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.
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric. The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage... This is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity....
Wouldn't the unmodified ability be better in dealing with undead since it targets all within range AND is unreliant on an attack roll? Am I missing some benefit about the Channel Smite feat?
Channel Smite is terrible. It only serves as a feat tax for nicer stuff, like Guided Hand.
Well it should be an option for single target nova damage. Sadly its just horrible as much as I want to like it. Missing with it waste the channel use AND it still has a save for half. Anything with two fail conditions is always junk.
Now it it was something you used on hit (like the forceful strike spell) or removed the save then it would have some use.
A negative energy cleric won't need Selevtice Channeling, for one.
A negative energy cleric won't need Selevtice Channeling, for one.
Unless his has some minions that he hasn't killed yet...
I'm glad to see that this thread has 100% agreement so far -- when our party's paladin said, "Ooooh! Channel Smite! That sounds good!" i tried to talk her out of it.
She took it anyway.
And has NEVER used it. Straight-up channeling has always been better.
Holy Vindicators get it as a bonus feat down the road, and theirs is slightly augmented by that prestige class's abilities. I was just wondering why the hell it would be useful on it's own, and am finding that it largely isn't.
My evil tiefling cleric (of Yawgmoth, HA!) was a negative channeler, but focused on creating undead/construct minions, so again-largely useless to him too
And has NEVER used it. Straight-up channeling has always been better.
Against a single target powerful undead, I'd rather hit him with my holy undead bane longsword with smite evil, and then add channeling smite, than doing just the regular channel.
It's a better skill for antipaladins, but still poor. In my evil Way of the Wicked campaign, our Antipaladin has a Conductive sword. Much much much better, as it's a 1:1 ratio of touch of corruptions, and you can lay Cruelties with it.
|
Channel Smite is for those who channel negative energy.
Selective Channel is nice too, but maybe you have more allies than your CHA bonus and don't want to get on your table's bad side. Or maybe you don't even have the 13 CHA that Selective requires-- Clerics don't really use Charisma for much of anything besides channeling, so a battle Cleric of, say, Irori might use Channel Smite simply to get a few extra D6's of damage a few times a day.
It's true that in most cases, normal channeling is better. But I'm still glad the feat exists for those that can find uses for it.
Channel Smite is terrible. It only serves as a feat tax for nicer stuff, like Guided Hand.
This.
|
Honestly, when I found there was a CN Orc god who had the Earthbreaker as a favored weapon, I totally wanted to make a Versatile Channeling/Channel Smiting Half-orc Cleric.
It takes awhile to get to a level where he can actually do what I want, but it'd be awesome to be able to club something in the face with a big damn hammer, and then have the wrath of your god explode in their face, too.
Against a single target powerful undead, I'd rather hit him with my holy undead bane longsword with smite evil, and then add channeling smite, than doing just the regular channel.And has NEVER used it. Straight-up channeling has always been better.
This was my first thought as well. It's certainly situational, but a lot of things are.
It's a bit better when combined with the Variant Channeling rules in Ultimate Magic on a combat cleric (channeling negative energy to harm) that 1) wants to full attack in the same round (even Quick Channel only makes a normal Channel Energy a move action) and 2) cares enough about their companions to avoid catching them in the radius of a normal Channel Energy (Selective Channel can only do so much). Death, Disease, Knowledge, Murder, Pain, Poison, Protection, and Weather have some useful variations.
Still not a "must have," but useful under certain circumstances.
it depends on your build... i posted an idea for someone else for a 4th level melee cleric who has +9 to hit with his greatsword and 8/day (which in most campaigns will be functionally always)did 2d6+8+2d6 (with a save for half on the second 2d6)... that's no joke at that level. and that's without power attack which he could pick up at 5th level, when his channel goes up to 3d6- i think that would put him at +8 hit, 2d6+11+3d6. and that's without any buffs (without casting any of your spells actually). in the long run you won't be able to keep up with a fighter's damage output, but it's a decent option for someone who wants to be able to heal but not to play 'a healer'.