|
we are currently playtesting a revision to channel energy that works it into lay on hands for a paladin. I have stated my opposition to this merger several times, but that isn't what this is about.
I am simply trying to clarify how to work taking extra channeling for playtest purposes for a paladin. Is it four extra uses of lay on hands, or is it two extra channels in their own pool that work outside the lay on hands? if the former, is the lay on hands just if you need extra from level 3 and can't wait till level 5 or are you intending to replace extra lay on hands with extra smiting?
That's a really good question. I would like to know how this should be run also.
As a DM I would just run exactly as written, the Paladin gets to channel positive energy 2 additional times per day and it doesn't affect his LoH at all. So he could channel twice plus he could convert any LoH into channels.
|
|
that doesn't sit well with me, honestly as a DM i would hate tracking something like that and as a player it just seems strange to have a unified system with a subset of individual uses. I'll run with it if that's the official interpretation, it could just be that I'm jaded from being opposed to the unification in the first place.
that doesn't sit well with me, honestly as a DM i would hate tracking something like that and as a player it just seems strange to have a unified system with a subset of individual uses. I'll run with it if that's the official interpretation, it could just be that I'm jaded from being opposed to the unification in the first place.
Nathan,
I just call 'em how I read 'em. That's how I would interpret the rule. To be honest though I don't think it's any trickier than tracking the two separate pools would be anyhow.
|
that doesn't sit well with me, honestly as a DM i would hate tracking something like that and as a player it just seems strange to have a unified system with a subset of individual uses. I'll run with it if that's the official interpretation, it could just be that I'm jaded from being opposed to the unification in the first place.
You can lay on hands?!? I've never seen that!! Wait until I tell Tiala. :-P *inside game joke*
|
|
that doesn't sit well with me, honestly as a DM i would hate tracking something like that and as a player it just seems strange to have a unified system with a subset of individual uses. I'll run with it if that's the official interpretation, it could just be that I'm jaded from being opposed to the unification in the first place.Nathan,
I just call 'em how I read 'em. That's how I would interpret the rule. To be honest though I don't think it's any trickier than tracking the two separate pools would be anyhow.
true, I wasn't trying to sound harsh, if I came across that way really sorry. I was just stating opinion for jason's purposes. But you raise a good point, I retract my statement about being a hassle to track and just dislike it from the point that it makes no sense to me to unify the mechanics just to have them split up again with a feat.