| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.
*emphasis mine*
You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing is a valid approach if you have a little versatility to go with it.
I played a life oracle through a campaign that ran all of last year, and it was a lot of fun, though I also spammed a bit of blindness/deafness and silence so as to help reduce how much damage my team took in the first place (and the occasional Spiritual Weapon - which was the only damage dealer I had).
The character was fun to play and appreciated by the rest of the party (even if occasionally getting referred to as HealBot rather than by name).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.*emphasis mine*
You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
It can also heal opponents making it clumsy to use in combat.
It also scales incredibly poorly. Beyond 5th level or so it's actual output compared to spells is bad.
To add further to this there are no good feasible ways to boost the healing of this. You can get a feat to make it a move action which is okay but you practically have to have a feat in order ot make it usable in combat.
It gets a little bit better with some investment like Fey Foundling and Shield Other but at this point you've spent a trait, two feats, and a first level spell to make your class ability a viable numbers booster.
I've found it's better to either not worry about it entirely or take variant channeling and turn it into a buff ability instead. IT works wonderfully out of combat where you can guarantee people within your range and no enemies. But otherwise, yes, it kind of sucks.
|
*emphasis mine*You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
Probably more like 8d6 since it'll heal your enemies as well without significant feat and stat investment. Channel Energy is bad, unless you're using it out of combat in place of a healstick to save cash or spending a not insignificant amount of character resource to boost it from bad to mediocre. Misinformation would be telling people that Channel Energy is a helpful and effective method of in combat healing as is. Unless you have the good fortune to be surrounded by nothing but undead, it isn't.
Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.*emphasis mine*
You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
Math is not an opinion or misinformation. As TarkXT has kindly explained to you, Channel Energy requires considerable investment to not be clumsy or inefficient and even then it scales poorly. Here's the thing about people with system mastery. They know the system. If the system makes healing a good option, the people with system mastery will know that and say that. If the system makes in combat healing a poor decision outside of a few exceptions (Heal), then the people with system mastery will say that. And guess what? For the reasons provided in this thread (repeatedly, with math supporting them), in combat healing in Pathfinder is inefficient and scales poorly. It looks especially bad in comparison to out of combat healing, which takes 0 combat actions and expends a very low amount of resources. Guess why the people with system mastery like that second option more?
Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.*emphasis mine*
You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
It does suck, and it sucks more at higher levels because the bad guys hit harder, and if the GM is tactical, it gets even worse.
The validation is in the math. If someone is really hurt you are better off dropping a cure spell on them, assuming it is only one person and they don't even keep up. Later you get heal, but that is a relatively high level spell to be using.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.
Actually, without a single feat spent it's still a 1d8 weapon with a x3 crit and a range of 100 feet, which doesn't require additional feats in order to make multiple ranged attacks in combat. And if you spend feats on it, it becomes possibly the best weapon in the game. With Channel Energy, you're spending resources just to make it a viable option, basically upgrading it from water balloon full of pee, to club. For Channel Energy to be something resembling a good option, you have to dedicate a character to it, propping it up with feats, traits, class features, etc., and even then the only thing that's making it good is that you still have a standard action available to do something that will elevate your turn to effective, like casting a buffing spell, a damaging spell, a control spell, etc.
With 14 CHA, with zero other investment, a level 5 cleric has effectively 3 extra Cure Serious Wounds worth of healing without using spells. This is single target healing, which is comparing Channel Energy at its worst.
No, it's not. Channel Energy at its worst is healing every enemy within reach with a Cure Serious Wounds spell, dragging out the fight at the expense of the group's resources. And considering your 14 CHA cleric can only exclude 2 enemies from tha effect after spending a feat, this only works out in your favor in a situation where action economy is already on the group's side and they outnumber the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can also heal opponents making it clumsy to use in combat.
To add further to this there are no good feasible ways to boost the healing of this. You can get a feat to make it a move action which is okay but you practically have to have a feat in order ot make it usable in combat.
...
It gets a little bit better with some investment like Fey Foundling and Shield Other but at this point you've spent a trait, two feats, and a first level spell to make your class ability a viable numbers booster.
A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.
A person that wants to boost healing should be allowed to spend resources too. Spending feats (Selective Channel, Quicken Channel, and/or Extra Channel) or monetary resources (Phylactery, +CHA Ioun stone or Rod of Splendor) into becoming a better healer is not a bad thing at all.
Being able to pop out 8d6 area effect emergency healing at level 7 is quite powerful. Even at 11th level, with Heal healing 110 to a single target, being able to heal 56 average damage to the entire group in a single round is still significant.
It also scales incredibly poorly. Beyond 5th level or so it's actual output compared to spells is bad.Be careful here. This is only accurate when comparing single targets. When you start comparing two targets, then Channel Energy heals roughly the same amount. When you count four or more targets? There is no comparison.
So, let's compare Channel Energy to spells at level 5.
At 5th level, Channel Energy = 10.5 average (5 per day).
At 5th level, Cure Serious Wounds = 18.5 average (3 max per day).With 14 CHA, with zero other investment, a level 5 cleric has effectively 3 extra Cure Serious Wounds worth of healing without using spells. This is single target...
Yes a longbow requires a lot of investment. But for that investment it will deal more damage then any kind of cures (it'll even outpace heal if your built right). Also, damage is pro-active. It makes the enemy dead. Healing is only a stopgap. It does nothing to prevent even more damage from being dealt. If you consider the ease with which a longbow user can full attack and kill enemies, then you should realize that a full attack that kills an enemy prevents 8all* of the damage that enemy would deal. And when damage outpaces healing, this means killing an enemy prevents more damage then cures.
Also, your Channel example is bad. IF you want to bring up multiple people at 5th level, Fireball does an average damage of 21.5 to as many people as get caught in it. And that's like a basic fireball.
Look, healing is bad for the same reason it's bad in Magic the Gathering. Simply put it doesn't put threats on the board to help you win the game. One of the best signs that a new player is growing is that they recognize that healing is generally bad. This lesson is also true in Pathfinder.
A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.Actually, without a single feat spent it's still a 1d8 weapon with a x3 crit and a range of 100 feet, which doesn't require additional feats in order to make multiple ranged attacks in combat. And if you spend feats on it, it becomes possibly the best weapon in the game. With Channel Energy, you're spending resources just to make it a viable option, basically upgrading it from water balloon full of pee, to club. For Channel Energy to be something resembling a good option, you have to dedicate a character to it, propping it up with feats, traits, class features, etc., and even then the only thing that's making it good is that you still have a standard action available to do something that will elevate your turn to effective, like casting a buffing spell, a damaging spell, a control spell, etc.
You forgot that -4 to attacks for using the bow in combat. Have to make fair comparisons if you're going to say the cleric is channeling while everyone is fighting. The bow also provokes an attack of opportunity if you get too close where channel doesn't. If the archer gets to stand 100 feet away the cleric also gets to stand on the edge of channel range to ensure it doesn't hit the enemies as well. Sometimes enemies still have full HP and getting hit with a channel means nothing.
Unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.
No, it's not. Channel Energy at its worst is healing every enemy within reach with a Cure Serious Wounds spell, dragging out the fight at the expense of the group's resources. And considering your 14 CHA cleric can only exclude 2 enemies from tha effect after spending a feat, this only works out in your favor in a situation where action economy is already on the group's side and they outnumber the enemy.
With 14 CHA, with zero other investment, a level 5 cleric has effectively 3 extra Cure Serious Wounds worth of healing without using spells. This is single target healing, which is comparing Channel Energy at its worst.
Your archer can only remove the -4 to attacks after spending 2 feats. It's an even greater investment. Excluding 2 enemies and battlefield positioning should be all you need to grant a channel to everyone effectively. Making some claim of enemies surrounding you is nonsense as most people complain about cleave not having enough use.
Also, your Channel example is bad. IF you want to bring up multiple people at 5th level, Fireball does an average damage of 21.5 to as many people as get caught in it. And that's like a basic fireball.
Belligerent much? Ease up on insulting others because you think your opinion is right and you have "system mastery" that others lack.
Your fireball deals 21.5 damage with a save for half. Half is 10.75 and you round down to 10. A 3d6 channel is 10.5 round down and they both negate each other. The wizard used his standard action to cast a spell, the cleric used his standard action to counter the effects of the spell, the party kills the wizard that just made himself known.
Arguing for any AoE damage spell is one of the easiest to counter with channel. Higher damage single target effects are when channel loses potency. Which is also why you don't stand there spamming channel and use it when there's multiple allies injured
A good battle cleric likely has a 16-18 Strength,
At low level? You must have a very generous pt buy, because after buying Wis, Con and some CHA, it's hard to buy a str of 16. Heck, even with just a COn of 12 and a Wis of 16, you only have 3 pts left.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot that -4 to attacks for using the bow in combat. Have to make fair comparisons if you're going to say the cleric is channeling while everyone is fighting. The bow also provokes an attack of opportunity if you get too close where channel doesn't. If the archer gets to stand 100 feet away the cleric also gets to stand on the edge of channel range to ensure it doesn't hit the enemies as well. Sometimes enemies still have full HP and getting hit with a channel means nothing.
Unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.
You're absolutely right. Clearly the only fair comparison here is to compare a blind archer too stupid to 5 foot step out of melee to a cleric who magically finds that in every single fight his allies form a nicely linked arc that keeps every single enemy outside of the reach of his Channel Energy. Like you said, unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.
Math is not an opinion or misinformation. As TarkXT has kindly explained to you, Channel Energy requires considerable investment to not be clumsy or inefficient and even then it scales poorly. Here's the thing about people with system mastery. They know the system. If the system makes healing a good option, the people with system mastery will know that and say that. If the system makes in combat healing a poor decision outside of a few exceptions (Heal), then the people with system mastery will say that. And guess what? For the reasons provided in this thread (repeatedly, with math supporting them), in combat healing in Pathfinder is inefficient and scales poorly. It looks especially bad in comparison to out of combat healing, which takes 0 combat actions and expends a very low amount of resources. Guess why the people with system mastery like that second option more?Oh, well do that then. Channel Energy sucks a lot, so getting free empowering on all your healing at the cost of some d6s on your channel energy is probably a win/win. Heck, keeping your channel dice low means you can stabilize allies without making them targets again.*emphasis mine*
You keep saying this, but where's any validation of it? An AoE of scaling +1d6 in a typical 4 man group is a standard action +4d6 of healing at level 1. One channel is nearly on par with 3 first level spells.
The propagation of misinformation and opinion as fact on this board blows my mind.
One feat? Hardly considerable investment. Channeling is like a mass CLW without costing a spell slot. Later it's even better. You can raise from the dead, etc.- which does cost investment, but it's worth it.
Sure, Using Channel as a move costs a feat, etc- but so does Rapid shot.
Ah, so you guys have "system mastery" and thus "know the system" thereby our arguments are invalid, since you are a system master. I bow to your superiority. Your "mastery" obviously even exceeds that of James Jacobs, nice!
But since "the math" has been proven wrong time after time after time, where does that leave your "mastery"?
Certainly if you're not going to drop during combat, you save the healing until after. No one sez any different. I am soooooo impressed the "Masters' like that option more. I bet they also like a wizard to know a few spells, too?
Your fireball deals 21.5 damage with a save for half. Half is 10.75 and you round down to 10. A 3d6 channel is 10.5 round down and they both negate each other. The wizard used his standard action to cast a spell, the cleric used his standard action to counter the effects of the spell, the party kills the wizard that just made himself known.
But...but ... that Math can't be right! The glorious System Masters have proclaimed that math is wrong. You need to double check those numbers, maybe use imaginary numbers? ;-)
You forgot that -4 to attacks for using the bow in combat. Have to make fair comparisons if you're going to say the cleric is channeling while everyone is fighting. The bow also provokes an attack of opportunity if you get too close where channel doesn't. If the archer gets to stand 100 feet away the cleric also gets to stand on the edge of channel range to ensure it doesn't hit the enemies as well. Sometimes enemies still have full HP and getting hit with a channel means nothing.
Unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.
You're absolutely right. Clearly the only fair comparison here is to compare a blind archer too stupid to 5 foot step out of melee to a cleric who magically finds that in every single fight his allies form a nicely linked arc that keeps every single enemy outside of the reach of his Channel Energy. Like you said, unfair comparison doesn't validate your opinion.
5 foot step doesn't help vs. creatures with reach or a character with step up. It doesn't change the fact that a bow provokes AoOs and channel does not. You can invest feats if you qualify for fighter levels, but now we're at 5 feats to be effective in combat and not provoke.
I never said the archer had to be blind and stupid. You're just making arbitrary exaggerated arguments.
I never said the enemy forms a perfect arc. This isn't the only means of getting an effective channel. You're just making arbitrary exaggerated arguments.
Making an unfair comparison or fabricating another unfair comparison and attempting to assert that that's anyone else's argument does not validate your opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.
Oh boy...you poor thing. Do you actually believe this? A longbow on its own deals 1d8 damage with a x3 crit, can be made composite for what is quickly negligible resources (before its negligible, you use a sling). Strength bonus + enhancement bonus alone will get you to around +15 to damage with it top-end, and due to ammunition being fairly cheap, it's one of the most effective ways of dealing with a large variety of DRs while still using the same weapon (instead of having to get lots of different weapons, you just pack some silver, cold iron, and the odd adamantine arrow and since abundant ammunition is a thing you could even get that for resource safety).
You don't suffer any penalties to attacking when your foe lacks cover and/or isn't in melee. Two of the more ideal times to actually use a ranged weapon in fact. See, every martial worth the paper their character sheet is made of carries a bow, because when you are facing flying enemies (who virtually never have cover and aren't generally prone to being locked into melee) you whip it out and start tearing them up.
If you want to push your damage even higher, then you could spend 1 feat, Deadly Aim (which has no prerequisites) to convert excess to-hit into damage, which allows a Paladin or Ranger to wreck their specialty targets. Barbarians even get into the mix because adaptive longbows (which are again pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things) allow them to get their rage bonus on their bow when they rage.
Yes, you can definitely spend lots of resources and/or feats to make a longbow even better, but generally when you do so, you're making a highly specialized character that will utterly wreck anything it gets to make full attacks against (because 165 damage on the first 3 arrows fired, all using your highest BAB, is not just good it's Tony the Tiger grrreeat)!
A person that wants to boost healing should be allowed to spend resources too. Spending feats (Selective Channel, Quicken Channel, and/or Extra Channel) or monetary resources (Phylactery, +CHA Ioun stone or Rod of Splendor) into becoming a better healer is not a bad thing at all.
Except you're not going to. You're investing a ton of resources and money that could have been invested into actually helping your party succeed. None of that actually helps you to heal more damage, it helps you to heal it more often. We're talking quality over quantity here. The only one that really helps in that regard is the phylactery of channeling which improves your healing by +2d6.
Being able to pop out 8d6 area effect emergency healing at level 7 is quite powerful. Even at 11th level, with Heal healing 110 to a single target, being able to heal 56 average damage to the entire group in a single round is still significant.
This is called "sucking better". Channel energy doesn't keep up. Here's the progression.
1 = 1d6 (3.5)
3 = 2d6 (7)
5 = 3d6 (10.5)
7 = 4d6 (14)
9 = 5d6 (17.5)
11 = 6d6 (21)
13 = 7d6 (24.5)
15 = 8d6 (28)
17 = 9d6 (31.5)
19 = 10d6 (35)
Be careful here. This is only accurate when comparing single targets. When you start comparing two targets, then Channel Energy heals roughly the same amount. When you count four or more targets? There is no comparison.
So, let's compare Channel Energy to spells at level 5.
At 5th level, Channel Energy = 10.5 average (5 per day).
At 5th level, Cure Serious Wounds = 18.5 average (3 max per day).With 14 CHA, with zero other investment, a level 5 cleric has effectively 3 extra Cure Serious Wounds worth of healing without using spells. This is single target...
Part of your argument requires dishonesty. That is, you're taking the healing that could potentially be done over multiple party members and then declaring that as the healing. That's like me saying at CL 5, lightning bolt deals 120d6 points of damage when throwing it down a long tunnel filled space to space with kobolds.
We already discussed tactics 101 here. Look, I'll do it again. When do you see lions breaking off and attacking a whole herd of wildebeests individually? You don't. They pick one and bring it down as a team. That is exactly what you do in D&D and/or Pathfinder.
If you're fighting 6 kobolds with crossbows, they're going to shoot at 1 party member if they're smart (and they are). Because again, one less enemy means one less enemy to deal with. It's not rocket science.
So yes, at 7th level you could heal everyone in a 30 ft. radius for an average of 14 health. If you've been pushing your dumpstat really hard (Charisma) and took selective channeling, you might not even heal any of your enemies that your party is fighting. However, every party member that isn't damaged means that healing is wasted (see reactionary healing in my previous posts), and the amount that you're healing your victim for isn't very much.
Your absolute best case scenario is shield other + channel energy, which brings your effective healing versus a single target to about 28 damage healed, since you're taking 1/2 of his or her damage and then healing both you and your primary target's HP.
Alternatively, if your enemy is using a lot of weak AoEs, then channel starts looking pretty nice as it's just your d6s sans saves vs their d6s with saves, but only if your target has invested nothing into improving their blasting. If they invested half the effort that it will take to try to push channel energy into the "hey this is good" territory, then they will outpace your channels significantly (because 7d6+7 is very nice compared to 4d6).
Channel energy is great for OOC healing. As in, when you need to top people off post-combat. If the enemy was spreading the fire around significantly, then you didn't need channel energy to begin with (unless something funny was going on), and if they weren't, then channel energy is only really good for topping people off.
The fact that at 19th level it caps out at 35 healing (42 with a buffing magic item) is quite telling. Enemies do that much in a single attack (remember that archer a bit ago with the 165+ damage in the first portion of its full attack).
|
I'm sure some people don't want to know or care, but it's worth mentioning.
There's a new game out there which I'll leave anonymous with some revisions to healing. Perhaps these kinds of changes might find their way to Pathfinder Unchained.
First, cure light wounds heals 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier (instead of your level). So a 1st level Cleric with an 18 Wisdom is healing for 1d8+4 instead of 1d8+1.
Additionally, with the life domain, you also add the spell's level + 2 to any healing spells.
In total, a 1st level Cleric with a 16 Wisdom is healing for 1d8+7.
This is also in a system where the damage output across the board has been lowered slightly.
So I imagine, with Pathfinder DPR, this would be equivalent to 1st level clerics casting cure light wounds for 1d8+10 or so.
I'm kind of vibing the idea of spruced up healing. It also means enemies will potentially have more staying power if they want to fall back and heal which could help to smooth out "spikey" combats and make them a little more dramatic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was simply comparing amount healed to amount healed. You can assume it was out of combat if that helps you.
I already said Channel Energy was fine for out of combat clean up. I don't know why anyone would compare out of combat healing to a weapon's performance in combat.
A good battle cleric likely has a 16-18 Strength,At low level? You must have a very generous pt buy, because after buying Wis, Con and some CHA, it's hard to buy a str of 16. Heck, even with just a COn of 12 and a Wis of 16, you only have 3 pts left.
15 Point buy is all we play.
16, 14, 14, 7, 13, 7 is a good starting 15 point buy for a cleric. Especially for humans or dwarfs. Even pretty great for elves, though you could swap the Dex and Wis on an elf (which would bring you to 16, 15, 12, 9, 14, 7). On a human cleric, I prefer to drop the +2 into Strength, because 13 Wisdom is plenty for low levels and you'll get a +1 bump at 4th level anyway.
Since the better cleric spells are party support spells (especially after hold person was savagely nerfed in 3.5), all of which require no saving throws, having a high Wisdom isn't very useful, beyond netting a few bonus spell or two, for which you'll still have plenty of as your career goes on. You can still cast 9th level spells on this build if you never even bother to raise Wisdom at all (since 13 + 6 enhancement = 19 Wisdom, that's before your +5 inherents that come along post 11th level).
Get some chain mail and/or a breastplate over the first several levels and go to town. At some point, pick up Heavy Armor Proficiency with the extra feats allotted to you in Pathfinder to regain your 3.x glory (funny thing, the martial feats got increased in tax, and the cleric ends up not very taxed at all).
As far as domains are concerned, there's a lot of good options there too for clerics, depending on what you want to do. Some of my favorites are listed below.
Animal: Gets you a mount at 4th level.
Community: Great spells and can share your saving throws with allies.
Darkness: Great spells (which allow you to mimic arcane spells), the ability to summon shadows (which steamroll monster encounters), the ability to see in magical darkness for 1/2 your cleric level in rounds (enough to avoid getting taken apart before you can get out or dispel it).
Destruction: Decent spells, the ability to make a destructive smite (which combos nicely with courageous weaponry). Has a very powerful aura that when used wisely can be used to bring down enemies very quickly).
Glory: Great spells, your touch is super useful for your arcane casters using charms and/or bindings, and your aura is very powerful when used correctly.
Healing: Though not greatest in terms of spells, this isn't bad for a neutral cleric who prefers to channel negative energy, as you're pretty much given a heal at each level, and the 6th level ability is nice, especially later when combined with incense of meditation.
Liberation: My favorite domain by far. The spells you get for it are superb and the abilities incredible. You have a free get out of jail card against the majority if CC abilities AND you can remove tons of very bad ailments from your party members in short order.
Luck: A good domain. The abilities are fair, the spells are good. Especially spell turning.
Nobility: One of the best domains. You get a nice buff that lasts several rounds, great spells, and you gain leadership as a bonus feat at 8th level and get a more or less free +2 leadership bonus for not being a heathen. :P
Strength: The abilities of the Strength domain aren't that great, but the spells are stellar.
Travel: Another all star domain. The abilities make you highly mobile and hard to pin down, you get access to move-action short-range 'ports, and you get great spells to boot, including things like dimension door and fly.
War: Another good one. The part that shines here are the spells, but the ability to get a combat feat as a swift action on exactly the round you need it is pretty solid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A longbow is a clumsy tool to use in combat without siginificant feat and monetary investment as well. No one argues an archer isn't allowed to spend resources. A longbow has a lot more feats and avenues open to boost it, but it still costs a LOT of resources.Oh boy...you poor thing. Do you actually believe this? A longbow on its own deals 1d8 damage with a x3 crit, can be made composite for what is quickly negligible resources (before its negligible, you use a sling). Strength bonus + enhancement bonus alone will get you to around +15 to damage...Thank you Ashiel for making my point.
People automatically give the archer resources without even realizing. +15 damage is impossible without resources being spent. We all know that bows can be great. Bows are given lots more ways to spend those resources. But, it still takes resources.
Spending resources to make something better is part of the game.
Everything is resources. Everything. Right down to your ability scores and your hit points. The difference is cost vs gain. By 20th level, a +5 enhancement bonus on a weapon is cheap. If you have a wizard or cleric in the party, then it's as cheap as a 9,000 gp pearl of power. The strength bonus on top of that for the bow is 1,000 gp. That's 10,000 gp out of your WBL, or 1/88th of your treasures. 1/88th. Think about that. Meanwhile it costs 0 feats to make useful (because 1d8+15 is assuming a generic 30 Str warrior was using it, but then you have BUFFS, like a Paladin's spells, or smite, or a ranger's favored enemy, or a slayer's focus target, or a barbarian's rage w/adaptive, or a bard's greater heroism, or Inspire Courage, or a Cleric's Divine Power, etc).
The effort vs reward is where the devil lies in the details. For significantly more cost (more money, tons more feats, etc) you could improve channel energy slightly. For a similar investment, you could be doing over 200 damage on a full attack with that very same bow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't lock the thread because of the actions of a few. Some of us who haven't been calling people names or sniping at people are actually enjoying the thread. :\
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just have 2 things to say about healing:
1. Doing damage is far more effective than healing people.
2. Healing people is far more cost efficient than raising people.
Most of the time anyway.
For what it's worth I've been trying to make a viable healing and/or channel-focused character for the past few days, with test builds posted here and here.
I have to say I have limited experience building "healing-focused" characters, but so far I'm struggling to make it all come together. The numbers generally line up to what I'd expect to see from a modestly optimized blaster, but burn significantly more resources in the process.
I'd really welcome any suggestions for those with more experience playing or using healers: Feats, FCBs, items, spells, traits, anything you got.
Rory I am going to ask a simple question.
Are you really trying to say a healer is going to keep up with an archer?
Before you answer the question:
At level 10 a normal(no crazy loop holes or skirting the rules) archer can do 70 to 100+ points of damage.
Now you might want to argue that is PC damage, but even if we use an NPC 70 is very much a possibility. Even if they only did 50 healing would be hard pressed to keep up.
The more the healer and the archer invest into their area the more the archer pulls away from what I have seen.
If that is not what you are saying, then what exactly are you saying?
For what it's worth I've been trying to make a viable healing and/or channel-focused character for the past few days, with test builds posted here and here.
I have to say I have limited experience building "healing-focused" characters, but so far I'm struggling to make it all come together.
I'd really welcome any suggestions for those with more experience playing or using healers: Feats, items, traits, spells, anything you got.
I made a channel focused cleric but it was a combat based necromancer.
The feats that allowed me to use my channeling for other affects was a big key and so was the quick channeling feat. You don't have to focus on healing. You just have to find an alternate ability to work around.
IIRC the alternate channel options reduce the healing you get from channels so having extra channel might help.
Get wands of CLW to save channels and spells. Get reach spell(or a wand of it) so you can cure from a distance. If you run up and heal the fighter the enemy might decide to kill you instead. At least if you are farther away you wont be so easy to kill in most situations.
:
At level 10 a normal(no crazy loop holes or skirting the rules) archer can do 70 to 100+ points of damage.
Now you might want to argue that is PC damage, but even if we use an NPC 70 is very much a possibility. Even if they only did 50 healing would be hard pressed to keep up.
Because every arrow doesn't hit and doesn't do full damage.
Cleric with Healing domain has a free empowered CCW. 45pts. Then a Channel for 17 pts as a Move action. 62 pts. Or a Rod of Quicken on a empowered CSW, which is 37 pts+ those 45 for 82pts.
:
At level 10 a normal(no crazy loop holes or skirting the rules) archer can do 70 to 100+ points of damage.
Now you might want to argue that is PC damage, but even if we use an NPC 70 is very much a possibility. Even if they only did 50 healing would be hard pressed to keep up.
Because every arrow doesn't hit and doesn't do full damage.
Cleric with Healing domain has a free empowered CCW. 45pts. Then a Channel for 17 pts as a Move action. 62 pts. Or a Rod of Quicken on a empowered CSW, which is 37 pts+ those 45 for 82pts.
You can only use that rod 3 times per day, and the damage I listed already assumed he missed.
You can't super heal all day long, and not every cleric will put that much into healing, but most archers will have the same basic feats.So unless you are the super healing cleric/oracle/etc you won't keep up, and even then you can only do it for a short period of time.
Yeah we both know it is best to prevent damage, but my point is that if for some reason you go with healing vs damage, you will run not keep up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already said Channel Energy was fine for out of combat clean up. I don't know why anyone would compare out of combat healing to a weapon's performance in combat.I compared the spending of resources with the longbow vs. Channel Energy comparison.
I compared out of combat healing with the Channel Energy vs. healing spells comparison.
'Tis all.
You specifically referenced "emergency healing". I'd be interested to know what kind of emergency healing you bump into out of combat.
Regardless, a few hundred gold for a composite longbow doesn't even begin to touch the resource expenditure of feats, traits, etc. necessary to make Channel Energy a combat-viable option. Channel Energy is fine as an out of combat band-aid, I don't believe anyone has said otherwise, but some of the arguments as to its combat effectiveness border on the ludicrous.
You can do it. There are a few specialized archetypes or class paths that are capable of putting up an amount of healing with Channel Energy that is actually capable of being a positive in-combat contribution to the group in situations other than slogs through hordes of undead, but that typically requires:
At least 2 ability specific feats
Possibly a trait
A Domain or Mystery
Possibly an archetype
A holy symbol
Substantial investment in Charisma
All for the purpose of making Channel Energy work. Any one of those resources is infinitely more powerful than spending money on a composite longbow, and you'll continue to get better returns for each resource beyond cash spent on the bow than on channel. Point Blank Shot and other ranged feats apply equally well to any ranged attack, including many spells. The longbow inherently has the advantage of unlimited attacking power and some of the longest ranges available outside of true spellcasting. Set in a vacuum, a cleric with a 14 CHA and no other resources devoted to CE will run out of healing long before a hobgoblin with 50 arrows and a composite longbow with no feats invested runs out of attacking power and kills him. In a real fight, that hobgoblin can still move around picking and choosing his shots, while the cleric is going to be hardpressed to make use of CE without healing up 5 of the 7 other hobgoblins currently locked up in melee with his allies.
"Now you're just making up numbers for an unfair comparison to try and validate your point" says a random someone who can't see where the math is going. Well, let's take a look at that.
8 Hobgoblins is a CR 7.5 Encounter. What if we just had one enemy? Like say, a Bulette. Our Cleric with 14 Charisma and 1 feat spent on can compare to a Cleric with a 14 Dex who spent one feat on Point Blank Shot. The party is ambushed by the bulette who's been hiding beneath the ground, and now he leaps into the air attacking the party Fighter for a vicious 56 average damage. Holy Crap! Did that just happen?!?!? Unless he picked up Toughness or some favored class hp, our Fighter could very well be dead.
Channel Cleric channels, excluding the bulette, healing the Fighter (assuming he's alive) for about 11 damage. This may not even bring the Fighter back to consciousness unless he's really stacked up some extra hp. Total contributions towards removing threat = 0.
Our Cleric of Erastil with his bow decides to throw up archon's aura in hopes that the lowered attacks and defenses of the bulette while in the AoE will buy the party some extra time and effectiveness. Total contributions towards removing threat = Enemy AC lowered increasing group chance to hit by up to 10% and lowering enemy chance to hit by the same amount.
You see where this is going? If I'm a 5th level cleric fighting a bunch of mooks, channel energy is far from my best option. If I'm a 5th level cleric fighting a single enemy brute, channel is far from my best option. Bow cleric is going to dash around plinking away at the bulette and trying to keep it debuffed so his remaining allies can help drop the beast, channel cleric is going to get everyone killed because he'll never get someone up to fighting strength before another party member drops. Against the hobgoblins, bow cleric can plunk away with his longbow and help whittle the forces down, channel cleric will be putting them all back on the field round after round.
If I shift more resources into Bow cleric being good with a bow, his effectiveness is going to move up by leaps and bounds. For each resource I invest into channel cleric, I see an incremental increase that, by itself, won't be enough to change the above dynamic. With the exception of a couple highly specialized builds, you're paying more to get less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that Quick Channel uses twice as many uses of Channel Energy, and Charisma is a dump stat. :P