What I quoted is straight from the PRD sight universal monster rules incorporeal.
What I quoted is straight from the PRD sight universal monster rules incorporeal.
You're right. Too bad my 1st printing CRB and Bestiary are more typo than rules.
Same here man same here
Clearly only if they are NPCs ;P
I said it a few pages ago, and it was ignored. No worries though. :)
We're full on addressing it now.
Please convince me that 1 extra first level spell is better than 3 channels for 6d6 healing each at 11th level.
And remember, during levels 1-10, when the 3.5 cleric gets zero extra spells, the PF cleric still gets channel.
Of course, if we believe the PRD then Halflings get +2 Int.
Woopy, now halflings are the best wizard race. Muahahahaha.
EDIT: Net +2 AC, +2 to hit with ranged attacks, +4 to Stealth, +2 to several skills enough to take 10 with, more skill points, +1 to save DCs, +bonus spells, and +1 bonus to all saves, and +3 vs fear effects. :PEDIT 2: And you can buy small gear so your carrying capacity is 3/4 normally but your gear weighs 1/2 normal. Rock'em sockem halflings. XD
Beckett, back in 3.5 clerics capped out at 5+1 spells per spell level from spell levels 1-5. PF caps out at 4+1 spells per spell level from spell levels 1-5. As a result 3.5 Clerics eventually got 1 extra spell at 1st-5th.
- Gauss
People are stating that a 3.5 cleric gets extra spells and thus the argument that channel energy is removing the need for clerics to burn as many spells on healing is erroneous.
IE: they are stating 1 extra spell at spell levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as equal or better than a minimum of 3 extra channel energies at 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, 9d6, and 10d6 respectively.
Personally, I do not buy that argument since most campaigns stop by around level 13-15. As a result we are only comparing the extra 1st, 2nd, and maybe 3rd level spells to 3 channel energies at 6d6, 7d6, and 8d6 respectively.
- Gauss
|
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
Please check your info guys channel is not auto reduced to half.
I just checked my Bestiary Lite PDF downloaded May 17, 2012 and I get something different:
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy). Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
So it looks like either the PDF was updated incorrectly, or channelling still only does half damage against incorporeal undead (using Channelling in a non-damaging way, e.g. to Turn Undead, does not have the "50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature" however).
EDIT: Just checked the errata for Bestiary and there is no sign of errata in this area.
|
|
I was prepared for the "only one person is hurt". At 21 points per channel, you can still restore 63 HP with channels, versus your single extra first level spell. Channel is 7 times more effective. Though of course, levels 1-10, it is infinitely better, since you don't get that bonus spell until level 11.
So yeah, convince me that 9 is better than 63.
For me 9 is better than 63 because it means having a cleric in the party gives you a bit of extra healing capability, so it makes clerics attractive to have in a party but not exactly essential.
However if a cleric can channel and heal 63 HP (and if more than one person is hurt at a time even more) then it makes having a cleric in the party almost a requirement - a requirement that can perhaps be overcome with "happy-sticks".
So do adventure designers write assuming a cleric and that the party can thus start each encounter at full HP?
Do they write assuming a cleric or happy-sticks, so that again a party can thus start each encounter at full HP?
Or do they write assuming neither, and that a party will enter a second encounter on average at 80% HP, a third ar 60% etc?
I have a feeling its either the first or the second, in which case I would prefer the game was simply designed with the assumption that the party start each encounter at full HP and have that happen regardless of whether there is a cleric in the party or there are enough happy sticks to go around. I.e. if that is the assumption being made I would prefer something akin to 4e's Short Rest and Healing Surges.
Personally however, I would prefer that we didn't assume all that healing was going on, and that magical healing is not going to be routinely used but rather is used to resuscitate a foe downed by an unlucky critical hit, or where the PCs really screwed up and took a beating over and above what was expected. Unfortunately, I have been informed that wasn't how 3.5 was designed, and thus I guess that isn't therefore how PF is designed.
Yes, <I'm the one that pointed that out :) >, but what does that have to do with 1 first level spell vs three extra 6D6 Channel Energy's?
I'll try to make it clear... 3.5 spell slots at 11th level:
1st: 5
2nd: 4
3rd: 4
4th: 3
5th: 2
6th: 1
Pathfinder spell slots:
1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 4
4th: 3
5th: 2
6th: 1
The difference between the two:
1st: 1
That's it. At 13th level the difference becomes:
1st: 1
2nd: 1
But now the channels are worth 7d6 each.
So do adventure designers write assuming a cleric and that the party can thus start each encounter at full HP?
Do they write assuming a cleric or happy-sticks, so that again a party can thus start each encounter at full HP?
Or do they write assuming neither, and that a party will enter a second encounter on average at 80% HP, a third ar 60% etc?
I have a feeling its either the first or the second, in which case I would prefer the game was simply designed with the assumption that the party start each encounter at full HP and have that happen regardless of whether there is a cleric in the party or there are enough happy sticks to go around. I.e. if that is the assumption being made I would prefer something akin to 4e's Short Rest and Healing Surges.
Personally however, I would prefer that we didn't assume all that healing was going on, and that magical healing is not going to be routinely used but rather is used to resuscitate a foe downed by an unlucky critical hit, or where the PCs really screwed up and took a beating over and above what was expected. Unfortunately, I have been informed that wasn't how 3.5 was designed, and thus I guess that isn't therefore how PF is designed.
I just started played Skull and Shackles. We have a magus, sorcerer (focused on enchantments), diviner, and summoner. It certainly feels like they assume we can heal often. We have had multiple characters nearly die several times and we're still level 1.
|
People are stating that a 3.5 cleric gets extra spells and thus the argument that channel energy is removing the need for clerics to burn as many spells on healing is erroneous.
IE: they are stating 1 extra spell at spell levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as equal or better than a minimum of 3 extra channel energies at 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, 9d6, and 10d6 respectively.
I read what was said and took it a differnt way, so was confussed, but I get what was meant now. I still disagree because this is also well into the point that Channel Energy (to heal) notoriously can not keep up with damage. But I'm also starting from the premise that extra healing is not always a great thing, and that you are both losing those spells and Turn/Destroy Undead (with or without any variants) as an ability I really like, find fun, and is very useful some of the time.
Personally, I do not buy that argument since most campaigns stop by around level 13-15. As a result we are only comparing the extra 1st, 2nd, and maybe 3rd level spells to 3 channel energies at 6d6, 7d6, and 8d6 respectively.
I don't buy this. I really want to know where people get this idea that most (or even many) peoples games stop at 13th or so level. That is not my experience in a lot of different groups and really is kind of a foreign idea to me. I know Paizo is terrified to publish higher level (16 - Epic) adventures, but even their current AP's end at 17+.
|
|
I just started played Skull and Shackles. We have a magus, sorcerer (focused on enchantments), diviner, and summoner. It certainly feels like they assume we can heal often. We have had multiple characters nearly die several times and we're still level 1.
I get the idea because I've only played two characters at 16th level or higher in the past 10 years, both games ended at 17th level.
Even if you get to 19th level, that's an extra 5th level spell, or 10d6 channel. But you've also got 4 spells from 6, 7, 8, and 9 level (either version). 1st through 3rd level spells don't really matter much at that point,they can help, but the difference between 4 and 5 of each is pretty insignificant.
Also, I'm referring to the healing as out of combat healing. I'm not saying its better than spells in combat, but out of combat channels can almost completely replace consumables.
I know there are people who do play high levels. But there are a lot of people who don't too, like people who play APs.
|
|
Because the AP's cut off early. Probably not because people want to stop playing then.
Personally, I do agree taht Channel Energy does replace consumables. I'm not argueing that. What I am arguing is that many people think that that is a bad thing, wanting a more gritty game where death or at least the possibility to dying or getting knocked out is a real threat. Same principle on why a lot of people hated 4E's Healing surges and Second Wind stuff.
Spells are often better at preventing damage instead of needing to go around and heal it up afterwards. That is generally seen as much more fun and interesting for "healers", putting them in an active roll rather than a secondary inactive one until they are needed. Having the extra spells also allows the player to decide what they want to use them for, (and if tha's healing, that's perfectly fine), but Channel energy basically cements the Cleric as party healer first and foremost, regardless of what the concept or character's faith/deity actually care about.
The other side is that many of the Cleric's remove condition spells now are not certain. Many require a check to actually work, which means besides healing HP, they need even more of those other healing spells even more, and Channel doesn't touch that at all.
Beckett, in my 30years of gaming all I ever heard from people is that the 'mid levels' are the best and that many people retire before they hit the 'high levels'. That hasnt changed in 12 years of 3.x/PF.
In 3.x/PF I havent seen anything that makes me want to play higher than level 15. The system breaks down after that. Heck, it begins to break down before that. I hear the same thing from other gamers.
For 8+ years 3.5 games rarely ever got higher than level 15. The PF APs are just a reflection of this.
- Gauss
|
|
Odd how every time I disagree about something on these boards, people start thinking I'm a new gamer or something. Ha ha ha
You have a couple of years on me, but not that much. In my experience with D&D like (level based) systems, level of play is pretty equal across the board. A lot of people like low level play, feeling that choices and combat feels more real, a good hit can kill you, a trap can be really bad, Saves are more hit or misss, etc. . .
Some people like mid level, where they begin to really matter in the world, becoming an actual force to be reckoned with, having the ability to travel across a continent in seconds, call down holy fire, or even travel the plane a bit.
Others like getting to the higher levels, maxing out their potential (or even going past that), leading or fighting armies, calling on miracles and shaping reality.
In my experience, (which is just my experience, but I've ravelled a lot, and played with a lot of different people and groups), it's all about equal. DM's tend to like the 1st option the most, as te higher they go, the more work is required, even with published material, and it is much more the case that people do not get to play the highest levels rather than they do not want to. Either through TPK's or DM burnout and wanting to start a new idea, higher level play just isn't offered neary as much, and doesn't have as many published adventures as mid level, and nowhere close to low level play.
I didnt assume you were new. I was just saying what was my experience. I would love to play a high level campaign sometime, if the problems with high level play were fixed.
- Gauss
|
Since my cleric in 3.5 had more spell slots he was able to take advantage of "Spontaneous" cure a lot better and take care of the undead with turning. "Mass Cure" spells were great and I used them all the time.I'm starting to think you guys didn't actually play 3.5. Because a 3.5 cleric gets his only 'extra' Mass Cure spell at level 19.
Emmmmm no. I think you're the one that didn't play 3.5. "Mass" Cure Light Wounds was a 5th level spell which meant you got it at 9th level. By that time you easily had a 20 Wisdom which gave you one bonus spell. This would enable him to Spontaneously cast Mass Cure Light Wounds twice per day.
Not sure where you are getting 19th level from.
|
|
Beckett, in my 30years of gaming all I ever heard from people is that the 'mid levels' are the best and that many people retire before they hit the 'high levels'. That hasnt changed in 12 years of 3.x/PF.
In 3.x/PF I havent seen anything that makes me want to play higher than level 15. The system breaks down after that. Heck, it begins to break down before that. I hear the same thing from other gamers.
For 8+ years 3.5 games rarely ever got higher than level 15. The PF APs are just a reflection of this.
- Gauss
I gotcha beat in years and I can tell you from my long time of gaming that we almost always went all the way to 20, even went to 36 several times. You can't use the argument that most people retire their characters around 12-15th because you've got no evidence to back you up.
The game was written to 20th level so you need to assume that people play that high.
Shallowsoul: I believe He is reffering to your pointing out that you got more spell slots.
my cleric in 3.5 had more spell slots he was able to take advantage of "Spontaneous" cure a lot better and take care of the undead with turning. "Mass Cure" spells were great and I used them all the time.
There was only 'more' Mass cure spells at level 19. There were only more cure spells at levels 11, 13, 15, and 17 and 1 of each. Channel does just as much if not more.
Regarding my assertion that 'most' people retire thier characters around 12-15...let me check my post. Nope, never used the word 'most'. I consistently used I phrases as in: all _I_ ever heard and all _I_ have seen. _I_ never stated 'most' on anything in that post.
Now, my last line was a broader generalization as I did not use the I phrasing. But it was a summation of my previous statements and thus a conclusion of those statements.
Try not to put words into my mouth please.
- Gauss
|
|
Shallowsoul: I believe He is reffering to your pointing out that you got more spell slots.
my cleric in 3.5 had more spell slots he was able to take advantage of "Spontaneous" cure a lot better and take care of the undead with turning. "Mass Cure" spells were great and I used them all the time.There was only 'more' Mass cure spells at level 19. There were only more cure spells at levels 11, 13, 15, and 17 and 1 of each. Channel does just as much if not more.
Regarding my assertion that 'most' people retire thier characters around 12-15...let me check my post. Nope, never used the word 'most'. I consistently used I phrases as in: all _I_ ever heard and all _I_ have seen. _I_ never stated 'most' on anything in that post.
Now, my last line was a broader generalization as I did not use the I phrasing. But it was a summation of my previous statements and thus a conclusion of those statements.
Try not to put words into my mouth please.
- Gauss
You're the one that said it, not us. We are only going by what you said, if that's not what you meant then you need to make it more clear.
What Iron guy forgot to mention was the fact that the cleric could use Pearls of Power to increase his spell slots and he could fill those slots with any cleric spell he wanted and still be able to Spontaneously cast any cure spell in the book.
Can't do that with Channel Energy.
Why would the Pearls make ANY difference? They are identical in both 3.5 and PF. It does not affect the difference in the number of spells the two systems have. Additionally, it still takes financial resources that might be better spent elsewhere thus, channeling still helps out there.
- Gauss
Well he seemed to forget the existence of Pearls of Power and the fact that I could put any spell in those slots that I wanted and Spontaneously turn them into cure spells if I ever needed them. Can't do that with Channeling.
Not to support the other side here, but PF clerics spontaneously cast cure spells as well, so they can also use pearls of power to return any spell they've cast and reuse it as a cure. That does only take 1 spell slot of any given level, and the minimums levels of spells PF clerics can cast didn't change from 3.5.
EDIT: Gauss beat me to it.
Elusive Jackalope: Come to the dark side man! :D
- Gauss
|
|
Why would the Pearls make ANY difference? They are identical in both 3.5 and PF. It does not affect the difference in the number of spells the two systems have. Additionally, it still takes financial resources that might be better spent elsewhere thus, channeling still helps out there.
- Gauss
Because I could keep my Turn Undead, take feats that would allow me to do other things with my Turn Undead attempts if I wanted, Spontaneously cast cure spells and pick up some Pearls of Power to increase those spell slots.
Basically I can have what I want without having to take a feat tax such as Selective Channeling and a few other feats to make the ability even half worth it.
Elusive Jackalope: Come to the dark side man! :D
- Gauss
Your side is the dark side!? I must have registered with the wrong party...
Still going to houserule channel positive energy for out of combat healing into many of my 3.5 games while retaining turn undead and houserule turn undead into many of my PF games while retaining channel positive energy to snag what I like best from both though.
Shallowsoul: I think you need to make your arguments a bit more relevant. You make a single point and then only later tie in that point to your argument. Anyone can say 'but pearls exist!' but without tying in that point to 'pearls exist thus I don't need channeling and can keep my turn undead' it doesn't mean anything beyond the individual statement.
I agree that there are other methods to maintain healing. However ALL of those methods eat up monetary resources. Channel Energy does not. If you want turn undead instead of healing that is your choice. Go play 3.5. However, I would rather have the option to heal and keep my monetary resources for other things.
Channel Positive Energy can be replaced by Pearls and wands. Both of those things use up resources. I would rather have the CPE.
Regarding the feat tax of Selective Channeling: If you follow the theory that healing should not occur in combat then selective channeling is irrelevant.
Personally, I only halfway follow that theory and even then I think the feat Selective Channeling is not required (although it is helpful).
Regarding the Turn Undead Feat: As I showed earlier I can build a turn undead cleric using PF rules that has nearly the same kind of success as a 3.5 turn undead build. Regarding the 'tax' involved there: PF has increased the feats by nearly half. I think we can afford that tax.
- Gauss
|
|
Shallowsoul: I think you need to make your arguments a bit more relevant. You make a single point and then only later tie in that point to your argument. Anyone can say 'but pearls exist!' but without tying in that point to 'pearls exist thus I don't need channeling and can keep my turn undead' it doesn't mean anything beyond the individual statement.
I agree that there are other methods to maintain healing. However ALL of those methods eat up monetary resources. Channel Energy does not. If you want turn undead instead of healing that is your choice. Go play 3.5. However, I would rather have the option to heal and keep my monetary resources for other things.
Channel Positive Energy can be replaced by Pearls and wands. Both of those things use up resources. I would rather have the CPE.
Regarding the feat tax of Selective Channeling: If you follow the theory that healing should not occur in combat then selective channeling is irrelevant.
Personally, I only halfway follow that theory and even then I think the feat Selective Channeling is not required (although it is helpful).
Regarding the Turn Undead Feat: As I showed earlier I can build a turn undead cleric using PF rules that has nearly the same kind of success as a 3.5 turn undead build. Regarding the 'tax' involved there: PF has increased the feats by nearly half. I think we can afford that tax.
- Gauss
You are limited to a certain amount of Channeling per day as well so I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Channeling still requires you to burn uses per day as well as Turn Undead.
My cleric already has the power to heal a plenty so I don't need anymore stacked on top of that and if I wanted to I could just take some feats or a prestige class. Hell I could just take the Healing domain and be set.
Turn Undead actually allows me to affect undead that actually makes a difference all the while keeping my ability to heal just fine. 3.5 clerics have never had a problem with healing so Channel Energy was unnecessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again I think you have missed the argument that has flowed through the entire thread. Allow me to summarize it for you.
(Note: 'my stance' also includes some other peoples' stated stances that I agree with.)
My stance: Channel Positive Energy reduces the number of healing spells required.
Your counter: 3.5 had extra spells for healing.
My response: Those extra spells only occured at higher levels
Your counter: Pearls of Power
My response: Pearls of Power are available in PF too. That does not change anything.
Your new statement: CPE requires a feat tax.
My counter: feat tax isnt really a tax when you gain extra feats. And you do not need to take it to heal effectively anyhow.
Now your current statement: but I want to save my turn undead for actual turning rather than healing.
My counter: I would rather have the option to heal especially in campaigns where I almost never see undead.
Your response: but CPE sucks for anti-undead.
My counter: I can take Turn Undead feat which has nearly the same average effect as 3.5 Turn undead
And finally, your redirect: 3.5clerics have no problem with healing so CPE is unnecessary.
And my response: If you want to play a healbot you are correct. I do not. I would rather have my spells for something besides healing.
Finally, we have come full circle. Shallowsoul, you argue in circles. Forgetting previous arguments and posts.
To summarize:
Turn undead was all or nothing. When it was All it was OMG powerful. When nothing it was useless.
Now we have CPE. The damage on CPE sucks. The healing on CPE rocks. It DOES IN FACT reduce the number of spells required for healing from levels 1-10. After that it becomes more equal with the spells the cleric lost in the transition from 3.5 to PF.
IF you want to turn undead in PF take the Turn undead feat. Complaints about a 'feat tax'? You got nearly 50% more feats than you used to. I am sure you can can afford the tax for an option to heal OR to Turn Undead.
As a GM I would grant people the following: If you want to turn undead I will give you the Turn undead feat but take away the healing unless you spent a feat on it. Viola! Problem solved. Now you have Turn Undead back.
One other note: Discussions about feats in the 3.5 Splatbooks are utterly useless. Those feats are part of a game system that is no longer being produced. Those feats are not OGL and thus cannot be properly imported (by the staff of Paizo) into PF. If you want to reminisce about 3.5 by all means: Play it. I still have my 3.5 books, Im sure many other 3.5 players do as well. But PF is no longer 3.5 and by law cannot import a number of 3.5 Feats, abilities, spells, magic items, etc.
Personally, I like PF. I like most of the changes. And I like CPE.
- Gauss
Taking a moment to summarize some of the opposition:
I'm all for anything that increases the length of an adventuring day, but I hate that what is included is at the expenisve of a cool, iconic power.
Elusive Jackalope, thank you for your summary. If I offended with my soapbox response to Shallowsoul I apologize. Sometimes it seems like having a discussion with him is like having a discussion with a broken record player. It was not a broad statement regarding your side of the opposition.
I respect your stance and agree with elements of it. I am just less attached to the iconic power than some. I have seen many evolutions of the game and while not all of them are for the best I think the game as a whole has done well moving forward.
- Gauss
Beckett, in my 30years of gaming all I ever heard from people is that the 'mid levels' are the best and that many people retire before they hit the 'high levels'. That hasnt changed in 12 years of 3.x/PF.
In 3.x/PF I havent seen anything that makes me want to play higher than level 15. The system breaks down after that. Heck, it begins to break down before that. I hear the same thing from other gamers.
For 8+ years 3.5 games rarely ever got higher than level 15. The PF APs are just a reflection of this.
- Gauss
I gotcha beat in years and I can tell you from my long time of gaming that we almost always went all the way to 20, even went to 36 several times. You can't use the argument that most people retire their characters around 12-15th because you've got no evidence to back you up.
The game was written to 20th level so you need to assume that people play that high.
Please tell me which page shows you that Clerics get more spells slots. Then make a list comparing the number of spell slots from 3.5 to PF.
Or you can look up a little bit at my previous post where I did it.
You are wrong, you are factually wrong and I ALREADY proved you wrong before you posted this. A 9th level 3.5 Cleric and PF Cleric have the exact same number of spell slots.
I respect your stance and agree with elements of it. I am just less attached to the iconic power than some. I have seen many evolutions of the game and while not all of them are for the best I think the game as a whole has done well moving forward.
- Gauss
I completely understand why many people prefer channel positive energy as well, it's a good power (for healing, if nothing else); I just personally don't agree with the design decisions that went into its implementation. There are some PF changes I like, some I don't, and more than a few I'm neutral on. We all can't be pleased all of the time, but I guess that is why house-rules are so common. :)
|
|
Elusive Jackalope, thank you for your summary. If I offended with my soapbox response to Shallowsoul I apologize. Sometimes it seems like having a discussion with him is like having a discussion with a broken record player. It was not a broad statement regarding your side of the opposition.
I respect your stance and agree with elements of it. I am just less attached to the iconic power than some. I have seen many evolutions of the game and while not all of them are for the best I think the game as a whole has done well moving forward.
- Gauss
The same can be said of you.
I find that when someone doesn't seem to understand something they tell the other person that they are going on like a broken record. The fact of the matter is I need to keep repeating myself because you continue to "not" get it.
Not agreeing is not the same thing as not understanding the opposing POV ("not" getting it). I disagree with your POV when I can make sense of it. Other people who espouse a similar POV to your own seem to regularly make sense even if I disagree with it. You on the other hand have seemed to lose track of the thread. I see this in multiple threads in which you are a part of. Honestly, I shouldn't respond to you at all because of that and I regret doing so in this thread.
- Gauss
