the main feature about channel is the AoE healing, its what makes it so good, even if it isnt actually that fantastic. its also excellent for killing incorporeals and low level undead because they often have low will saves/weakness to channeled energy. but when you start talking about attempting to kill evil outsiders with it it becomes lackluster, they often have either a straight resistance to positive energy, or have a high will save and save through it. i like alignment channel if you're working with a varied enough group that you cant heal everyone with a regular channel (say a party member is a Dhampir, they cant be healed normally) and you're all of similar alignments, but past that... idk. although i did take alignment channel on my oracle... probably because she didnt NEED any other feat.
Clerics don't AoE, from what I have seen. That's primarily an arcane caster trait.
|
All things are relative. If you need something to quickly kill off hordes of low-level evil outsiders, then it sounds like a fine investment of a single feat. I suspect it doesn't apply to you, but if you were a non-combat type cleric with lots of channels, it might be useful in a campaign heavy in evil outsiders (as yours is) as a backup when your Flame Strikes, etc. are used up - it's also safer than many spells as you don't need selective spell to avoid injuring your companions (assuming they aren't evil outsiders!). I'm sure there are other reasons why Alignment Channel might be a good choice for a particular character in a particular campaign.
Another way to look at this is that it's one feat. What are your other feat options. If you can't think of something better, then however good or bad the feat is, it's your best option.
On the Role-playing side, you might just think its cool, and that's ok too. At least it's not cool and useless (like, say, taking Skill Focus Profession Seamstress - which I'm sure can be useful in certain games, but most will probably agree that it's not too useful at 15th level in your average game).
You asked for another option. If you have the requisite ranks in Spellcraft, you can take Selective Spell and Flame Strike yourselves to scrape off the annoying little guys, or if you have the money use a Metamagic Rod of Selective Spell.
....with all that said, if you have the Channel Smite feat and are a Beat-Down cleric, Alignment Channel might be an ok way to add some extra damage per round when you face evil outsiders.
|
I'd like to hear some opinions about how Alignment Channel works in one edge case. Start with a Cleric of Iomedae. Choose to channel Variant Channeling (Rulership). Is a positive channeling cleric able to choose the Harm effect of Variant Channeling (Rulership)? If that same Cleric later took the Alignment Channel feat, could they apply Variant Channeling (Rulership) Harm against, e.g. Evil Outsiders?
What if the deity in question is Dispater?
I believe so, I was going to mention Variant Channeling myself.
Although many of them have pretty significant wording problems.
|
Yes, a positive channeling cleric could channel to harm undead and force them to save against daze. (Depending on if the daze is mind-affecting, which the condition does not appear to be.) If said cleric took Alignment Channel (Evil), then when channeling to harm evil outsiders such targets would also have to save versus the daze effect.
Which turns a lackluster damage ability into a "OMG broken" SoS.
|
|
Which turns a lackluster damage ability into a "OMG broken" SoS.
Actually, I've played quite a few scenarios versus Demons et al using a very similar ability (Variant Channeling Ale/Wine for Nausea). While it was certainly effective, it did not rise to the 'broken' level.
The most effective and important use came when our (relatively weak) team was ambushed by four Babau demons. My PC was able to pin down two of them who failed their save for a couple rounds, which was long enough for the rest of the team to deal with them. Considering the damage we took in the surprise round, it might otherwise have been a TPK.
I have seen people argue that the precise wording of the Variant Channel rules makes it impossible for a positive channeling cleric to use the Harm abilities at all, and similarly makes it impossible for a negative channeling cleric to use the Heal abilities at all. I think that's an incorrect 'rules lawyer' RAW interpretation, but I'm not sure it's wrong. Please look over the actual wording and see what you think.
|
|
You can't use Harm Variant Channeling at all unless you channel negative energy to harm. Being allowed to use positive energy to harm outsiders instead of undead doesn't change this limitation.
This is the interpretation I was referring to. The precise wording of Variant Channeling seems to agree with this interpretation: heal effects are only for positive channelers, and harm effects are only for negative channelers.
A variant channeling either modifies positive channeled energy when used to heal or modifies negative energy when used to harm.
With this interpretation a Cleric of Iomedae can never use Variant Channeling(Rulership) to harm, but a Cleric of Dispater can. I'm not sure this interpretation is correct, though. It really depends on how one interprets several poorly worded sentences.
This leads me back to claiming that Variant Channeling was not play-tested. Some of the options make no sense at all. For example, consider the Harm effect of Trickery:
Trickery: Heal—Creatures gain a channel bonus on Bluff, Disguise, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks for 1 minute. Harm—Creatures gain a channel penalty on Perception and Sense Motive checks for 1 minute.
Considering that everything affected by the Harm effect just took damage, and is therefore in combat, a penalty on Sense Motive makes no sense. It seems the writers forgot that the other halfof the Variant Channel inflicts damage.
|
|
You can't use Harm Variant Channeling at all unless you channel negative energy to harm. Being allowed to use positive energy to harm outsiders instead of undead doesn't change this limitation.
This is the interpretation I was referring to. The precise wording of Variant Channeling seems to agree with this interpretation: heal effects are only for positive channelers, and harm effects are only for negative channelers.
A variant channeling either modifies positive channeled energy when used to heal or modifies negative energy when used to harm.
With this interpretation a Cleric of Iomedae can never use Variant Channeling(Rulership) to harm, but a Cleric of Dispater can. I'm not sure this interpretation is correct, though. It really depends on how one interprets several poorly worded, somewhat contradictory sentences.
This leads me back to claiming that Variant Channeling was not adequately play-tested. Some of the options make no sense at all. For example, consider the Harm effect of Trickery:
Trickery: Heal—Creatures gain a channel bonus on Bluff, Disguise, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks for 1 minute. Harm—Creatures gain a channel penalty on Perception and Sense Motive checks for 1 minute.
Considering that everything affected by the Harm effect just took damage, and is therefore in combat, a penalty on Sense Motive makes no sense. It seems the writers forgot that the other half of the Variant Channel inflicts damage. One can find similar examples.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that everything affected by the Harm effect just took damage, and is therefore in combat, a penalty on Sense Motive makes no sense. It seems the writers forgot that the other halfof the Variant Channel inflicts damage.
You mean a penalty to spot hidden rogues and on the DC to feint the target is unimportant in combat?