Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is the cleric's "Channeling" ability a mistake?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Anguish" data-source="post: 5964044" data-attributes="member: 27032"><p>I'm just guessing this is now pouring out of the thread on Paizo's forum, since really, the premise isn't getting much support there. There's a couple die-hard legacy rules supporters but the vast majority seem to accept the new rule.</p><p></p><p>The "need" for Selective Channel isn't one. Many encounters start with more PCs than foes. One a four-on-one or similar combat, being able to heal multiple friendlies simultaneously - even if you're also healing the one foe - is weighted towards the PCs. Even in a multiple-foe situation, by the time the party has taken enough damage that a cleric stops doing <em>offensive</em> actions and starts healing, it's likely that the enemy has been whittled down to small numbers. It doesn't matter that you start at four-on-four... by the time you're nearly dead, you should have eliminated several of your enemies.</p><p></p><p>The same concept applies to the idea that the healing doesn't scale with damage. Yes, by 10th level you're looking at some characters having over 100 hit points, and a cleric is channeling 5d6 for an average of 17.5. The point though is that a cleric is delivering that healing to as much of the party as is within 30ft of him. This is right around when he's getting access to <em>cure light wounds, mass</em>, a spell I have yet to see cast, ever. This is also around the acquisition of <em>heal</em>. If you need to heal large spikes, you use your spells. If your entire party has somehow taken 60+ damage in a couple round combat, you're... doing it wrong.</p><p></p><p>Channel is intended to buy you time, extending a party's durability. It works very, very well in actual play.</p><p></p><p>I don't get the point of these two threads. Paizo isn't going to rescind a rule change three years after publishing it. Doubly so when it's been almost universally accepted for those three years. It really sounds like a couple long-time 3.5 players have recently migrated to Pathfinder and are going through the same distrust we all did during PFRPG beta. We've all had three years to play with these rules and discover they work very well on the table. For you, there's two options... give channel a try at your table, or house-rule. Posting I-don't-like-this-rule threads at this late juncture doesn't really do anything for anyone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Anguish, post: 5964044, member: 27032"] I'm just guessing this is now pouring out of the thread on Paizo's forum, since really, the premise isn't getting much support there. There's a couple die-hard legacy rules supporters but the vast majority seem to accept the new rule. The "need" for Selective Channel isn't one. Many encounters start with more PCs than foes. One a four-on-one or similar combat, being able to heal multiple friendlies simultaneously - even if you're also healing the one foe - is weighted towards the PCs. Even in a multiple-foe situation, by the time the party has taken enough damage that a cleric stops doing [i]offensive[/i] actions and starts healing, it's likely that the enemy has been whittled down to small numbers. It doesn't matter that you start at four-on-four... by the time you're nearly dead, you should have eliminated several of your enemies. The same concept applies to the idea that the healing doesn't scale with damage. Yes, by 10th level you're looking at some characters having over 100 hit points, and a cleric is channeling 5d6 for an average of 17.5. The point though is that a cleric is delivering that healing to as much of the party as is within 30ft of him. This is right around when he's getting access to [i]cure light wounds, mass[/i], a spell I have yet to see cast, ever. This is also around the acquisition of [i]heal[/i]. If you need to heal large spikes, you use your spells. If your entire party has somehow taken 60+ damage in a couple round combat, you're... doing it wrong. Channel is intended to buy you time, extending a party's durability. It works very, very well in actual play. I don't get the point of these two threads. Paizo isn't going to rescind a rule change three years after publishing it. Doubly so when it's been almost universally accepted for those three years. It really sounds like a couple long-time 3.5 players have recently migrated to Pathfinder and are going through the same distrust we all did during PFRPG beta. We've all had three years to play with these rules and discover they work very well on the table. For you, there's two options... give channel a try at your table, or house-rule. Posting I-don't-like-this-rule threads at this late juncture doesn't really do anything for anyone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is the cleric's "Channeling" ability a mistake?
Top