The Green Faith

Sidomar's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 5 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They also get unlimited 0-level spells -- such as Daze, Acid Splash and Ray of Frost. They're not huge, but definitely a nice boost at low levels.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I also hate seeing "loose" in place of "lose". ugh.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Wraith wrote:

Well, the spell has never been on the Paladin spell list in 3.5 (I have not my old 3.0 Player's Handbook at hand to check if he had it in 3.0, but I believe he had not).

So, yes, I pretty much believe it was not a mistake but a deliberate choice. After all, in 3.5 (where the Paladin didn't have Mercies), the Paladin could use Remove Disease as a spell-like ability for a maximum of 5 times per week at 18th level... now with Mercies he can do it in combo with his Lay on Hands ability if he chooses the Remove Disease Mercy.
At 6th level, with a lousy 14 Charisma (a very unusual low Charisma for a Paladin), he could Remove Disease 5 times per day and heal damage on top of that.
Just my 2c.

I can understand why it may not have been on the spell list when it was an automatic ability, but now the Paladin has a choice. By not putting it on the spell list, it's no longer a choice - if the Paladin wants to remove disease, they would HAVE to take the mercy.

A PF_Paladin with full 20 levels has access to 6 of the 15 possible mercies. Some of the higher level mercies have prereqs, meaning you may not be able to get to a higher level mercy. The largest effect would be on multiclass paladins or a paladin taking a prestige class, who have an even smaller supply of mercies to choose.

Yes, I'm aware there is a feat to gain Extra Mercy - but it seems like a waste of a feat slot to simply compensate for a possibly overlooked addition to the spell list when the conversion took place.

The logical extension of the argument ""they can do it with mercies so it shouldn't be there" would inevitably be: then the other spells should be removed as well. That's certainly not the case I want to make, but it seems it should be consistent in one way or the other.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My opinion:

When I picture a lunge in my mind, I see it as a mini Spring Attack -- I move forward slightly, attack with an extended arm, and step back.

However, I agree with T O. The rule for lunge doesn't mention moving out of position; it specifically states you add reach. Unless the target has a different means to retaliate with an AoO against a creature with reach, I don't believe it would get the AoO.

Another case where the rules are more favorable than the movie in my head ;)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Am I missing something, or is the actual spell "Remove Disease" not on the Paladin's spell list? They have all the others (Paralysis, Curse, Blindness, Deafness, Neutralize Poison) - but no disease.

I would hope the only option for Remove Disease isn't via a Mercy; shouldn't be the case if all the others are still listed. Not having it on the spell list means no scroll use, as well...