges (it's as fair as any metamagic)
It seems to me that the problem isnt channel energy itself, but selective channel. What if selective channel required a concentration check that scaled depending on how many enemies you had to avoid (still capped as normal by the feat)? Then you make spamming it less attractive because you might just heal your enemies by mistake. It will also partially even out the hit point duel you feel occurs with increased healing.That's an interesting idea. The best part is that it can stand on its own merit: whether or not I go with a some change to Channel Energy, I could still implement this as well.
So where is the swing point?
The Concentration check DC = 15 +2 per enemy excluded. No Take-10 allowed, of course. This sets a mark that a low-level cleric could hit with an average roll, and a mid-level cleric would almost never miss (10th level, WIS 24, adding +17 to the roll means he could exclude one enemy automatically, excluding two enemies only fails on a natural 1, three enemies fails on a 3 or less, etc.).
Failing the Selective Channeling means that the Channel Eenrgy goes off without applying Selective Channeling. No chance to say "Whoops! I blew the concenetration check so I don't use my Channel Energy". You decide to channel, you decide to make it selective, and if you fail the selective part the channel still happens.
That could work.
Well i think channel energy in terms of combat is most important at lower levels anyway. At 10th levels 5d6 hp is almost meaningless inside of combat (what is the point of healing less then half of what enemies are doing to you in the first place?) so it being easier isnt a huge concern for me. But you could potentially scale it by the number of dice in the channel, so maybe 13+number of dice in the in the channel + 2 per excluded enemy. This should keep it difficult for a while. Particularly for many enemies.
I guess we're having completely different experiences. Both anecdotal evidence and spreadsheets I've done point to clerics not being able to out heal damage the party takes.
On average using Channel Energy, a cleric can only heal about 70% as much damage as a Sorcerer or Wizard can do with AoE spells, and that assumes people make their saves 1/2 the time (but doesn't account for abilities like Evasion). That isn't accounting for feats or class abilities that can increase damage.
Single target, it's pretty rare that an enemy can't do more damage than 1 round of channel energy. If it can't, it probably isn't a level appropriate monster. For example, a level 9 cleric can heal for 17.5 hp per round. Most CR9-10 monsters, if they hit with all of their attacks, do about 4dX+20 damage. Yes, the cleric can channel every round and mostly neuter the monster's damage, but that's amount of their healing resources spent on a fight that is already statistically in their favor.
Compare that cleric against the upper limit of what the party can face, like a Storm Giant, and there is no way that he can keep up on healing in any way. Especially if you add in power attack and/or cleave.
How about Fast Healing X where X is the cleric's charisma bonus. Have the duration equal the number of dice in rounds (so 11th level cleric with 18 charisma provides Fast Healing 4 that lasts for 6 rounds). That completely gets rid of the randomness, but it's another option compared to the swingy 6hp or 36hp example you gave earlier.
Downside is that at 1st level a cleric isn't channeling for much of anything unless charisma is high.
So what suggestions would the wise and creative community here offer to this hypothetical group to reduce the power of Channel Energy?
Rewrite Channel (Positive) Energy to do one of the two following things;
- Deal Xd6 point of damage to undead in a 30 ft. burst
OR
- Heal a single creature of Xd6 points by touch
It would tie in with previous iterations of the game without removing all the extra oomph of pathfinder. It would not solve the anti-undead pulse-nova effect 'though...
'findel
I'm still playing 3.5 and not PF per se, but I did implement channel positive/negative energy, mainly so I could do something w/ my cleric other than be a healbot.
Anyway, since I don't have Selective Channeling, I find there's no need to tone down channel energy. There have been some interesting tweaks suggested here, but I tend to go w/ the simplest idea. Just get rid of Selective Channeling. Try it for a while and see if that makes the difference w/ the littlest fuss involved.
|
|
A recent example from our 8th level party... we took on a CR 14 encounter and won. No casualties. With a gimped barbarian and less than full resources. And we still had resources left afterward. That shouldn't be...
I haven't felt channel energy and selective channeling as broken yet. Perhaps more details on your fights and how it's affecting them?
A level 8 cleric heals 14HP per party member, on average with channel energy.
I'm trying to think of the best CR14 encounter with giants where the channel energy would be most powerful.
Four CR10 fire giants, each individually hitting 4 people in a 5-person party (ignoring the cleric?).
At 3 attacks/round per giant for 3d6+15 each (25.5 avg/hit) against a level 8 party, you should be seeing ~50dmg per giant inflicted per round. A single giant can kill a level 8 wizard (14Con; with 50HP) with 1 full round of attacks.
How did, or how could channel change this fight, in a material manner?
I guess we're having completely different experiences. Both anecdotal evidence and spreadsheets I've done point to clerics not being able to out heal damage the party takes.
It's not that the clerics out-heal the incoming damage. But unless you've got just one PC standing there taking all the pain (something that is fairly rare), then when you spread that Channel Energy across a couple PCs and maybe a summoned creature or two, suddely 5d6 per round becomes 20d6 per round.
And maybe that doesn't quite out-heal the incoming damage either, but 20d6 of healing every round (5d6 x 4 recipients) adds up to a whole lot of HP. In return, the monsters going from 3.5 to Pathfinder didn't generally gain the ability to dish out that much extra damage each round.
So the PCs healing went up. In some situations, way way up. And the monsters remained the same, more or less. And now PCs laugh at the puny non-threat of an even-CR battle. Even a battle 1 or 2 CR higher than the average party level is a breeze. It's not until you get into the 3+ range that fights even get interesting from the perspective of whether there is any danger to the PCs at all.
Yeah, yeah, special stuff like medusae and purple worms and other oddballs change that model, but you can't just use those creatures all the time.
When PCs are routinely killing off encounters at +4, +5, or even +6 CR, even when they have a few other encounters in the same day (granted, not four +6 CR encounters), then something is broken. Especially since the Pathfinder Core Rules say +2 is "Hard" and +3 is "Epic".
It just doesn't work that way.
Unless:
1. The PCs don't have a cleric.
2. The cleric is really low on resources, especially Channels.
3. Focused-fire drops the cleric.
4. You stick to encounters that don't rely on HP damage to win.
On average using Channel Energy, a cleric can only heal about 70% as much damage as a Sorcerer or Wizard can do with AoE spells, and that assumes people make their saves 1/2 the time (but doesn't account for abilities like Evasion). That isn't accounting for feats or class abilities that can increase damage.
Maybe true, but give a group of 4 PCs, one is usually a rogue, saves are roughly 50%, and not every encounter has a fireball-slinging sorcerer in it. For the ones that do, that rogue decreases total party damage and your 70% probably looks more like 80%.
Compare that to the same group but replace the cleric with a druid, no Channel Energy, and he is using (prepared) Cure X Wounds spells to heal something like 30% of the incoming damage. Not even a close comparison.
Single target, it's pretty rare that an enemy can't do more damage than 1 round of channel energy.
Sure, but if the enemy encounter is dishing damage to only one PC, then the cleric isn't using Channel Energy to heal that hellacious damage.
If it can't, it probably isn't a level appropriate monster. For example, a level 9 cleric can heal for 17.5 hp per round. Most CR9-10 monsters, if they hit with all of their attacks, do about 4dX+20 damage. Yes, the cleric can channel every round and mostly neuter the monster's damage, but that's amount of their healing resources spent on a fight that is already statistically in their favor.
Compare that cleric against the upper limit of what the party can face, like a Storm Giant, and there is no way that he can keep up on healing in any way. Especially if you add in power attack and/or cleave.
Sure, once again, fighting a singleton enemy who is dishing all his damage to one PC, Channel Energy is worthless. The cleric ought to be using Hold Person on that storm giant, or blinding him, or mitigating his damage through other means.
And it's been demonstrated time and again that if you throw singleton encounters at a prepared group, they die so fast that their damage output is relatively non-existant. Yeah, yeah, tactics. Rough terrain, choke points, limited access, whatever. I know the tricks to make singletons more interesting. Their still not the point of the Channel Energy concern.
Your points are all true, and all valid.
But I'm not really comparing the cleric's healing against the incoming damage. I'm comparing the entire group's total efficiency on incoming damage vs. the same group without a cleric, and seeing how that cleric trivializes most typical encounters.
How about Fast Healing X where X is the cleric's charisma bonus. Have the duration equal the number of dice in rounds (so 11th level cleric with 18 charisma provides Fast Healing 4 that lasts for 6 rounds). That completely gets rid of the randomness, but it's another option compared to the swingy 6hp or 36hp example you gave earlier.
Downside is that at 1st level a cleric isn't channeling for much of anything unless charisma is high.
I like it, but my fear is the optimizer.
They guy who makes a cleric who starts with an 18 CHA, invests in a headband quickly (or just a few Eagle's Splendor spells when needed), and runs around dishing 6 HP for x rounds every time he Channels.
That would be the equivalent of always rolling nothing but sixes on every Channel Energy die.
And likely the optimizer will get worse as he gets into upper levels, eventually Channeling 8 or 9 HP per round for x rounds. That's like Empowering and Maximizing your Channel Energy, but without needing the feats or paying an increased cost for it.
I dread the fallout of removing the randomness and leaving it all up to the optimizer to breeak the math.
we took on a CR 14 encounter and won.
I haven't felt channel energy and selective channeling as broken yet. Perhaps more details on your fights and how it's affecting them?
How did, or how could channel change this fight, in a material manner?
We saved a town from a raiding band of hill giants and tracked them back to a cave a few days away. We rather hoped the cave was mostly empty since we had killed the raiders. Maybe some women, children, a few guards.
We were wrong.
We snuck in and killed a handful of hill giants in a room near the entrance. They had some gnoll minions who came after us and we killed those too. Then we found another room with a few more hill giants and some dire wolves. They died.
But by this time we had been discovered, and the entire cave of hill giants came after us. I had a teleport as backup, so we planned to stand our ground and kill as many as we could, then get to safety and come back to finish the job later. Win by attrition.
They cut us off and surrounded us in a room that had three tunnel entrances. No doors. The dire wolves were faster so they hit us first. I knew that was coming and had used a Black Tentacles to lock down one tunnel; a couple wolves got stuck in it. I had also summoned a Bralani to defend one tunnel while the barbarian and rogue defended the remaining tunnel. Cleric stayed near the middle of the room since he's a caster build and not optimized for melee.
We finished off the wolves as the giants approached (lots of twists in the corridors so ranged attacks in either direction were very limited. I brought in another Bralani and hasted everyone and we got to work. The giants came right through my Black Tentacles, but the second Bralani held the corridor.
Those two Bralani were tough. With DR 10 they didn't get hit very hard, only maybe 4-10 points of damage on an average hit.
Our barbarian got pounded hard with no armor, even with the Mage Armor I cast on him (his AC was still lower than mine and I'm a wizard). He was our weak link. I am sure this fight would have been much easier if he had his +3 breastplate instead, or his +2 flaming greatsword.
The cleric alternated between casting a big heal on the barbarian some rounds, and Channeling Energy on the other rounds. Those Channel Energies kept the Bralani on their feet (heck, they kept them fully healed, actually). At one point the barbarian had to fall back and get healed by the Bralani while he drank a potion too.
I tore into the giants with a lightning wand (pretty weak actually, and I never caught more than two of them in a line, but I was out of useful spells).
Oh, the two Bralani and the Haste were extended by a metamagic rod, so I had them all for 18 rounds, longer than we stayed there.
Finally the cleric ran out of Channel Energy and was also out of 3rd and 4th level heals and the barbarian was nearly dead, so everyone fell back and I teleported us out, leaving the two Bralani to mop up (it's not like they can die here on our plane anyway).
So yeah, we never killed them all but one we saw how many there were, our goal was to simply win by attrition, kill as many as possible and get the rest another day - unless they fled the area in which case we've saved the village.
Final score for just that one fight: 8 dead hill giants, 6 dead dire wolves, and a handful of gnolls who snuck in there. Adding that up is CR 13 for just the hill giants, plus about CR 8 for the wolves and not much for the gnolls. But don't forget, if we were ONLY fighting those, then toward the end there would have been just one giant doing a little damage to us. Just before that there would have been only two giants. But we weren't fighting just those. When I teleported we had 5 giants in view and could hear more of them shouting from around the corners of the tunnels. So we kept taking full-on damage right until the round we teleported, which means we really took more damage at the end of the fight than we would have if those surviving giants hadn't been there. I'm not sure how to adjust the CR for that, but it should count for something.
So I rounded that 13 + 8 + ? up to CR 14 in my head.
Yes, we lost the fight, but we accomplished our objective, and we wiped out all traces of the wolves and gnolls. Everyone leveled up but me, and the barbarian got his new-improved gear back from the Enchanter. When we go back, I'm sure we can face a dozen or more giants with at least equal success, but my impression is that there aren't quite that many left.
So I call that a win in my books.
Against odds that should have been rather impossible.
Without Channel Energy, the cleric would have been using Cure Moderate Wounds to keep the barbarian on his feet - his channels were healing close to the same average HP as CMW. And everyone else in the group took damage (except me; I stayed out of reach and Protection from Arrows deflected the two rocks that were thrown my way) that was wiped away by all the Channeling. The rogue and the two Bralani stayed at full HP the whole fight even though they did take quite a few hits.
Without Channel Energy, the Bralani would have fallen, the rogue would have been near death, and the barbarian might not have survived if the cleric stopped to spend even one round healing anyone else. And if even one Bralani fell, those giants would have been in the room with us killing me and the cleric in no time.
Side note: the only thing I think our DM did wrong was not using their large size advantage to bullrush/overrun the Bralani - don't tell him I said so...
|
|
Thanks for sharing the story.
You guys did a great job tactically on handling that fight - while the "weak stuff" came in, you buffed up with summons and haste, and created obstacles for the "harder stuff" when it arrived.
Obviously, if you were in a 60x60 open room, and 10 hill giants ran in from random directions - it would have been more difficult without preparation, especially to get full round summons up, and for them to be effective speed bumps, with so many ways to get to the party's interior.
I don't think your DM did anything wrong - although a killer DM might have had a hill giant use their +15 CMVB to grapple and pin each bralani, while the other 6+ rush past to grab the cleric and wizard. With the right timing, a couple grappled summons, a giant or two sneaking through to threaten the cleric and wizard, you should've felt an elevated threat and risk of dying in this fight.
It feels like the combination of the bralani speedbumps and channel energy that are the real combo here - channeling for ~14HP a round by itself is pretty meager If your summons were instead lower AC dire lions and each lion was taking an additional 20-40dmg/rd, the channel wouldn't have kept them up against the oncoming giants. A larger party (through summons) with multiple high DR "tanks" really showcased channel energy.
I don't know if I'd house rule a change channel if I was the DM in this case - are there other fights that were mechanically different where it mattered?
** spoiler omitted **...we took on a CR 14 encounter and won.I haven't felt channel energy and selective channeling as broken yet. Perhaps more details on your fights and how it's affecting them?
How did, or how could channel change this fight, in a material manner?
So basically with really good tactics, team work and use of terrain you managed to not defeat but survive an encounter 6 levels higher then you with one party member nearly dieing anyway?
You have to remember the CR system isnt accounting for tactics, it also isnt acounting for 'dead'. A hard fight means a significant drain on resources, not a nearly dead party. It sounds like it took everything your party could have mustered to live through that fight.
You also actually didnt fight the whole fight at once, through use of good tactics and terrain you only faced part of it at a time and still almost lost a player. Seems channel had less to do with living through this encounter then good planning did.
The damage dealt will always outdo the channeling if the players are getting hit.
This is always true no matter what level the party is.
This is not necessarily true. You're making the assumption that all these attacks hit. Against any character optimized for melee, they will be missing half of the time if not more (depending on treasure level, build, etc). This is against one enemy focusing damage, as opposed to a swarm of smaller enemies doing negligible damage, which the cleric can burst through with ease. Furthermore, for the cleric to be effective he needs not to "keep up" with enemy damage, but mitigate enough damage to keep the entire party up, which is not challenging.
I ran a party of 7 through the proverbial ringer, with 6 encounters in one day, each ranging from APL+3 to APL+5, one right after another with no proper rest, and the 6th level cleric with the Healing domain kept everyone up without issue. He finally ran out of healing spells halfway through the last fight and had to resort to wands.
Really the only option I've found is a)take out the cleric or b)focus fire on one character, likely obliterating him.
So basically with really good tactics, team work and use of terrain you managed to not defeat but survive an encounter 6 levels higher then you with one party member nearly dieing anyway?
I understand Blakes's worries given that this "good tactic" is immensely relying on one ability of one class. Even if not everyone has shared his experience, it gives good arguments in favor of houseruling his own games.
I understand Blakes's worries given that this "good tactic" is immensely relying on one ability of one class. Even if not everyone has shared his experience, it gives good arguments in favor of houseruling his own games.So basically with really good tactics, team work and use of terrain you managed to not defeat but survive an encounter 6 levels higher then you with one party member nearly dieing anyway?** spoiler omitted **...we took on a CR 14 encounter and won.I haven't felt channel energy and selective channeling as broken yet. Perhaps more details on your fights and how it's affecting them?
How did, or how could channel change this fight, in a material manner?
I'm not disputing that he shouldnt house rule it for his game, he obviously gets a different result then my group does, since no one in my group would devote that many actions to healing in the first place. I do think if a cleric goes full heal battery it can be problematic, but i've never worried about it in my game because no one i play with would do that.
But also it isn't one good tactic. It involved:
1. The use of 2 extended 5th level spells (a big chunk of the wizards power)
2. A good buff
3. A narrow passage that could block the enemy
4. black tentacles (a spells that is a game changer at that level and several more after that)
5. The cleric devoting ALL his actions to healing (and thus all his effort for the encounter)
Really I think it just shows how awesome wizards are when properly used more then anything else. If the wizard hadnt burned 2 5th, 4th and 1 3rd level spell there, that was a party wipe. Considering there was a fight before this there was no guarantee he would still have those slots available. And dont forget the escape with teleport, so 3 5th level slots. Basically this was made possible by the wizard having available almost all his highest level spells and having good spells for the situation. The channel helped it along, but if i where the dm i'd be more worried about the wizard then the cleric in this party.
Just as a side note, our cleric isn't usually just a healbot. He buffs and crowd-controls too. One of his favorite tactics is to use Holy Smite on some baddies so the rogue can full-attack sneak attack on them without having to worry about positiing or flanking, plus the ones that survive are ineffective for a round while blinded, often allowing the rogue, barbarian, and/or summoned allies to move into flanking position without suffering AoOs from the blinded enemies.
He's also fond of Searing Light, but I've been talking him away from that.
And I don't even want to get started on his turning the tides of entire battles with Animate Dead - we kill a few enemies and then they get up and join our side vanquishing their former buddies. Icky, but effective.
In the particular fight I described, the giants were dishing out so much damage that the poor cleric had to become a healbot to keep the group alive, although I do believe he did use a Spriitual Weapon and a Holy Smite during the fight.
Out of curiosity (and because I feel left out because you answered everyone's proposition except for mine, snif), what do you think of divorcing the (same) positive energy = healing AND damaging undead.
I had run into similar "issues", not that it broke the game, but changes in the tides of battle caused by channel as healing were too significant for my personal tastes. I house-ruled that all healing effects (healing living beings for positive channelers and undead for negative channelers) change to touch effects, using d8+level instead of 30 ft burst based on d6.
Ultimately, it became the de-facto spontaneous cure spell...
'findel
this wizard you mention sounds a lot like he read treantmonks handbooks.