I'm not talking about the Channel feats like Smite or whatever. I'm talking about stuff like metamagic. Why is there no Empowered, Maximized or Extended Channel effect?
In 3.5 there were channel feats that cost extra "per day" uses to activate. That could
WORk.
Channel Smite, Alignment Channel, Versatile Channeling.
Then again, if you start going into optimizing channeling you start a path down a very scary road that leads to things like Divine Feats.
I don't know; spend 3 uses and channel smite 5d6 maximized through your melee attack? That sounds kind of fun...
Because it's really nothing like spells. It works basically just like all the other class SLA abilities you get 3+ ability mod a day. They do the exact same thing but get better as you level. Those don't have meta feats either.
They should.
They are class abilities, a wizard should be able to train to cast stronger rays of frost.
Because it's really nothing like spells. It works basically just like all the other class SLA abilities you get 3+ ability mod a day. They do the exact same thing but get better as you level. Those don't have meta feats either.
You mean like Quicken Spell-Like Ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I agree that Empowerment, etc. are a bit much for channeling, it would be neat to see a few feats that add environmental effects to it. For instance, a feat that requires channeling negative energy, and lowers the light conditions one step in the area when you channel (if you wish it); or one that creates effects like wind wall or bless, probably with a one-round duration...
Not quite the same, but there are variant Channel rules that create secondary effects at the expense of dice of Channel.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/variant-channeling
Very welcome.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its Su for one and it doesn't replicate a spell. Quicknen spell like ability iirc is a monster feat. Are you a monster?
Humans are the real monsters.
Its Su for one and it doesn't replicate a spell. Quicknen spell like ability iirc is a monster feat. Are you a monster?
According to the PRD, "Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct)."
So, outside of house rules (such as in PFS), there is no reason why a player cannot take a "Monster Feat" as long as they can meet the prerequisites.
You are correct, though; these cannot apply to Channel Energy, because it is Supernatural. Which is really its main saving grace -- it doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The damage/healing really isn't all that great. It can be useful for topping a group off after a fight, but some Wands of Cure Light Wounds can do the same.
My point is that these sorts of feats exist for many similar abilities, and that's not overpowered. It also would not be overpowered to have similar feats that affect Channeling; many of the SLAs that are possible to Quicken are far more useful with far less investment than Channeling.
Various third party sources give you metamagiced channel abilities. Look around; I think TPK games just did a book on clerics with them, for example. They went the route of costing extra channels IIRC.
Most apply specifically to monsters and Some players might qualify in no way = no reason they can't take it as long as they meet prereqs. I love these leaps in interpretation of the rules that people jump to.
How on earth is that a "leap in interpretation"? The book specifically notes that players may qualify for those feats.
The monster feat Improved Natural Attack was errata'ed to disallow applying it to unarmed attacks specifically to prevent Monk players from taking it.
There is nothing to suggest anywhere that a player cannot take these feats unless Rule 0 is invoked (which can happen for any feat). The closest you'll get is that it is disallowed in PFS, but PFS is full of house rules to ease organized play, such as banning magic item creation feats -- which are clearly intended for player use.
No one is saying EVERY character DEFINITELY qualifies for those feats. "some characters might qualify for Empower Spell-Like Ability feat" is the same as saying "some characters might qualify for Combat Reflexes feat". Not every character qualifies for the Combat Reflexes feat, just like not all characters qualify for the Empower Spell-Like Ability feat. Why? Because not everyone meets the prerequisites.
Does a gnome qualify for Empower Spell-Like Ability? Technically, yes. Once he reaches 6th level, he is very much qualifies to take the feat (though Quicken would be the better choice), even though none of his spell-like abilities really benefit from being Empowered. A gnome (or aasimar, oread, etc) can qualify for the Empower Spell-Like Ability feat. A human cannot.
Hence, the "some might". Not all gnomes qualify for the feat (low charisma, exchanged the magic racial ability for something else).
But, as for more on topic... There have been 3pp that have created "metamagic" like feats for Channeling, and use extra uses in place of increased level of spell slot. But, they are 3pp, and not everyone allows those in their game. Will Paizo ever introduce them? High chance of NO for that one, I am sure.
I'm not talking about the Channel feats like Smite or whatever. I'm talking about stuff like metamagic. Why is there no Empowered, Maximized or Extended Channel effect?
There already is Quick Channel (~Quickened), Improved Channel (increase the DC of the saving throw), Elemental Channel, Alignment Channel, Channeled Revival...And the Channel Force tree lets you shape the area of the channel, move enemies around with, etc.
Is there a specific effect you are looking for?
Several class archetypes alter how channel works, but without an idea of what you're trying to do, it's hard to suggest one.
How about something like Focused Channel?
Focused Channel:You are able to focus your divine energies on a single target and strengthen the damage done/healed by +2d6.
No. That is not what it is saying. Again extremely loose interpretation to suit player wants. It would be redundant and unecessary to state that some people may qualify once they meet the pre reqs. It even tells you before most apply specifically to monsters then goes on to give how there may be exceptions to that rule. Reading those sentences as nonrelated is ridiculous. Without stating it in each prereq description its stating that a prereq to these feats is that you are a monster unless given permission otherwise and in special circumstances.
I think you have a rather obtuse viewpoint on what this sentence (Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct) ) is actually saying. Let's do a rundown of the available monster feats on the PRD:
Ability Focus: Prerequisite of a "special attack" (such as poison). Almost no PC race qualifies, but a grippli would.
Awesome Blow: Gotta be Large+ with Str 25 plus a couple other feats. No PC race qualifies unless they are permanently Enlarged.
Craft Construct: Specifically called out as a feat PCs can qualify for.
Empower Spell-Like Ability: Prerequisite of having a SLA at caster level 6+. A gnome, aasimar, ifrit, suli, and many others qualify for this feat when they reach 6th level.
Flyby Attack: A very rare number of PC races qualify, with aasimar at level 10+ with the Angel Wings feat being the more widely available race. Some sorcerer bloodlines would let you take this feat, mostly at 15+ level.
Hover: Same as Flyby Attack above.
Improved Natural Armor: Depending on your definition of who actually has Natural Armor (some people would say anyone can, as every race is counted as having Nat Armor +0), not many races can qualify. Half-orcs or dwarves with the Ironhide feat would qualify, as would a dragon bloodline sorcerer.
Improved Natural Attack: A very small few would qualify for it, though a "toothy" half-orc could. As would a beast totem barbarian.
Multiattack: Even fewer have 3+ natural attacks.
Quicken Spell-Like Ability: see Empower SLA above.
Snatch: No PC race qualifies for this, as it requires Huge+ size.
Wingover: Same as Flyby Attack.
You are well within your rights to say NO to these feats for your players. And most CONSIDERATE players would ask their GM before taking a feat listed in the Bestiary. Most of these feats were created back when ONLY monsters had any of the prerequisites of these feats. Now, we have races with spell-like abilities, natural armor, natural attacks, wings, and special attacks (like poison). If you only go for CRB, then only the gnome and a permanently Enlarged character could hope to qualify for any of these feats, besides Craft Construct. Most PCs won't bother with Craft Construct as most constructs in the Beastiary 1 are golems that cost 75k+ gp to create.
Anyway, that's getting way off topic for the original purpose of this thread.
The rules state that you may take a feat if you meet the prerequisites. There are specific exceptions to this that are called out; for example, Fighters may only take Combat feats as their bonus feats.
In this particular case, the rules do not explicitly say that players cannot take these feats. If that were the intent, it would take less page space to simply say, "These feats are specifically for monsters." Instead, it notes that some players may qualify for them. That's a rather pointless thing to say unless the intent is to note that some players can take these feats.
Furthermore, by looking at this thread, you can see that developers have stated that PCs can take these feats. In this post, James Jacobs says that, "It looks like, yes indeed, a monk can take the Improved Natural Attack feat to boost his unarmed strike damage." Shortly thereafter, in this post, he says that they've changed their minds (due to the difference in damage) and will be issuing errata to prevent Monks from increasing their damage that way. There's no point at all to that errata unless we accept the premise that PCs can take monster feats if they meet the prerequisites.
If I, as GM, decide that Wizards cannot take any feats in the Combat category, even if they meet the prerequisites, on the basis that Wizards are not a combat class, that's perfectly okay. It is well within my right to do so, due to Rule 0. However, it is still very much a house rule.
Banning feats from the "Monster" category is equivalent. It's totally okay, and in some cases may increase player enjoyment. But it's not what the book says, and is therefore a house rule.
I dont think channeling was really intended to be a primary damage or healing option. There is a feat that allows you to channel as a move action. With that you can channel twice in one round.
I have posted before with my troubles with Channeling. The PF version doesn't have the 'Omf' of the 3.5 version.
1.3.5 cannot heal but has both Turn and Destroy rolled in without needing to feat tax. It is effectivly a save or suck
2.PF version can heal and harm but undead have a saving throw and turn resistance. Will save is quite often the strong save so feat tax and specific domains must be chosen. Turn undead must be chosen seperately. Plus another feat must be chosen to avoid healing enemies and it is either harm or heal(So no healing your party while burning the undead)
Saying not allowing it is a houserule is just plain silly. Look at how it is qualified.
MOST apply SPECIFICALLY to monsters. SOME players MIGHT qualify I no way equates to you get it unless someone houserules it otherwise.
this means its for monsters but a few might be allowed to have it which means you probably won't get them unless your dm makes an exception.
I don't know how people twists these sentences changing some and might to all and definitely.
I'm not sure how you twist that into meaning 'never'.
'Some characters might qualify' means 'the prerequisites for some may not be easily accessible to PCs'.
If a PC does meet the prerequisites, there is no reason they can't take it.
It's as dumb as 99% of the racial requirements in the game.
I'm not talking about the Channel feats like Smite or whatever. I'm talking about stuff like metamagic. Why is there no Empowered, Maximized or Extended Channel effect?For the same reason you want it that badly... It would be THAT good.
There are archetypes that affect channeling, and feats that increase the uses of it.
It would not be that good, it certainly will not be better than the metamagic feats and rods.
Though I agree that Empowerment, etc. are a bit much for channeling, it would be neat to see a few feats that add environmental effects to it. For instance, a feat that requires channeling negative energy, and lowers the light conditions one step in the area when you channel (if you wish it); or one that creates effects like wind wall or bless, probably with a one-round duration...Not quite the same, but there are variant Channel rules that create secondary effects at the expense of dice of Channel.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/variant-channeling
I like that Channel got some interesting effects with the Variant channeling, though scaling of bonuses/penalties seems to make some pretty worthless. And then you Ale/Wine's channel negative which is potentially NAUSEATING every enemy around you. Seems like they could have been thought out a little better at times.
Seems like they could have been thought out a little better at times.
This can be said about a great many things in the game.
Seems like they could have been thought out a little better at times.This can be said about a great many things in the game.
I can't argue with that.
1.3.5 cannot heal but has both Turn and Destroy rolled in without needing to feat tax. It is effectivly a save or suckAnd it sucks for the party when they have to chase down the fleeing enemy.
Psh, yeah if you're some kind of wuss that doesn't worship the Sun's gross incandescence. \O/
I have posted before with my troubles with Channeling. The PF version doesn't have the 'Omf' of the 3.5 version.
1.3.5 cannot heal but has both Turn and Destroy rolled in without needing to feat tax. It is effectivly a save or suck
I'd rather have an ability that is almost always useful (healing) over one that may not be useful at all due to a limited target range.
|
Channeling Energy is a Supernatural Ability - and for what it's worth, 3.5's Tome of Magic, which introduced Pact Magic, included "metasupernatural" feats that let you Empower/Maximize/Quicken/Enlarge etc. such abilities 1/day (and I believe more, if you took the same feat multiple times over); the prerequisites are having such an ability (or being able to acquire one, such being the function of Pact Magic) and a certain number of Hit Dice.
You mean like Quicken Spell-Like Ability and Empower Spell-Like Ability?Because it's really nothing like spells. It works basically just like all the other class SLA abilities you get 3+ ability mod a day. They do the exact same thing but get better as you level. Those don't have meta feats either.
Forget about it being a monster feat, the requirements are:
"The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 2. For a summary, see the table in the description of the Quicken Spell-Like Ability."
What's the level of spell that Channel duplicates?
Channel is Su, not Sp so Quicken and Empower Spell Like Abilities don't apply.
It would be nice to do something, anything, to make channel do more than just a flat nd6 healing. nd6+<something> or <maximized> nd6 would be really useful.
You may want to read a bit closer to what you are replying. The first quote by MattR1986, is saying "Those (spell-like abilities) don't have meta feats either." In which ZZTRaider, the one you are replying to, gives examples of feats that DO meta spell-like abilities. He is not saying those feats can apply to Channeling.
I'm not talking about the Channel feats like Smite or whatever. I'm talking about stuff like metamagic. Why is there no Empowered, Maximized or Extended Channel effect?
For the same reason that the DC of Channeling never goes up. The Devs don't like Channeling.