|
If you can take Quick Channel, the high levels become much more manageable as you use your move action to channel and standard to cast. Some of the more difficult high level organized play scenarios were almost impossible without that option.I have played many of the more difficult high level PFS scenarios and have not really found that to be the case.
You would know, having run King of the Storval Stairs for me.
It also helped your group was apparently 7 people!
That's the thing about channel, though. It works better the more allies you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
No I think he's saying the orc will miss 50% even if it's a heavy hitter. So healing still keeps up.
Because healing rarely misses.
I understand that selective channeling seems like a tax. But dropping negative aoe bombs at your feet and only hitting the ones you want? Not a lot of people can do that without a tax either. But a cleric could.
Right.
Yeah but Selective channeling could have been for Negative only.
I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
but do you belive it is a good use of actions to keep one guy in the game instead og being in the game your self?
I'm more just wondering how they think +6 to attack is a reasonable number for level 12...
I'd expect a Wizard or Sorcerer to have at least +8 at that level.
if my post was being referenced that was just the bonus from the domain power and nothing else.I'm more just wondering how they think +6 to attack is a reasonable number for level 12...I'd expect a Wizard or Sorcerer to have at least +8 at that level.
That makes more sense.
|
Healing is being in the game. However if your healing vs. almost any other action. Your late to the game and your team is in a world of hurt. Hope you can pull out a win. However it's not looking good for your side.
Most Paizo adventures are easy enough to accommodate healing characters. It's not like you need an optimized dps team to survive.
I find it an insulting attitude that healing is not "being in the game". Some people might prefer playing a healer type than a damage type.
+10
One of my past characters was an evil Bones oracle (everyone had neg-energy affinity), concentrating on "healing through neg energy" and buffs.
I loved the little guy. I had LOADS of fun keeping everyone up and buffed.
I find it an insulting attitude that healing is not "being in the game". Some people might prefer playing a healer type than a damage type.
no need to feel insultet. I was just thinking that baseing your concept on the others having bad AC seems a bit limited. Compared to buffing them or doing somthing unplesant to the enemy.
What if your party are a dex based magi and daring champ cavalier and a gunslinger?
@cap. Darling: here is the lay out as promised.
The number of rounds that demon subdomain would grant its power is equal to 3+wisdom mod+ a possible favored class bonus of +1/2 to that power. So assuming you only have enough wisdom to keep up with your casting that is 6 rounds per day as a swift action to all melee weapons. The buff time for blessing is a standard action. By the time you have greater bless equipment you can bless two weapons (including allies weapons) for channel dice times two rounds all at the cost of one channel use.
The feat tax comes down to what your willing to invest and how much strength replacement you want. The possible choices are exotic weapon prof, TWF, ITWF, Piranha Strike, Weapon finesse, and three bless equipment feats so 8 max. You can pretty easily take a short sword instead of wakizashi if you want and not take piranha strike to reduce the tax to 6. So im not going to deny that's pretty costly but we can make this easier to bear and ill hit on that later.
Aside from the feat tax the cost of this is pretty low. at the end of the bless equipment chain you only need a number of channels equal to the number of fights you will get in, assuming you even want to use bane that much. If you need some out of combat healing for comfort sake then we can add in 2 or 3 more channels. A charisma of 14 with any trait to give a +1 channel use should be more than enough, maybe even a 12 charisma.
Strength vs dex: Well no one can deny that the number of attacks getting so many different bonuses to damage and accuracy of TWF isn't good in this rare case, BUT no one can deny that a simple two handed weapon is also effective. It will usually come down to paying 1 feat for a solid 2 attack build or paying that 6-8 feats for 4 attacks. I don't think one is superior to the other in a vacuum. What a players priorities are will be the main factor.
Finally... There are archetypes and other domains that can make TWF based off bless equipment and its channeling support...
Thanks. I missed the greater bless equipment then that part is good. I havent seen the idea before.
I dont think out of combat is a thing since a demon worshipper most likely cannot heal his buddies with it. But it looks like it can work quite good.
|
I play a lot of Clerics and divine characters, and as a preference, I go for Good (positive) over Evil (negative). In my experience, Channeling is useful at 1st and 2nd level, but afterwards, WHEN MAXED OUT, tends to go downhill pretty fast.
At 3rd-6thish levels, it's a secondary ability at best. As an Anti-Undead bomb, it leaves a lot to be desired. In most cases, it's just better to do something else instead. There are not a lot of encounters that involve a lot of undead bunched together whose HD is significantly lower than half your level. The fact that it also allows a Will Save is pretty ridiculous, and rather undermines it's general function from the get-go, as that's generally all Undead's best save.
After 6th level, I honestly can't remember the last time I used it for anything except off-screen, after combat healing "Save your charges".
Now, there are a few, and I really do mean a few rare cases where it does come in pretty handy, but that's not really something to base it's value on. Anything and everything will have odd corner cases, and it's very hard to argue that it wouldn't be better to have another Barbarian Power Attacking instead of a healer Channeling.
Paizo really kind of dropped the ball with Channeling, and has generally failed to do much to keep it relevant since the Core book. There are a few rare exceptions here and there, but as a supposedly major "fix" and class feature, Channel Energy is pretty underwhelming after the very lowest levels of play.
Negative Energy, (and again, assuming it's maxed out), can stay a bit more relevant level-wise, but it too pretty quickly just looses it's "omf".
It's really sad that the majority of Channeling related Feats and options just don't actually work together. They instead provide either/or options, which is just poor design.
I'm sorry, but I'd honestly rather have the 3.5 Turn/Rebuke Undead than Channel Energy. At least that was useful more consistently besides being a half charged Staff of Wands of Cure Light Wounds, (yes, I intentionally said Staff of Wands of. . .), and I really wish there where a lot more options to drop it for something cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but do you belive it is a good use of actions to keep one guy in the game instead og being in the game your self?I believe that in normal combats, vs normal AP type foes, Healing can & does keep up with damage dealt by the monsters.
I am unsure what your position is on this. You seem to be on both sides?
Yes, absolutely.
Also bears noting that Channeling gets better when you have more than one party member doing it. If your party has a Cleric, an Oracle of Life, and a Paladin all channeling to damage Undead at the same time, suddenly the paltry damage per channel doesn't seem so funny to the Undead, even if they aren't mere minions, as long as they aren't one of the big bosses. And that's not even talking about Variant Channel fun, but on the other hand, no Selective Channeling required unless one of your allies has the bad luck to have Negative Energy Affinity.
@Renegadeshepherd:
All of that is totally irrelevant to the OP because he's planning a reach cleric and there are no decent finesse reach weapons. Only the whip, which doesn't do real damage and can't make AoOs without substantial feat expenditure and isn't practical for TWF even after paying the tax because it's not a light weapon.
Elven Branched Spear sounds pretty good as a Finessable Reach weapon. What's still missing is Dex-To-Damage for it (not that I'm all that fond of widespread Dex-To-Damage to start with) unless you manage to get the Agile enchantment on it. (Need an Elven Swashbuckler archetype whose modified Swashbuckler Finesse applies to all Finessable weapons that the Elf gains proficiency or martial familiarity with as a racial trait or alternate racial trait -- for a Cleric, you would dip 1 level in this).
* * * * * * * *
Oh, and let me ask again: Why would anyone recommend Channel Smite? I keep going back and re-reading that feat and its Greater version, and it just seems BAD, even when considered as a feat tax for Guided Hand.
Words
Let's actually do the math, shall we? Assuming the equation is 17 -> 19 STR (+1 to hit and damage) in exchange for 12 -> 7 CHA (3 extra channels) as it was in the OP. We assume the cleric is presumably a melee cleric who actually cares about strength, again as with the OP. The pathfinder system is built under the assumption that, for CR = level, there are 4 encounters per day and 20 encounters per level on normal track, for a total of 5 'days' per level. We are going to be looking at this from a party's perspective: is it more cost-worthy to outfit the cleric with weapon/strength enhancements, or with CLW wands?
At 1st level, channel energy does 1d6 healing for an average of 3.5 x 4 = 14 HP healed per use. 3 extra channels per day gives us 42 HP healed per day. Channel energy is free.
A CLW wand gives 1d8+1 healing for 1 person, for an average of 5.5 HP healed per use, with no day limit. The wand costs 750 GP for 50 charges, 15 gp per charge, equal to 2.72 GP per HP healed. However, this is a party cost, not an individual cleric cost, and comes out of the total party wealth per level. If the cleric was to shoulder the burden of CLW wands, it would indeed be very expensive for him!
Thus, using channel energy instead of a CLW wand, and assuming we burn through all of our channels per day (IE none are wasted), we are saving 2.72 x 42 HP = 114.24 of the party's GP per day. 5 'days' per level gives us a saving of 571.2 GP per level. For every two levels gained, CHA 12 saves us an additional 571.2 GP per level. Actually pretty decent, so this won't be a no brainer!
1: 571.2
2: 1142.4
3: 2284.8
4: 3427.2
5: 5140.8
6: 6854.4
7: 9138.4
Party wealth per level and % of wealth spent on CLW wands:
1: ~1000 gp (57%)
2: 4000 gp (28%)
3: 12000 gp (19%)
4: 24000 gp (14%)
5: 42000 gp (12%)
6: 64000 gp (10%)
7: 94000 GP (9%) -- at this point the party should have boots of earth (5k) or other ways of healing for free. Channel is mostly useless from 6th onward and we won't be considering it at higher levels.
Now, let's look at how much the party has to spend on the cleric to break even with a +1 STR mod using weapon enhancements and belts. We'll assume the normal cleric is buying a +1 enhancement equivalent every 2 levels from level 3 onwards. This is generous: the rate of purchase is faster than that.
2: MW weapon = 300 GP
3: +1 weapon = 2000 GP
5: +2 belt = 2000 GP
7: +2 weapon = 8000 GP
9: +4 belt = 8000 GP
11:+3 weapon = 16000 GP
13:+6 belt = 18000 GP
To keep the cleric competitive, the party must thus purchase the next tier upgrade. Thus, at every level we end up with:
Total extra cost per level (and % party WBL):
1: 300 (33%)
2: 2000 (50%)
3: 4000 (33%)
4: 4000 (16%)
5: 12000 (25%)
6: 12000 (18%)
7: 20000 (21%)
So, we can see, over 7 levels that it is more cost-effective for the OP's party to buy him CLW wands and let him dump CHA.
Conclusions
Given a +1 STR MOD trade for -3 CHA MOD it is absolutely worthwhile for a cleric to dump CHA and lose the extra channels in exchange for higher strength. You lose out on level 1, where the party must splash a great deal of resources in order to purchase that first wand, but after that the equation favours dumping CHA. For the OP at least, making yourself stronger at level 1 in exchange for weaker 2-20 is cute, but hardly smart. (sorry, couldn't resist).
However, the equation is not a no-brainer. There are absolutely some situations where you are better off with a bit more CHA, even as a melee cleric. For example, if the party has access to craft weaps/armour but no craft wand or wondrous item (for boots of earth), suddenly the equation becomes pretty even.
Caveats:
1) This assumes the party splits the cost of a CLW wand. If a cleric is expected to shoulder the entire burden of CLW wand charges, it becomes vastly more favourable for the cleric to have some extra CHA to offset healing costs in early levels. Be nice to your heal-capable allies, folks!
2) This assumes that the cleric cares about melee damage and is a positive energy cleric, obviously. A pure caster cleric has a lot more wiggle room and, IMO, should probably think about keeping CHA at 10 or even pumping to 12 if they expect a low-level meatgrinder type game.
3) The above math makes a bunch of assumptions, although where possible I've tried to be favourable towards channel energy (3-to-1 attribute mod trade, assuming every party member takes damage every encounter, assuming the party never ends a day early and thus wastes channels, ignoring the 1.5x two-handed bonus, etc). As these move about you would expect the equation to move in favourability.
4) All of this assumes the game starts at level 1. If you are starting at high levels, pool for a boots of earth and dump CHA down to the pits. You are never going to need channel.
5) PFS works under different assumptions. Given you can buy CLW wands with PP, and there are fewer encounters per level, I would assume the equation in this case would favour CLW over CHA.
DMM in 3.5 at least gave the cleric some options - granted it was a tad OP but at least the devs were thinking in the right direction. A way of using channel points for something else would be really good and at the least give the cleric a bit of a makeover.
A significant part of the problem is that channeling scales terribly and requires feats.... not good when a cleric gets 0 bonus feats!!
|
Playing PFS mainly, my negative channeler (MeriDoc) worked well through 1-14. His main gap was undead filled by command undead at lv 9. His second gap remains constructs. Most everyone else feels the love of Asmodeus and tries to save for half. His primary weapon has been negative energy, backed my a high AC (holy vindicator).
I also heal via heal, Cures, infernal healin, etc. I love saying (to other agents) do you welcome the Love of Amodeaus? (Some say yes) Then be Healed!
I'd have made him an evangelist if it was out way back when I made him.
Okay, but the Life Oracle is basically Paizo's (successful!) attempt at making healing be your "thing" a viable combat role. What works for a Life Oracle does not necessarily work for general use.
Yep! Love my 12th level dual cursed Oracle(life) with reach metamagic. Her only channel feat is selective channel. It doesn't scale, but it does get slightly more use than energy body. I do love those 1d8+13 Cure Light Wounds casts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channeling is fine. But I think that it's a lousy waste to invest into for combat. And for plenty of cleric builds not worth investing into at all.
It needs to be noted that Damage and HP only serve as a function of determining when a fight ends. Win or lose. This is because you fight with the same capacity at 1HP as you do at
I remember going on about this a while ago.
Healing is definitely worth it if you can get more out of it than merely HP replenishment.
If healing can allow your control or damage to finish an enemy immediately (i.e. not four rounds from now), it's worth it.
If healing can produce action advantage (negate a full attack or multiple standard actions with a single standard), it's worth it.
The math that states that damage outweighs healing has merit.
However those defending both healing and damage miss a couple of things.
The math is actually way more complicated/
1st, damage should be calculated as DPR not flat damage. That way it takes into account those things that Dr. Deth continues to mention.
We'll start out simple wiht a level 1 critter out of the bestiary as noted on the chart. We'll give him a good AC at 15.
So if we go with a pretty common 18 strength full bab character utilizing power attack with a greatsword that's about an 8.88 average at first level.
Now we can keep the average from cure light wounds at 5.5.
Now we have to ask ourselves: is a cleric using a longspear better off stabbing or healing?
Because we can't assume a high strength on a cleric. We cna assume a 15 though if they are reasonably expecting to attack. So let's work with that.
With that assumption the dpr is 3.15.
Quite a difference.
But what the characters do is merely half the story.
The other half is what the enemy does.
The chart lists the average damage on a big attack to be around 7 and the attack around 4. Let's work with that.
Let's assume our fighter has an average AC of about 16. We can get 17 but 16 is good enough for our purposes.
The DPR the critter has against our fighter is 3.31
We'll give our cleric the benefit of a doubt and assume his AC is the same.
We can assume our fighter has at least 13 HP.
Our cleric can have 9.
No we know that the monster isn't doing 3.31 damage every round but 7 damage once every three rounds. So, in order for them to drop either the fighter or cleric into the negatives they need at least 4 rounds at most 6 in order to drop them.
That's a lot of time.
So the monster, if focusing on one target will take between 4 and 6 rounds to drop an opponent (2 if they're extremely lucky).
With the monsters expected HP of 15 and our fighters average damage of 16 (8.80 DPR) he only has to get lucky once. He is likely to do that damage at least once over two rounds.
The cleric hits with an average of 7.5 (3.15 DPR) at least once every three rounds.
So what's the best action?
Well if the monster hits once (7 average) the cleric can heal (5.5) negating it down to two damage.
That more than doubles the amount of time it takes for the monster to drop the fighter giving more than enough time for the fighter to do work.
If the monster does not hit than the cleric can move in and deal damage. Unfortunately it won't make any difference in terms of lessening the number of rounds it takes for the monster to drop. However it does work well in serving as a buffer to the possibility of a low damage roll (11 damage) making sure that the fighter gets that vaunted big hit in.
Alternatively depending on class and capability they can work to ensure that the fighter hits. A blass spell increases the dpr of the fighter to 9.68 letting them get that one hit in at least somewhat more likely.
A cleric of Law can use Touch of Order and actually guarantee that first hit and wipe the enemy out completely.
Ultimately, it's rather dependent on what the cleric acn actually do. It's not often as simple as attack vs. heal. The clear winner here is the law cleric who removes the possibility of failure almost completely away from the fighter.
If we sat down and did the math for shield other and channel. Or a life oracle, or if we calculated based on differing classes (barbarian, archers) I firmly believe what you would find is that the answer regarding support is this;
It doesn't depend on you. It depends on what they need vs. what you can do.
Playing support is hard. There are a few things that are pretty universal and other things so situational or so specific as you'll never get much use out of.
Like, theoretically Skalds such be incredible. But I almost never see them played partly because of the narrow conceptual ground. And partly because jsut how many classes really benefit from a +2 str and con anyway??
Anyway, I've spent a bit too long on this, hope this helps.
Good stuff TarkXT!
I would add that like many other "sub-optimal" aspects of the game, it is better to think of something like channel as a tool in your toolbox, rather then a default strategy. Channeling isn't going to win the combat, but it can make other tactics much more powerful. For example, having a group heal option can be combined with summoning a few celestial wolverines to create an absolute blender.
The most important thing to remember is that role playing games are unpredictable. Success is often defined, not by what happens when everything goes according to plan, but by making the most out of the situation you are in.
EDIT: I also don't find the statement, "This is because you fight with the same capacity at 1HP as you do at [full hp]" to be meaningful. While it is technically true, (absolutely true in the case of mindless creatures), being in a condition where any real damage will knock you out of the game until you can be resurrected/restored should cause most thinking creatures to change their tactics dramatically.
Last game I ran, the cleric was a dedicated healer (focused on healing party in combat) and with Selective Channel, was VERY effective.
It can be useful.
It can be a total life saver. If someone drops, instead of using a spell and healing JUST them, you can affect everyone in range.
If you want to play a healer type, put some of your focus towards channeling.
I would for SURE sacrifice 2 pts of STR for 5 points of CHA. I tend to spread my points around in point buy, especially in your case (Clerics dont' have to focus on melee, a +1 hit/damage isn't a huge bonus).
Let me put it like this: If you want to be a reach cleric, drop cha. You don't have room for it on that point buy.
That said, you could also make a healer cleric. In this case, drop str, you'll need those points for Cha and more wisdom.
Channeling isn't something you need to worry about unless you focus on it. A channeling cleric can be quite okay, but a 12 in cha and no feats to support the style does not a channeling cleric make. If you're not a channeling focused cleric, it is a decidedly subpar thing to dedicate resources to.
Don't worry too much about all the debate on here - 'Healing is gud!' vs 'healing no gud!' is a long-raging debate that you got caught up in.
If you don't want to dedicate a trait, cha minimum 15, and at least two feats on it, don't worry about it: you won't lose much by dumping charisma.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dmed a certain mod against a barbarian and two life oracles. I put the barbarian into negatives at round 1.1 the life oracles brought him back to fight with full hitpoints by 1.5 and the barbarian crit kills the monster on 1.9
Math is wonderful as a guide, but not entirely predictive of game play