Or to put it more simply, is it a good idea for a paladin to have a greyflame weapon?
Here the link to PRD.
Grayflame: This weapon responds to channeled positive or negative energy. When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon, it ignites with a strange gray flame that sheds light as a torch, increases the weapon's enhancement bonus by +1, and deals +1d6 damage (as the divine power from flame strike) to creatures struck by the weapon. This flame lasts for 1 round for every d6 damage or healing the channeling normally provides. When charged with positive energy, the flame is a silvery gray, good creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as a good and silver weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. When charged with negative energy, the flame is an ashen gray, evil creatures are immune to the weapon's extra damage, and the weapon counts as an evil and cold iron weapon for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction.
Moderate transmutation; CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Channel Smite, align weapon; Price +1 bonus.
The paladin would have to spend two of his lay on hands uses in order to activate it, and it's extra abilities don't work on good targets (but this shouldn't be a big deal for a paladin), it only stays active for a few rounds, the abilities it gives are quite good.
It is rather good. I think it depends entirely on how often you expect to be using your lay on hands.
I dunno about a paladin, but I intend to get a cold iron greyflame longsword for my PFS cleric of Iomedae.
I dunno about a paladin, but I intend to get a cold iron greyflame longsword for my PFS cleric of Iomedae.
For cleric sure, i also think that it's a no brainer choice to take it.
But for paladins who must use 2 of their daily uses (and let's be honest you are sacrificing your hit points right now) is it worth it?
I dunno about a paladin, but I intend to get a cold iron greyflame longsword for my PFS cleric of Iomedae.
For cleric sure, i also think that it's a no brainer choice to take it.
But for paladins who must use 2 of their daily uses (and let's be honest you are sacrificing your hit points right now) is it worth it?
It seems very situational. Might be nice as a weapon the paladin comes across during an adventure and scoops up. But I don't know that it would be worth deliberately seeking out.
|
A situational +1-4 enhancement bonus and an extra d6 of divine damage?
I don't know many Paladins who would say no for the low low price of +1 enhancement. Sure you have to expend LoH charges but unless you are the groups primary healer then I'm sure everyone will appreciate you hitting more often, for more, and overcoming the difficult to get around DR when you need to.
Personally, I would take extra LoH at least once just so I could use this more often if I had one to swing about.
A situational +1-4 enhancement bonus and an extra d6 of divine damage?
Where are you get +1-4? Burning an extra 2,4,6 LoH?
My group doesn't meet very often, but I've just acquired a Greyflame weapon on my paladin, and I'll report back with how I feel about it I guess. For comparison, I also have a lower + Shocking weapon, so I can also see how often I prefer to use one over the other, and how many LoH I'm burning through.
edit: misread never mind
I think its awesome for a dhampir paladin, who can't use their lay on hands or channel to heal themselves.
What?
I don't get it.What's a dhampir?
|
A dhampir is in the Bestiary 2. It is also a possible PC race in the Carrion Crown AP.
They are living spawn of vampires and humanoids. They have negative energy affinity - which means they are healed by negative energy and harmed by positive energy.
A player of mine is considering a dhampir paladin for the CC game I'm going to be running in a couple months.
They can lay on hands, channel positive energy, and cast cure spells. This is great for other party members. However, they would get hurt if they did it to themselves.
My group doesn't meet very often, but I've just acquired a Greyflame weapon on my paladin, and I'll report back with how I feel about it I guess. For comparison, I also have a lower + Shocking weapon, so I can also see how often I prefer to use one over the other, and how many LoH I'm burning through.
Any thoughts o the Greyflame weapon after using it? I'm GMing and thinking of making it available to a PC's cleric bow. Any thoughts about it as an ability in general and whether it would be overpowered to make it available on a ranged weapon?
My group doesn't meet very often, but I've just acquired a Greyflame weapon on my paladin, and I'll report back with how I feel about it I guess. For comparison, I also have a lower + Shocking weapon, so I can also see how often I prefer to use one over the other, and how many LoH I'm burning through.
Any thoughts on the Greyflame weapon after using it? I'm GMing and thinking of making it available to a PC's cleric bow. Any thoughts about it as an ability in general and whether it would be overpowered to make it available on a ranged weapon?
A hospitaler paladin can channel without using up Lay on Hands if I remember correctly, at the cost of having only half the normal number of LoH per day. Seems like an ideal archetype to pair with this weapon enchantment.
Could a cleric actually use this weapon? The text for grayflame reads "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy. . ." (emphasis mine). Clerics can channel energy as a standard or move action (with the Quick Channel feat). Does the weapon allow the wielder to channel energy as swift action?
|
Could a cleric actually use this weapon? The text for grayflame reads "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy. . ." (emphasis mine). Clerics can channel energy as a standard or move action (with the Quick Channel feat). Does the weapon allow the wielder to channel energy as swift action?
Yes. No one can innately channel energy as a swift action.
Could a cleric actually use this weapon? The text for grayflame reads "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy. . ." (emphasis mine). Clerics can channel energy as a standard or move action (with the Quick Channel feat). Does the weapon allow the wielder to channel energy as swift action?Yes. No one can innately channel energy as a swift action.
I disagree. By my reading the Grayflame ability has to be used in conjunction with the Channel Smite feat. I'll admit that the description for Grayflame says nothing about requiring the Channel Smite feat to activate the ability, but it also doesn't say that having a Grayflame weapon allows you to channel energy as a swift action. Furthermore, the Channel Smite feat is required for crafting a Grayflame-enhanced weapon, and the Channel Smite feat does allow you to "spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action."
Finally, a standard channel does not allow you to channel energy through a weapon, whereas the flavor text of the Channel Smite feat specifically does: "You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield."
Moderate transmutation; CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Channel Smite, align weapon; Price +1 bonus.
You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield.
Prerequisite: Channel energy class feature.
Benefit: Before you make a melee attack roll, you can choose to spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action. If you channel positive energy and you hit an undead creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel positive energy ability. If you channel negative energy and you hit a living creature, that creature takes an amount of additional damage equal to the damage dealt by your channel negative energy ability. Your target can make a Will save, as normal, to halve this additional damage. If your attack misses, the channel energy ability is still expended with no effect.
Or easily read that channelling energy to this weapon is a swift action.
That was my understanding as well. When crafting the weapon, the reason Channel Smite is listed as part of it is because it's imbued with Channel Smite during its creation. It's basically a channel smite weapon with a few alignment based perks. Which is why it also has the align weapon listed in it's creation stats.
|
I disagree. By my reading the Grayflame ability has to be used in conjunction with the Channel Smite feat. I'll admit that the description for Grayflame says nothing about requiring the Channel Smite feat to activate the ability, but it also doesn't say that having a Grayflame weapon allows you to channel energy as a swift action. Furthermore, the Channel Smite feat is required for crafting a Grayflame-enhanced weapon, and the Channel Smite feat does allow you to "spend one use of your channel energy ability as a swift action."
Finally, a standard channel does not allow you to channel energy through a weapon, whereas the flavor text of the Channel Smite feat specifically does: "You can channel your divine energy through a melee weapon you wield."
Channel Smite is just a prerequisite for a crafter to make a Greyflame weapon. That's why it's in the creation part of the item's description. A prospective crafter needs access to the spell *align weapon* and the feat Channel Smite in order to manufacture a Greyflame weapon via Craft Arms and Armor.
If the magical item needed a specific feat to work, it would say so in the description. For example, the Agile Weapon ability specifies that it is used with the Weapon Finesse feat.
You're spending a swift action to activate the Greyflame weapon, and expending one of your daily channel energy uses to power it.
Or to put it more simply, is it a good idea for a paladin to have a greyflame weapon?
Yes. At least until he can afford a holy weapon; a paladin can get a lot of use out of a +1 grayflame cold iron weapon until then (cold iron, counts as good and silver when activated, plus the additional effective +1 bonus and +1d6 divine damage).
Channel Smite is just a prerequisite for a crafter to make a Greyflame weapon. That's why it's in the creation part of the item's description. A prospective crafter needs access to the spell *align weapon* and the feat Channel Smite in order to manufacture a Greyflame weapon via Craft Arms and Armor.
If the magical item needed a specific feat to work, it would say so in the description. For example, the Agile Weapon ability specifies that it is used with the Weapon Finesse feat.
You're spending a swift action to activate the Greyflame weapon, and expending one of your daily channel energy uses to power it.
I'm going to disagree again, however I'll admit that your points are totally valid, that it's credible that the developers (if they were to make a ruling) could come down either way, and that no matter which way it operates the ability is reasonably balanced. So at this point, I'm disagreeing on a strictly academic basis, "the game is made up and the points don't matter." I also think that the rule is somewhat poorly written, because it is neither clear that Channel Smite is necessary to activate the special ability, nor that the weapon property allows you to channel energy through the weapon as a swift action.
My interpretation is predicated upon the sentence, "When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon..."
I'll contend that my interpretation is closer to RAW because I see that sentence as a clear If/Then statement: IF you channel energy through your weapon as a swift action THEN you get the benefits of the weapon property. Unless there are other ways to channel energy through a weapon as a swift action, I see Channel Smite as the only way of activating this weapon property.
Similar to your argument against needing a feat, if the weapon property gives you the ability to do something that you would not otherwise be able to do, it should say so in the description. The way the rules are currently written, the grayflame property does not specifically give the wielder the ability to channel energy through the weapon, that conclusion is reached separately. A possible thought process to reach such a conclusion might be, "This weapon property is activated when I channel energy through it as a swift action. I can't usually channel energy through a weapon as a swift action without the Channel Smite feat, but that feat is not specifically called out as being necessary. The weapon property must give me the ability to channel energy into the weapon as a swift action."
I think that if my way were correct, it SHOULD be written as follows:
I think that if your way is correct, it SHOULD be written as follows:
I'll close with the assertion that I think it's conceivable that the Developers intended for this weapon property to be used with the Channel Smite feat, but decided to leave the wording more open to allow for future potential feats which channel energy into a weapon as a swift action to also make use of this weapon property.
|
|
Not a good choice for a paladin, IMO. Muy paladin uses swift actions pretty regularly w/o a weapon that needs a swift activation. Also, especially for a paladin who already hits VERY hard against evil, but is less effective against other targets, I would put a greater value on a +1 "always on" for attack and damage over a "+1d6 damage against evil". Update that weapon to a generic +2 instead, IMO.