Channel smite confusion

[Ectar]

I don't get the channel smite feat. Why would you ever use it? You spend 2 actions to smite and deal extra damage equal to your hear/harm, at the cost of using a usage of channel.
I fail to see how it's any better than just casting heal/harm then striking. Because harm doesn't have the attack trait (possibly an oversight?), it doesn't incur multiple attack penalty. So casting harm then striking deals basically the same as channel smite for the same amount of resources, without costing a feat.

[Alric Rahl]

Resistances comes to mind. Adding the damage of heal/harm to a melee strike makes its one damage calculation instead of two. But beyond that definitely not that great.

[Drejk]

Ectar wrote:

I don't get the channel smite feat. Why would you ever use it? You spend 2 actions to smite and deal extra damage equal to your hear/harm, at the cost of using a usage of channel.

I fail to see how it's any better than just casting heal/harm then striking. Because harm doesn't have the attack trait (possibly an oversight?), it doesn't incur multiple attack penalty. So casting harm then striking deals basically the same as channel smite for the same amount of resources, without costing a feat.

You might not want to cast a spell for some reason - either the opponent has an attack of opportunity or readied action to strike against spell.

It doesn't seem to be terribly useful, though... If it gained some sort of bonus when channeled through weapon over casting and attacking separately it might be better.

[Ectar]

Drejk wrote:

Ectar wrote:

I don't get the channel smite feat. Why would you ever use it? You spend 2 actions to smite and deal extra damage equal to your hear/harm, at the cost of using a usage of channel.

I fail to see how it's any better than just casting heal/harm then striking. Because harm doesn't have the attack trait (possibly an oversight?), it doesn't incur multiple attack penalty. So casting harm then striking deals basically the same as channel smite for the same amount of resources, without costing a feat.

You might not want to cast a spell for some reason - either the opponent has an attack of opportunity or readied action to strike against spell.

It doesn't seem to be terribly useful, though... If it gained some sort of bonus when channeled through weapon over casting and attacking separately it might be better.

The point about attacks of opportunity are valid. Though, with only @20% of playtestiary monsters having AoOs, I still don't know if this is worth a feat.

[bwee]

It also prevents you from using the Life Sapping power