I would say that "Laying on Hands" is practically Channeling Positive Energy in terms of flavor anyway, except that it is focused on touch only. It makes little sense to keep the two as separate abilities. I would simply give the Paladin more Channel Positive Energy uses per day (perhaps 1/2 Level + Charisma bonus) and make Channel Positive Energy uses the fuel for the other Paladin Healing Abilities - one of which could even be "Lay on Hands" if so desired. It just seems redundant to have two separate healing systems for a single class.
On top of other things, the extra healing available would make the Paladin a viable replacement (or at least a very useful supplementary healer) for the Cleric as the party healer, thus unburdening the Cleric from his compulsory healing duties that are often described as the main reason people dislike playing Clerics.
This sounds like a great idea.
Unifying the mechanism makes sense, and increases the usefulness of anything that increases uses/day, or provides alternate usages for them... And provides a realistic path to optimize the Paladin, which is a good thing, IMHO. A Paladin shouldn't be stuck wishing he had just been a Holy Warrior Fighter, or Fighter/Cleric.
I wouldn't mind this. I don't really like a ton of overlapping class features on one class.
Thanks all - it's nice to feel the love. :) Close to duplicate abilities are often better combined into one - less is more in this case, I think.
I haven't run the numbers, but what if lay on hands was a maximized one target version of the positive energy burst? They get their energy burst maximized at capstone anyway, so why not give them a lesser version at low levels?
Sounds perfect, Velderan. Easy, Unified, what's to complain about?
I just ran the numbers: A single-target Maximized Channel Positive Energy would work out the same as a Lay on Hands ability able to heal 3 hit points per level -12 hp (with some very minor differences at the margin depending on the Paladin's exact level). A 10th level Paladin would thus be able to heal 18 hit points.
For comparison: The mean of single-target Empowered Channel Positive Energy would come out to 2.625 hit points per level -10.5 hp, so a 10th level Paladin would heal 15.75 hit points. Using the mean of normal Channel Energy instead would yield a Lay on Hands ability effectively healing 1.75 hit points per level - 7hp meaning a 10th level Paladin would heal 7 hit points. The current PF version of the Lay on Hands ability heals 1 hit point per level, which means a 10th level Paladin heals 10 hit points.
Note 1: I chose 10th level as my example Paladin, as it is pretty much the middle of the level range and a nice round number.
Note 2: Lay on Hands as single-target Maximized Channel Positive Energy would be more effective than standard Lay on Hands at higher levels, but would be less effective at lower levels. The initial decrease in power is a function of the fact that Paladin only receives Channel Positive Energy at level 4 rather than at level 1 like the Cleric. Whether Paladins should gain it at level 1 is debatable, but they should in any case get it by level 2 in place, since that's where the replaced Lay on Hands ability is located. Since the frequency of the use of Channel Positive Energy would now be level dependent anyway, there would probably be little harm in giving it at level 1 (other than possible level-dipping).
I agree with this.
Seconded.
I would go one step further and try to make Cure Spells take a back seat to Channeling.
Really, why waste spell slots on mandatory healing? Why not call a spade a spade?
I also think we should increase the number of healing classes. Clerics should be good at it, but making them the best has a way of making them the only. Otherwise you have a setup where the presence or absence of a cleric changes the difficulty of the campaign. I'm more comfortable with the presence or absence of the Cleric/Ranger/Paladin/Bard/Druid... Imagine a world where they were all remotely on par with each other in terms of healing, and it didn't eat spell slots.
Oh wait. Nevermind. (Not intended as sarcasm, but I think I accidentally ended up in 4e)
Seconded.
I would go one step further and try to make Cure Spells take a back seat to Channeling.
Really, why waste spell slots on mandatory healing? Why not call a spade a spade?
I also think we should increase the number of healing classes. Clerics should be good at it, but making them the best has a way of making them the only. Otherwise you have a setup where the presence or absence of a cleric changes the difficulty of the campaign.
Yup, I agree and have indeed even suggested how to do precisely that in this thread, but it seems to have fallen right to the bottom of the page: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/clericDruidPaladin/fixingTheCleric
That subject is a bit off-topic for this thread, though, so perhaps it might be better to discuss it in that thread instead.
|
I would go one step further and try to make Cure Spells take a back seat to Channeling.
I never thought about it that way before. Healing spells are a little redundant now.
I also think we should increase the number of healing classes. Clerics should be good at it, but making them the best has a way of making them the only. Otherwise you have a setup where the presence or absence of a cleric changes the difficulty of the campaign. I'm more comfortable with the presence or absence of the Cleric/Ranger/Paladin/Bard/Druid...
I'd like to see healing spread around more, too. I'd also like to see some non-divine/mundane healing options so characters don't always have to turn to magic to feel better.
|
|
Yup, I agree and have indeed even suggested how to do precisely that in this thread, but it seems to have fallen right to the bottom of the page: fixingTheCleric
fixed the link
Yup, I agree and have indeed even suggested how to do precisely that in this thread, but it seems to have fallen right to the bottom of the page: fixingTheClericfixed the link
Thanks a bunch - I always forget how to link properly on these boards.
You cant really have a paladin that doesn't "lay on hands". It's , like, the legendary ability of the actual paladins.
I agree that paladins should "lay on hands" but also agree the two abilities should be unified - or maybe the pally should lose channel energy, as it would be nice to have that be more "cleric distinctive," and have lay on hands beefed up to be just as good.
You cant really have a paladin that doesn't "lay on hands". It's , like, the legendary ability of the actual paladins.
Sure, but let it be powered by a unified mechanic with Channel Positive Energy.
You cant really have a paladin that doesn't "lay on hands". It's , like, the legendary ability of the actual paladins.
Oh gosh no. A paladin isn't a paladin without lay on hands. I think we were talking about making lay on hands a very specific use of channel energy.
I agree that paladins should "lay on hands" but also agree the two abilities should be unified
Agreed on both counts!
or maybe the pally should lose channel energy, as it would be nice to have that be more "cleric distinctive," and have lay on hands beefed up to be just as good.
I have to disagree on this one. Paladin has *always* (well at least since 2E) had the ability to Turn Undead and Channel Positive Energy is a replacement for that ability, though it has now become something more. Besides, Paladin can be a viable alternative/secondary healer with the Channel Positive Energy ability and in any case it is not as if the Paladin class is exactly overpowered.
Clerics, of course, do need to be distinct and they have full spellcasting and domains to do just that. Plus, their Channel Energy cannot be used to fuel abilities (hmm, there is an idea) like it would with the Paladin.
I suppose we could make Paladin's Channel Positive Energy weaker than Cleric's to me it even more distinct - maybe it could heal/deal d4 hit points per two levels instead of d6 hit points. Still, this would be complicating the mechanic and it could probably just be kept at d6 hit points.
You cant really have a paladin that doesn't "lay on hands". It's , like, the legendary ability of the actual paladins.Oh gosh no. A paladin isn't a paladin without lay on hands. I think we were talking about making lay on hands a very specific use of channel energy.
Precisely!
Seconded.
I would go one step further and try to make Cure Spells take a back seat to Channeling.
Really, why waste spell slots on mandatory healing? Why not call a spade a spade?
I also think we should increase the number of healing classes. Clerics should be good at it, but making them the best has a way of making them the only. Otherwise you have a setup where the presence or absence of a cleric changes the difficulty of the campaign. I'm more comfortable with the presence or absence of the Cleric/Ranger/Paladin/Bard/Druid... Imagine a world where they were all remotely on par with each other in terms of healing, and it didn't eat spell slots.
Oh wait. Nevermind. (Not intended as sarcasm, but I think I accidentally ended up in 4e)
That's funny, in the game I'm running, cure kinda HAS taken a back seat to normal channeling.
I'm also for an increased number of healing classes. I hate the idea of one class really mattering. In a way this has happened, but I think full channel energy would be even better (plus, if it's getting an upgrade, I'd like the pally pushed towards hybridization rather than...ermm...fighterization?)
Really Roman, this is a good, intuitive idea.
I'm in favor of making the paladin as good at/better than the cleric at channeling positive energy. After all, it's a charisma ability, and feels at least as appropriate for the paladin.
What I propose is that they get full channel energy (with a number of uses equal to 3 + CHA mod) . Then, much like the current lay-on-hands, they can sacrifice uses of it to power other abilities:
Lay on hands-equal to a maximized, single-target positive energy channeling. Costs 1 CPE use.
Remove disease-acts as current disease ability. Costs 1 CPE use.
Neutralize poison-acts as current ability. Costs 1 CPE use.
Break enchantment-acts as the current abilitiy. Costs 2 CPE uses.
Heal, I might get rid of.
If we did something like this, we'd have a paladin as a competent healer, which I think is a good thing. If he's going to get healing powers, he should actually be able to be good at them. And, there's one less subsystem for paladins to keep track of (smites, spells, channel energy uses, and lay on hands uses. A bit too much).
What do you guys think?
If this change were to be made, paladins would need more uses/day of their abilities. I'd say level + Cha bonus rather than 1/2 level.
Great post Roman. I had actually be suggesting something very similar in a couple other threads when someone linked me to this one. :)
The only real difference between our ideas is that I wrap-up ALL of the Paladin's per-use abilities into Channelling — Smite included. As BlaineTog said in another thread:
It would also give players more flexibility in how they want to play their paladin: do they want to run around curing diseases, or smiting the bad guys?
I think that would make for an interesting roleplaying situation. It would also create a few "dead levels" where the Paladin could perhaps receive bonus divine feats. This would allow players to have more unique paladins rather than the current cookie-cutter build we have now.
As P_R points out, this would require the Paladin to have more uses of Channel Energy, but compared to the Cleric, who has full-casting, domains, etc. I don't see that as stealing their thunder.
Great post Roman. I had actually be suggesting something very similar in a couple other threads when someone linked me to this one. :)
The only real difference between our ideas is that I wrap-up ALL of the Paladin's per-use abilities into Channelling — Smite included. As BlaineTog said in another thread:
as P_R points out, this would require the Paladin to have more uses of Channel Energy, but compared to the Cleric, who has full-casting, domains, etc. I don't see that as stealing their thunder.
Melikes. One subsystem doing those things would be very nice. How about if the 'smite evil' added CHA to attack roll, and did the channel energy progression in damage?
I would like to hear Jason's thoughts on this.
I really like this idea.
Umm....go one subsystem? yay...(I would like to see a developer's thoughts on this).
Unfortunately, I have been inundated with work lately, so I have not had the time to contemplate this idea further or to work on the myriad other ideas or provide playtest feedback. Hopefully, my workload will become more forgiving in the near future, so that I can better participate in discussions and playtest feedback.
All the abilities can be wrapped up into channeling (which means the Paladin has to be able to channel at level 1) or they can be wrapped up into something else. Say something like:
Holy Blessing: The Paladin is touched by her deity and gains a pool of divine energy she can use to accomplish amazing feats. A paladin's divine pool is equal 4 + her bonus at 1st level. At each level after 1st, her pool increases by 1 point.
By spending 1 point from her divine pool, a paladin can make a smite attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. In addition she can spend 1 point to give herself a +4 bonus to a single save.
Since this includes a basic smite attack, we need to redo Smite Evil.
Smite Evil: When making a smite attack on an evil target the paladin adds her level to the attack roll and deals +1d6 additional points of damage. For every three levels beyond 1st, the paladin does an additional +1d6 points of damage to a maximum of +7d6 at 19th level.
These same points would be used for Lay On Hands and all of its variations starting at 2nd level.
Doing the math, a level 20 paladin gets 7 smites a day and 10 + CHA bonus Lay On Hands a day. Using Holy Blessing there's a total of 23 + CHA bonus uses a day. Not a huge change but it does let each paladin decide if they want to hurt or heal more.
None of this is especially new or revolutionary. Like the monk (and formerly like the barbarian), it gives the paladin a pool of resources to use as they desire.
It doesn't fix the 'After the smites are gone the paladin is just an NPC with a few more spells' but it does provide some symmetry across the classes and gives the paladin a bit of burst damage against evil.
If this has been said before I apologize to the original poster. There are too many 'improve the paladin' threads and I have too little time to read them all.
Cheers
I would say that "Laying on Hands" is practically Channeling Positive Energy in terms of flavor anyway, except that it is focused on touch only. It makes little sense to keep the two as separate abilities. I would simply give the Paladin more Channel Positive Energy uses per day (perhaps 1/2 Level + Charisma bonus) and make Channel Positive Energy uses the fuel for the other Paladin Healing Abilities - one of which could even be "Lay on Hands" if so desired. It just seems redundant to have two separate healing systems for a single class.
Umm... late to the party here but yes, Lay on Hands and Channel would work well in combination. Make the healing from Lay on Hands would be single target touch but heal more than channel.
All the abilities can be wrapped up into channeling (which means the Paladin has to be able to channel at level 1) or they can be wrapped up into something else. Say something like:
I kind of like this idea but:
I kind of agree with Jason on combining more than Lay Hands and Channel. A paladin is supposed to be out smiting evil, I can see all the paladin's pool of smackdown being drained off for healing.
All the abilities can be wrapped up into channeling (which means the Paladin has to be able to channel at level 1) or they can be wrapped up into something else. Say something like:I kind of like this idea but:
I kind of agree with Jason on combining more than Lay Hands and Channel. A paladin is supposed to be out smiting evil, I can see all the paladin's pool of smackdown being drained off for healing.
Hmm, I think it would be workable, but Jason does have a point - it might lead to some strange situations. Still, that does not invalidate the idea of at least consolidating the Healing subsystems, as they are designed to do essentially the same thing.
As to the specifics of how Lay on Hands should function in such a system, how about healing the same amount as the Channel Positive Energy plus the Paladin's level (but of course limited to only one target)?
As to the specifics of how Lay on Hands should function in such a system, how about healing the same amount as the Channel Positive Energy plus the Paladin's level (but of course limited to only one target)?
It should be a little better than that I think... How about it's a full round action (lay on hands, visually, isn't a drive-by thing) and it Maximizes the channel healing on the target (it doesn't heal anyone else or turn, of course). Also reduces die rolling, and one of the traditional benefits to pally lay on hands was the predictability of the heal amount, which this also does.
In fact, this goes down the path of combining with the smites... I like Channel to be cleric-only, it seems like a nice thing to have as a signature. Maybe the pally has the channel equivalent but always targeted to one subject. Lay on hands on one dude, and hit an undead with your weapon to perform the turn - both mechanically like channeling, but just not having the "burst" option.
I would say that "Laying on Hands" is practically Channeling Positive Energy in terms of flavor anyway, except that it is focused on touch only. It makes little sense to keep the two as separate abilities. I would simply give the Paladin more Channel Positive Energy uses per day (perhaps 1/2 Level + Charisma bonus) and make Channel Positive Energy uses the fuel for the other Paladin Healing Abilities - one of which could even be "Lay on Hands" if so desired. It just seems redundant to have two separate healing systems for a single class.
On top of other things, the extra healing available would make the Paladin a viable replacement (or at least a very useful supplementary healer) for the Cleric as the party healer, thus unburdening the Cleric from his compulsory healing duties that are often described as the main reason people dislike playing Clerics.
Thumbs up to this idea!
I would say that "Laying on Hands" is practically Channeling Positive Energy in terms of flavor anyway, except that it is focused on touch only. It makes little sense to keep the two as separate abilities. I would simply give the Paladin more Channel Positive Energy uses per day (perhaps 1/2 Level + Charisma bonus) and make Channel Positive Energy uses the fuel for the other Paladin Healing Abilities - one of which could even be "Lay on Hands" if so desired. It just seems redundant to have two separate healing systems for a single class.Umm... late to the party here but yes, Lay on Hands and Channel would work well in combination. Make the healing from Lay on Hands would be single target touch but heal more than channel.
Yep, at least that's the aim.
It appears our calls were heard and the mechanics for Lay on Hands and Channel Positive Energy have been combined. Lay on Hands now fuels Channel Positive Energy and other healing-related Paladin abilities. I am rather happy with the new system. Check it out here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/clericDruidPaladin/designFocusPaladinUpgrade1jb9d
Theoretically, this sounds like a good idea, but the proof as always is in the playtesting. You never know how the game will change until you playtest paladins and clerics together with the current changes and then playtest the same group under the same conditions using the alternate changes. Of course, this never happens in reality, so is difficult to pull off.
As I said, theoretically it sounds good, but doesn't this weaken clerics? Maybe they should get d10 hit points to compensate?
Now some of the same people who say yes to having lay on hands changed would say no to the d10 hit points option. Why? Are their reasons legitimate ones? You can argue this any number of ways.
And so the circle turns... and turns.
|
[B]UPDATE ALERT: A REVISED VERSION OF THE BETA PALADIN HAS BEEN POSTED BY JASON ON THIS THREAD.
Check it out, and save yourselves debating changes that have already occurred!
(EDIT: seems Roman called this out already. Never Mind, can't hurt to make sure!)
[B]UPDATE ALERT: A REVISED VERSION OF THE BETA PALADIN HAS BEEN POSTED BY JASON ON THIS THREAD.
Check it out, and save yourselves debating changes that have already occurred!
(EDIT: seems Roman called this out already. Never Mind, can't hurt to make sure!)
Indeed, but you are right - it never hurts to point people in the right direction to see updated material.