I remember reading something that said a character can choose to do minimal damage on any attack roll they do. "As well as a Rogue can choose to do less sneak attack damage dice on sneak attacks".
I don't find Channel Smite as useful as I first thought. "I thought you could channel energy as a swift action." You can only use it on an attack roll.
Yes that means a lot of penitential damage on the undead/living/ Alignment Channel foes or Elemental Channel foes, especially good if your a paladin, although I think in most cases you would probably want to use the 30 feet area of effect and hurt multiple guys, then just beating down on one guy. "Although I could see when you would want to make sure someone was out right dead."
From how I am reading it, it does not say it does not work against living creature with positive energy, effectively healing them by stabbing them. "or negative creatures with negative damage."
So a few questions.
Can you, say you are level a level 8 cleric, with a +6/+1. Hit an enemy with your +6 + bonuses, and then hit a friend you his next to you with your +1 swift action Channel Smite? Could he choose to simply take the hit and you don't have to roll pass their ac?
If you have feats or abilities that say, let you add your Dex or Int bonus to damage, can you choose to ignore them. I was under the impression you could always ignore your feats if you wanted to for what ever crazy reason so long as the feat isn't something passive like Iron Will. I don't think feats that add other stats to damage or "passive" in the sense that the character much choose to do an attack in that manner "such as insightful strike or sneak attack".
Could you choose to not add your strength bonus to an attack? Could you choose to simply "roll a one" on the damage. Could you choose not to activate any enchantments on him, "such as flaming or shocking".
A double post was created, I only pushed the button once, but my internet burped.
Minimal damage is not an option by RAW.
Channel Smite was not intended to heal so you would need a GM to approve it.
Flaming/shocking/etc enhancements can be turned on or off.
Minimal damage is not an option by RAW.
Channel Smite was not intended to heal so you would need a GM to approve it.
Flaming/shocking/etc enhancements can be turned on or off.
For the sake of argument.
Can class abilities like insightful strike that add int bonuses, or feats like Graceful Strike, or Dervish Dance that add Dex damage be turned off/on at will?
Can said allies choose to be hit if they wanted too there by reducing or negating their AC.
Minimal damage is not an option by RAW.
Channel Smite was not intended to heal so you would need a GM to approve it.
Flaming/shocking/etc enhancements can be turned on or off.
Can class abilities like insightful strike that add int bonuses, or feats like Graceful Strike, or Dervish Dance that add Dex damage be turned off on at will?
For the sake of argument, can said allies choose to be hit if they wanted too there by reducing or negating their AC.
By RAW no but learning to add your dex is a learned skill based on accuracy. I think you can always choose to be less accurate in that case.
I think they can choose to be hit. As an example people using cure spells on allies dont have to make attack rolls.
From how I am reading it, it does not say it does not work against living creature with positive energy, effectively healing them by stabbing them. "or negative creatures with negative damage."
As I read it, it does say this.
The feat allows you to:
A) damage undeads with positive channeling:
"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."
B) damage living with negative energy:
"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."
The feat allows you deal extra damage to certain foes. The fact that they have made an entirely new text instead of just stating that the target is affected by your channel energy, implies IMO that healing with it isn't possible.
From how I am reading it, it does not say it does not work against living creature with positive energy, effectively healing them by stabbing them. "or negative creatures with negative damage."
As I read it, it does say this.
The feat allows you to:
A) damage undeads with positive channeling:
"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."B) damage living with negative energy:
"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."The feat allows you deal extra damage to certain foes. The fact that they have made an entirely new text instead of just stating that the target is affected by your channel energy, implies IMO that healing with it isn't possible.
True enough, and I can agree with you on that, but at the same time, it doesn't say I can't. :p
Personally, I don't see this as that big of a problem. Considering that 10d6 is the max healing, so you would have to be very lucky to roll 60, and probably around 30-40 ish. "There is probably a feat that boosts that, but again, that would require more optimization.". If one said you still had to inflict damage "without enchantments" there can run a risk that you heal for almost nothing, or even deal more damage then your suppose to. If you did min damage, then you would still have to make sure your character didn't do a lot of base damage. If your character was a build that meant your minimal damage was less then optimal, it would be very specific, and could not easily be exploited, there by giving a very small window. Which would be counter intuitive to the feat in the first place.
I don't know though, that is why I am asking. :p
True enough, and I can agree with you on that, but at the same time, it doesn't say I can't. :pPersonally, I don't see this as that big of a problem.
...I don't know though, that is why I am asking. :p
It might not be a big problem. I just chose to post the easy RAW answer, instead of the ones that could be more useful... :)
If healing to channel smite is allowed:
The way to do it most efficiently as I see it, is to attack dealing nonlethal damage.
If we accept the notion that your allies can let your attacks hit, then the attack penalty doesn't matter. By healing him/her with the channel, a similar amount of nonlethal damage is healed, which (hopefully) negates the damage from the attack.
Having spend a swift action, an attack, and a channel use, you get to heal one person your channeling.
I would allow this at my table.