Talk:Channeler (5e Class)

I am open to feedback about this class.

Well, it's not awful, which makes a change.

Please can spell names be in lower case italics.

For Divine Awareness, does the lie have to be spoken in a language you can understand?

Blinding Gaze - No action, at-will, I guess you can just repeatedly use this until everyone you want is semi-permanently blind?

Invocations could do with writing out properly. Marasmusine (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2016 (MDT)

Thank you for the feedback. I've made some changes that were suggested.

Are there going to be any more archetypes? Or is there only going to be the one?

Review

OK, so the concept behind this is just a divine version of the warlock. Why make it into a full class? Could this not have been done by just adding a Divine Patron? That doesn't exist on the wiki yet, as far as I can tell, nor does it exist in the PHB or DMG.

   Divine patron was not quite enough.

I would drop perception as a proficiency. There is a reason it is extremely uncommon. It should really only be made accessible to character options which have a good reason to have developed that quality as a skill.

   The angelic nature of this build makes perception a main attribute of the class

This class gives you the possibility of taking proficiency with a greatsword or longbow, and may give you a greatsword or longbow. For some reason, it allows for a build where you have proficiency with one, but carry the other. Why? What value does this hold? Never make the assumption that a player will only ever make optimal choices, and you should avoid creating starting build options which are clearly dysfunctional. I'm not even sure why this class has the greatsword/longbow thing. It's a warlock-based divine caster.

   Angels use greatswords and longbows.  This is a class that is channeling the power of an angel.

Perhaps switch out one of the packs for a priest's pack, for flavor reasons. I'd like to see a class that only gives scholar or priest packs, because then you don't have the option of a survivalist build.

    Easy enough.  Not sure it's important though.

It can give you chainmail, which is heavy armor, even though you are a caster and do not have heavy armor proficiency. What good is this build option?

    At one time it had heavy armor proficiency.  People edit it freely and sometimes make changes that don't match with the original intent.  A greatsword build is a melee combatant and would choose chain mail.

I do not intend to go any farther with this review. It already has glaring errors showing a lack of foresight, and the whole class is just an overly wordy variant of a class, which could have been done with a simple homebrew archetype.

   Go ahead and create a home brew archetype if that is what you wish.  No need to criticize.

--Kydo (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2016 (MDT)

changes

There have been so many edits to this that many of the changes were far from what was originally intended. People change numbers, invocations, and class skills freely when the class was based on an angelic build.

Hello! Please read Help:Spirit and Intent. If you feel people are not respecting each others' ideas, or the premise of this page, then it should be discussed here. I also noticed a lot of edits are being done by IP users, which is often a sign of vandalism. I'd have to examine the individual edits to identify that though. --Kydo (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2016 (MDT)

I restored the Archangel and Great Wyrm archetypes. The Archangel was the original archetype and was the reason I built this class. The Great Wyrm seems a good idea for a patron for a Warlock. More patrons can't hurt.

I originally removed those archetypes because they're too... specific, I guess. The idea behind that Warlock's patrons is that they're mysterious and vague, but also extremely powerful. The Archangel was sort of absorbed into the Divine with my modifications. But, this is your class, so do as you will.--Busterwilde3 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2017 (MST)

I like the Divine but it did seem too vague and mysterious. I guess you are right that the Patrons of the Warlock do tend to be vague like that. I figured leave them both since different folks like different concepts. I like the idea of a Patron Archangel and the Divine seemed a little too amorphous and vague but that might just be what a Warlock is all about.Dradamh (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2017 (MST)

Balance

There are some pretty glaring balance issues going on here, particularly with the invocations and covenant favors. You've basically taken the warlock boons has for the favors and ramped them up in power. Truly unnecessary. And the invocations are more than a little imbalanced. Fly speed of 150'? Teleport 30' literally whenever you want (Misty Step is a BONUS action)? Truesight? Invisibility all the time? Absolutely immune to mind reading and resistance to psychic damage and reflect psychic damage (all in one)? If people are making these changes, just undo them. Reel this stuff in. If you're the one who made this stuff, you really need to consider why none of this was available to the vanilla warlock. This is HUGELY imbalanced.

Also, from a flavor standpoint, I'm incredibly disappointed that none of the invocations affect the favors directly. That was one of the most interesting things about pact boons. Here it's just a bunch of really overpowered invocations that have no connection to the favors whatsoever.

Busterwilde3 (talk)

Agreed. The page has been given a needsbalance template stating as much. Busterwilde3, if you see any other pages with significant balance issues, please do not hesitate to mark them with an appropriate template. It isn't rude, it's just collaborative organization. To resolve the frequent vandalism issue, I have protected the page so only named users may edit it. Since you seem to have a solid understanding of the issues on this page, better than I do at least, I would suggest you take the initiative in making the necessary changes to bring it more in-line with precedent. --Kydo (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2016 (MST)

I will do as I can. I have SOME experience writing these things up (see Summoner, Alternate), and this is just supposed to be a divine take on the Warlock. SHouldn't be too hard to reel it back in to some sort of semblance of "balanced." If the creator dislikes my changes, however, well, at least I can say I tried. --Busterwilde3 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2016 (MST)Busterwilde3 (talk)

Eh, the wiki is flexible, and records every change that has ever happened permanently. Anything can be reverted and repaired with ease. There's no reason to be timid. Besides, if they disagree with something, we can always chat about it here on the talk page and invent some sort of compromise. :) --Kydo (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2016 (MST)

Thanks for the help. The most annoying was when people would change the table giving the class more invocations or more spell slots. I saw others ramping up powers. Wiki is great in that it allows for collaborative efforts but each person has a different idea of what is and isn't balanced.Dradamh (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2017 (MST)

You're quite welcome. I understand where you're coming from. I've been keeping a pretty tight grip on the Summoner page I wrote up. Any changes that are made without first discussing what people think should be changed are immediately undone. Thankfully, there have only been a few attempts.--Busterwilde3 (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2017 (MST)

Editing

Currently in the process of editing everything. I'm trying to make it functionally different to the vanilla Warlock in ways that wouldn't be possible if it was just another patron, while keeping it fundamentally the same. I'll keep making revisions throughout the week. --Busterwilde3 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2016 (MST)

Okie dokie. Pretty much done. Basically ended up rewriting it from start to finish, but I feel like I kept the spirit of the original idea alive. Feedback appreciated.--Busterwilde3 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2016 (MST)