Let's assume you're level 4, with a weapon dealing 1d8+4, and 2d10 Harm damage (with Harming Hands) when cast with the single-action touch version (because you're a Rovagug cleric for some reason). We'll also assume you have a 60% chance to hit your enemy, and that the enemy has a 60% chance to fail its Fort save vs. Harm.
Channel Smite deals, on average:
(4.5+2*5.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=14.625 damage. If it misses, it deals no damage at all.
A single weapon attack deals:
(4.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=6.375 damage
Single-Action Harm cast normally deals:
(2*5.5)*(.15*2+.45+.35/2)=10.175 damage.
Channel Smite lets you deal 14.625 damage on average on two actions (with no damage and a wasted spell on miss), while Strike+Harm deals an average of 16.5 damage (with 5.5 average damage on a miss+noncritical save success).
The advantage of Channel Smite is that it seemingly wouldn't provoke AoOs, but given the rarity of AoOs, that's an extremely unlikely benefit. It might also be somewhat more effective against oozes, but their critical immunity would cancel out the extra to-hit.
I certainly don't see a benefit that could compete with taking another 4th-level feat, or going back for another 1st or 2nd level feat, given that on average Harm+Smite will deal more damage than Channel Smite (and deals semi-guaranteed damage).
If you're a 12 WIS warpriest cleric focused on weapon use it's a way to use spells for damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The advantage is that you get to target AC with the harm spell instead of a fortitude save, this way you can get benefits of buffs like Heroism or even from enemys flat footed and you can avoid enemies that have better saves against magic.
And because of Hero points you can reroll by spending one while making the enemy do a save don't have that option.
If you're a 12 WIS warpriest cleric focused on weapon use it's a way to use spells for damage.
Warpriest is pretty meh compared to Cloistered, but let's leave that discussion aside for now.
Sure, so against the the low-Wis warpriest (12 Wis as opposed to 18 Wis) the monster saves successfully 55% of the time instead of 40%. Now, the Harm deals:
(2*5.5)*(.05*2+.4+.5/2)=8.25 damage
Sum damage of Harm+Strike is then 14.625, exactly the same as Channel Smite. And it doesn't cost a class feat.
The advantage is that you get to target AC with the harm spell instead of a fortitude save, this way you can get benefits of buffs like Heroism or even from enemys flat footed and you can avoid enemies that have better saves against magic.
And because of Hero points you can reroll by spending one while making the enemy do a save don't have that option.
Anything that increases the likelihood that Channel Smite hits also increases the odds of the Strike component of Harm+Strike landing, which reduces the comparative benefit of channel smite (though it doesn't negate it). Also, many effects that you could impose easily (such as Sickened or Frightened) make the enemy more likely to fail a save.
Relying on Hero Points is not a good idea, because you'll likely have only 1 at any given time, which should probably be saved for cheating death.
I'm not saying Channel Smite can't do more damage in specific scenarios, but it's extremely situational and is competing with options that aren't (e.g. I could go back and pick Weapon Surge as a domain spell so my weapon attack also hits harder - Someone using Channel Smite would be forced to choose between this OR Harming Hands).
If you're a 12 WIS warpriest cleric focused on weapon use it's a way to use spells for damage.Warpriest is pretty meh compared to Cloistered, but let's leave that discussion aside for now.
Sure, so against the the low-Wis warpriest (12 Wis as opposed to 18 Wis) the monster saves successfully 55% of the time instead of 40%. Now, the Harm deals:
(2*5.5)*(.05*2+.4+.5/2)=8.25 damageSum damage of Harm+Strike is then 14.625, exactly the same as Channel Smite. And it doesn't cost a class feat.
No no, it's way better than that. Besides the fact that casting and striking incur the MAP.
Edit: nevermind, touch range spells don't always require spell attack rolls in this edition, huh.
You 'Make a melee Strike and add the spell’s damage to the Strike’s damage.'
So, add harm damage dice, no save.
The only issue I've found with it, is there are a lot of cleric feats referencing casting harm/heal, which don't apply to channel smite.
If you're a 12 WIS warpriest cleric focused on weapon use it's a way to use spells for damage.Warpriest is pretty meh compared to Cloistered, but let's leave that discussion aside for now.
Sure, so against the the low-Wis warpriest (12 Wis as opposed to 18 Wis) the monster saves successfully 55% of the time instead of 40%. Now, the Harm deals:
(2*5.5)*(.05*2+.4+.5/2)=8.25 damageSum damage of Harm+Strike is then 14.625, exactly the same as Channel Smite. And it doesn't cost a class feat.
No no, it's way better than that. Besides the fact that casting and striking incur the MAP.
You 'Make a melee Strike and add the spell’s damage to the Strike’s damage.'
So, add harm damage dice, no save.
The only issue I've found with it, is there are a lot of cleric feats referencing casting harm/heal, which don't apply to channel smite.
I know how the feat works, and that there isn't a save against it. I included that in my calculations.
(4.5+2*5.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=14.625No saving throw in that equation, only chance to hit.
Harm+Strike doesn't have a worse MAP than Channel Smite. Harm doesn't have the attack trait, so it neither suffers from nor increases the MAP. Whether you Channel Smite or Harm+Strike, you will be at a -5 MAP.
And as you pointed out, Harm+Strike benefits from feats that affect casting the Harm spell, while Channel Smite doesn't.
Okay, but have you looked into level 3+ harm +strike compared to channel smite?
I get that it may be useless at level 4, but what about level 11 for a warpriest?
Sure, let's do the math on that. At 11th level, our warpriest has a +2 striking weapon, dealing 2d8+7 damage. Thanks to his Expertise and stat increases keeping him in line with monster AC, the +2 on the weapon means he now has a 70% chance to hit, 20% to crit. His Harm deals 6d10 now, and Expert keeps him in line on the save DC. However, he has also used ability score increases to raise his Wisdom to 16, meaning monsters succeed only 45% of the time on saves, instead of 55%.
Strike:
(2*4.5+7)*(.5+.2*2)=14.4 damage
Harm:
(6*5.5)*(.45+.1*2+.4/2)=28.05 damage
Channel Smite:
(2*4.5+7+6*5.5)*(.5+.2*2)=44.1 damage
Harm+Strike deals 42.45 to Channel Smite's 44.1
However, the Harm+Strike combo can be boosted with Divine Weapon (6th level), which won't help our Channel Smiter (you get the extra damage as a free action after casting a spell, Harm in this case). This boosts the average (assuming Force damage) to:
(2*4.5+7+2.5)*(.5+.2*2)=16.65 damage
Meaning our Harm+Strike deals 44.7 damage now.
As far as I can tell, all the feats from 6th-10th help a Harm+Striker as much as or more than a Channel Smiter, there just isn't really any love on the Channel Smite option.
Does channel smite have manipulate?
It's MUCH easier to increase your chances at landing a strike compared to lowering monster Fort saves. A simple flat footed as an example.
So smite has a much higher ceiling.
Also, haven't really looked at spells, but doesn't casting require a free hand?
If that's the case then that's another major point in favor of smite.
Only material component casting actions require a free hand, somatic components can be done by waving around stuff in your hands.
Somantic Actions have the manipulate trait. So you would be avoiding a potential AoO.
Also, the base assumption could be expanded to look at a range of ACs. We also don't know what the average Fort Save for a creature at a given level is, presumably if they're a "front liner" it'll be higher.
Also, as everyone has said, increasing your chance to hit, via buffs and debuffs greatly favors Channel Smite, as your chance to hit and crit goes up.
Channel smite also literally don't care what your Wis modifier is, where as Strike + Harm is more MAD. Channel Smite only wants 1 thing... STRENGTH
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is that channel smite also operates on your melee attack proficiency, which is at best expert, that's effectively a -2 to hit as compared to normal melees. If you consider that you get legendary proficiency in spells from cloistered cleric, it's -4 relative to that...
There's also no way to get this as a multiclass I believe, as it requires harming/healing font, and multiclassing, as it turns out, really can't give you what you want from another class sometimes.
We're comparing a cleric to a cleric, not a cleric that's comparing themselves to another Martial. So I think the fact they only get "expert" in a weapon is moot.
The cloistered cleric doesn't get Master until 15th, and for the Warpriest not until 19th. (In casting)
So the relative -2 to -4 (master vs Legendary) only applies to mega high level characters.
The Strength of Channel smite is that it scales on to-hit.
Got a bard in the party beltiong some tunes? Channel Smite is better.
Got into flanking position? Channel smite is better.
Multi-classed to give yourself True Strike? Channel Smite.
If the enemy you strike is immune to negative/positive damage nothing gets expended.
No attacks of opportunity.
Not to mention it's dope A F to roll just a garbage pile of dice.
Edit: Also, if you have a reach weapon you wouldn't be able to Strike + Cast Harm for the same number of actions.
A single weapon attack deals:
(4.5+4)*(.45+.15*2)=6.375 damage
Also OP's math is off slightly, If you're hitting 60% of the time your average damage for a D8 and 4 str should be 5.95 not 6.375 damage.
A 60% chance to hit would mean you need a 9 on the die, meaning you would crit on a 19 or 20, only giving you a 10% chance to crit, not 15%.
I loosely agree with the Harm numbers. I'm not sure I agree that someone failing on a 14 is equivalent to hitting on a 9.
That puts the Strike + Harm at 16.125, with a channel smite doing
13.65
Strike + Harm + Flanking = 17.825
Channel Smite + Flanking = 17.55
Strike + Harm + 3 instead of just +2 = 18.675
Channel smite + 3 = 19.5
If you have a bard belting tunes and you're flanking you will do more damage Channeling Smite. And again, I'm not sure I agree with the underlying assumption of needing to roll a 15 on a fort save to success is equivalent to needing a 9 to hit.
Upon further reflection, I think Channel smite is actually a lot better than anyone here is willing to sit down and do the math for. Also, OP's average damage for a 60% chance to fail the save is wrong, and also super unlikely
Lets assume you're the type of cleric that wants to hit stuff, and use Channel Smite. The max your Wis is going to be at Level 4 is a +3. You're trained in spell proficiency.
So at 4th level your DC is going to be (10 base, +4 level, +3 wis, +2 trained) for a total of a DC of 19.
In order for someone to have a 60% chance to fail (50% chance to fail and a 10% chance to critically fail) a creature would need NO Con mod. They would at least be trained (that puts them at a +6), meaning they succeed on a 13+.
Having recalculated my numbers to be correct OP's initial assumptions are true. A Strike + a Harm is better than Channeled smite... Until you flank, and then Channel Smite is better.
And that's nothing to say how that shakes out if they DO have a Con mod, or are Expert in Fortitude (which I imagine many front liners would have).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skimming through the Bestiary it takes effort to find a Creature between level 2 and 4 that has a Fortitude save of less than +7. A front-liner at level 4 is more likely to have a save of +10 - +12, so N O T E V E N C L O S E.
Where as our to-hit calculation needs an AC of 19; plenty of those between levels 2 and 4.
The monsters I found were Dhampir and Ghast, who had a Fort of +6 or less, and WERENT level 1.
So Channel Smite is actually, super good. Especially at lower levels.
Agreed, and I think the point is Warpriest is intended to be played with STR>WIS.
Like if somebody thinks CC is more powerful overall, that's fine whatever,
but if you are trying to be a good Warpriest you want to play to what it does better than CC, not just be worse CC in Armor. Wearing armor you already need STR to not be Slowed, so putting some more into be equal or higher than WIS is not a reach. Like people say, there's plenty of Cleric spells that are useful without high WIS, and Channel Smite gives them one more. Add Flanking and vaporize away...