Belobog's page

Does this mean my Aasimar paladin can keep her Celestial Gryphon? : p

Joking aside, I feel that having a permanent mount would be a fantastic change. Making them more like Animal Companions, though...I'm more wary on that, depending on what it means. I think Quandary's is a nice way to go about that (I've always wondered why Mounts don't get the grace bonus, though it might be because they get SR and improved Evasion, I think), and the gating in of a mount sounds like a nice idea...as long as they can gate out, as well.

Can't comment on the look-out aspect of leaving a mount in front of a dungeon, Anthem the gryphon got tons of action.

CharlieRock wrote:

I always thought the lay on hands should heal a bit more.

If Lay on Hands (and the other paladin abilities), used Channel Energy instead, I'd say that would give us a good starting point on how much extra HP could be healed. i.e. If a Channeling can normally heal or damage everything in a set radius, I'd have it do increased healing when it's restricted to just one target via LoH. Same thing goes if they used channeling to power the smite. This would certainly make how a holy warrior channels energy be unique from how a priest does so and it would give them more flexibility.

The more I think about this, the better it seems to get. However, it requires a pretty big overhaul of everything, especially how we judge the use of Channeling Energy, and how much it should be used. Under this rule, a paladin would have to be better at Channeling Energy than the Cleric is, since now she would rely on that one pool for no less than three different abilities. Then again, maybe that's how it should be, since Clerics have full casting.

Anyway, since regular Channeling does 1d6 damage per two levels, would it be right to say that LoH would double that to 2d6 , and that Smite...hmmm...Smite seems like it would be a problem. Don't know about you, but if Channeling would end up doing 10d6 in damage or healing [a set 60, if we factor in the end-all paladin ability, though the paladin we have now can;t get that high without items], and smite is traditionally +1 damage/level, does it really feel worth it to use up a potential channelling of 10d6 points of damage/healing to deal an additional 20 damage to one attack?

Regarding the above, I should probably add an addendum that such a tactic requires that it would harm your opponents, if only for clarity's sake (though, with Outsider Turning and Elemental Turning, that could find a fair amount of use).

Allowing a Domain option for Paladins (gaining 2 Domains like a Cleric), along with Weapon and Mount, also works with this type of Feat.

I agree with Quandary's thoughts: even if it's just the domain powers, the option would work out both flavor-wise and mechanics-wise. However, I'm in favor of it because I find the divine weapon half of Divine Bond lacking; honestly, it just doesn't seem like enough. The fact that paladins have spells that enchant weapons for them makes this bonus seem lackluster [Admittedly, they aren't great, but they're there, and retooling them is a different topic]. At level 20, you can get an effective +6 weapon; at level 13, you could have an effective +7 weapon for the five rounds that will last you through a combat, in most cases. At the end of the day, it means that I'm probably going with the warhorse [or maybe some other mount that I might have to wait a level or two for].

Now, I can appreciate that it would save money for other things, especially if it lasts and lasts and lasts, as noted with the absense of a duration per use, but it just doesn't seem as worthwhile as a cohort that lets me ride on its back. And there are other class abilities that seem suspect (you get Break Enchantment as a spell two levels before it becomes available through Lay On Hands), but this is just my opinion; that something will have to give, and that it's going to be the weapon half of Divine Bond.

So yeah, totally pulling for the domain thing over here.

The fact that paladins can cast Heal through Lay on Hands makes the feasibly of practical instant death for undead through sheer force of positive energy even more possible than it ever was before. I do agree that the amount healed is very small; since paladins have to spend multiple uses for most abilities anyway, I don't see a problem with letting them spend multiple uses for a greater healing capacity at lower levels.

That, and the new Channeling rules make healing pretty plentiful. Turning Smite makes for a good combat heal, since you can use it to hurt a large number of enemies and still heal your allies.

The big argument I see against Half-Orc getting Wisdom seems to be 'it doesn't fit the old stuff'. Well, of course it doesn't fit the old stuff. This is supposed to be a break from all that. Personally, I'm in favor of the new Half-Orc, and yes, most of my reasons are from a player's standpoint. By making sure a race is fun to play and balanced with its peers, it becomes easier to become involved in the game with that character, encourages finding ideas for role-playing with that character, and most importantly, keeps a person coming to the table. That seems more important to me than the ancient history of the orcs, and really, maybe it's time that half-orcs became something more than just 'tall, dumb and ugly'.

If anything, the half-elves look like they could use a retooling, right now. Don't need two races that have floating stat bonuses, let alone three.