Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6005802" data-attributes="member: 1465">I don't even understand what it the real purpose of Channel Divinity at the moment.In the previous iteration it seemed that it was meant as a generalization of Turn Undead, in fact it allowed (a) turn undead and (b) healing allies, and it was a few times per day, which is a good extension to your other magic powers (spells at 1st level were less per day than channeling).But now it only allows (b) and it's only 1/day IIRC... What does it add to the game? Nearly nothing, it's almost redundant. Because of this, I am quite sure that channel divinity is far from its final form... it will certainly be revised and expanded later on.Making it domain-dependent sounds like a good idea to me, it helps once more differentiating clerics of different deities. However it could be deity-based instead (if deities are supposed to have more than 1 domain for the cleric to choose from), so that all clerics of a deity have always at least something in common.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6005802, member: 1465"] I don't even understand what it the real purpose of Channel Divinity at the moment. In the previous iteration it seemed that it was meant as a generalization of Turn Undead, in fact it allowed (a) turn undead and (b) healing allies, and it was a few times per day, which is a good extension to your other magic powers (spells at 1st level were less per day than channeling). But now it only allows (b) and it's only 1/day IIRC... What does it add to the game? Nearly nothing, it's almost redundant. Because of this, I am quite sure that channel divinity is far from its final form... it will certainly be revised and expanded later on. Making it domain-dependent sounds like a good idea to me, it helps once more differentiating clerics of different deities. However it could be deity-based instead (if deities are supposed to have more than 1 domain for the cleric to choose from), so that all clerics of a deity have always at least [I]something[/I] in common. [/QUOTE]

Verification