Pathfinder Paladin Spell List - Remove Disease


Rules Questions


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...

The Exchange

I'm going to go with "mistake".

I see no compelling game reason why you couldn't include it in the Paladin's spell list.


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.

Dark Archive

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.

+1

It would just be redundant as he already has the ability to remove disease. In fact choosing the diseased mercy acts AS remove disease with a caster level equal to paladin level.

That's just extra redundancy at that point.


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.

Dark Archive

Sidomar wrote:

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.

Ahh but you see there is a difference. One was a spell like ability, and was returned with mercies. Its merely one you can choose.

In the 3.5 PHB Remove disease was NOT on the paladin's spell list. It was a once a week spell like ability. You can get it back by choosing the mercy, and choose it more frequently than you used to be able to.

I see no discrepancy. It was never there to begin with.


Dissinger wrote:
I see no discrepancy. It was never there to begin with.

I don't think that is the point. With the addition of the other spells "remove speels" as mercies, why not also add remove disease to the spell list.

Personally, I think it was overlooked. Some of the changes have caused minor bumbs and questions elsewhere. This is just another example.

I say it makes a fair houserule.

Dark Archive

Thraxus wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
I see no discrepancy. It was never there to begin with.

I don't think that is the point. With the addition of the other spells "remove speels" as mercies, why not also add remove disease to the spell list.

Personally, I think it was overlooked. Some of the changes have caused minor bumbs and questions elsewhere. This is just another example.

I say it makes a fair houserule.

But that's my point. It was never on the paladin's spell list, ever. So why would it magically do so? Forget that the other spells were made mercies for a second. We're focusing on Remove Disease which is what's being debated.

It was a spell like ability available once a week to paladins.

Now, its a mercy on an ability that is available to a paladin 1/2 level + cha mod times per day.

It was shifted to the lay of hands, that's all that happened. If you are hard pressed to keep up with disease, then by all means take the mercy. If you aren't, then don't choose it. THe ability as it was was hit or miss anyways.

I'm not arguing that because the other spells are mercies they should be removed. I'm arguing that they aren't going to add a spell that wasn't part of his list to the list, because they shifted his once a WEEK ability to a multiple times DAILY ability. It freely available if you want it, and you aren't forced to take it.


Dissinger wrote:
But that's my point. It was never on the paladin's spell list, ever. So why would it magically do so? Forget that the other spells were made mercies for a second. We're focusing on Remove Disease which is what's being debated.

It wasn't on the spell list because Paladins always had access to the ability to cast it through a class feature.

Now they no longer are guaranteed access to it / are forced to take it, so it makes sense for it to be added to the class spell list.


Dissinger wrote:
Thraxus wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
I see no discrepancy. It was never there to begin with.

I don't think that is the point. With the addition of the other spells "remove speels" as mercies, why not also add remove disease to the spell list.

Personally, I think it was overlooked. Some of the changes have caused minor bumbs and questions elsewhere. This is just another example.

I say it makes a fair houserule.

But that's my point. It was never on the paladin's spell list, ever. So why would it magically do so? Forget that the other spells were made mercies for a second. We're focusing on Remove Disease which is what's being debated.

It was a spell like ability available once a week to paladins.

Now, its a mercy on an ability that is available to a paladin 1/2 level + cha mod times per day.

It was shifted to the lay of hands, that's all that happened. If you are hard pressed to keep up with disease, then by all means take the mercy. If you aren't, then don't choose it. THe ability as it was was hit or miss anyways.

I'm not arguing that because the other spells are mercies they should be removed. I'm arguing that they aren't going to add a spell that wasn't part of his list to the list, because they shifted his once a WEEK ability to a multiple times DAILY ability. It freely available if you want it, and you aren't forced to take it.

The point isn't how often they can do it, it's that ALL paladins used to be able to, and now only those who select it as a mercy are able to. Since the paladin's spell list includes other choices that effectively duplicate mercies, it is very odd that this was NOT added to the list in order to 1) allow an iconic ability to function similar to other spell-duplicated mercies, and 2) allow an iconic ability to remain available in some form to ALL paladins.

Dark Archive

cmaczkow wrote:
The point isn't how often they can do it, it's that ALL paladins used to be able to, and now only those who select it as a mercy are able to. Since the paladin's spell list includes other choices that effectively duplicate mercies, it is very odd that this was NOT added to the list in order to 1) allow an iconic ability to function similar to other spell-duplicated mercies, and 2) allow an iconic ability to remain available in some form to ALL paladins.

1) Fair enough.

2) It is, all paladins have the option of taking the mercy.

The Exchange

Dissinger wrote:


1) Fair enough.

2) It is, all paladins have the option of taking the mercy.

OK, you think it's logical. We get that. We also know that you aren't going to change your mind.

However, do you or anyone else out there think that adding it to the spell list will radically or minimally unbalance the paladin


I think it would be a waste of the line it was put on. I would rather have Raise Dead on my fourth level spell list since that is something I can't actually do as a paladin right now.

EDIT: Though I understand partially why it's not... don't want a bunch of paladin made Wands of Raise Dead floating around...


Abraham spalding wrote:
don't want a bunch of paladin made Wands of Raise Dead floating around...

Costing over 250,000 gp each, I doubt there'd be many floating around anyway.


Zurai wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
don't want a bunch of paladin made Wands of Raise Dead floating around...
Costing over 250,000 gp each, I doubt there'd be many floating around anyway.

(First off I agree however...) "Oooh Oooh can I buy a 5 charge one instead of a fully charged one?"

Truthfully though any spell with an expensive component is better off simply being cast that put into any item.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Abraham spalding wrote:
Truthfully though any spell with an expensive component is better off simply being cast that put into any item.

Hail of Stone is amazing when it doesn't eat a spell slot. :)

But yeah, you probably didn't mean "expensive" in the minimal "doesn't count for Eschew Materials" sense. If the material component is more than the cost of scribing the scroll, you should probably skip it.

...the new mechanic for staves might make an interesting counterargument, though. Base cost for a resurrection staff:
(7 x 13 x 400) = 36400
Plus materials cost:
36400 + (10000 * 50) = 536400
Now make it cost all 10 charges. That knocks a zero off, and you're at 53640. Yeah, you can only use it once per outing... but as soon as you've tossed off 6 resurrections, you're saving money!


The Wraith wrote:
At 6th level, with a lousy 14 Charisma (a very unusual low Charisma for a Paladin)

I know this is a minor thread-jack, and your posts are great most of the time. Still I would like to point out that the comment about Cha 14 being unusually low is not true. Also claiming things like that to make your point more valid actually does more harm than good.

Simple math follows.

Most of the paladins I've seen favor Str over Cha. it can be argued that Cha is better for paladins, but clearly it's not unusual to have higher Str than Cha. I haven't seen a single paladin with a Dex less than 12. Most paladins want to have Con at least 12. And the next step where better Cha than 14 matters is 16. Let's assume that the paladin raises Cha when hitting lvl4.

Considering the above the paladin would need to start with stats like Str 18 (+2 racial), Dex 12, Con 12, Cha 15. That's 21 points already, more than you have in most games (for argument's sake, let's assume that there are as many 15pt games than there are 25pt games).

I would say that the stats above are more unusual than Cha 16 at lvl6.


Samuli wrote:


I know this is a minor thread-jack, and your posts are great most of the time. Still I would like to point out that the comment about Cha 14 being unusually low is not true. Also claiming things like that to make your point more valid actually does more harm than good.

Simple math follows.

Most of the paladins I've seen favor Str over Cha. it can be argued that Cha is better for paladins, but clearly it's not unusual to have higher Str than Cha. I haven't seen a single paladin with a Dex less than 12. Most paladins want to have Con at least 12. And the next step where better Cha than 14 matters is 16. Let's assume that the paladin raises Cha when hitting lvl4.

Considering the above the paladin would need to start with stats like Str 18 (+2 racial), Dex 12, Con 12, Cha 15. That's 21 points already, more than you have in most games (for argument's sake, let's assume that there are as many 15pt games than there are 25pt games).

I would say that the stats above are more unusual than Cha 16 at lvl6.

Ok, point taken.

I simply wanted to show that a Paladin in PRPG could remove disease a number of times per day equal to the maximum number of times per week of 3.5 just from 6th level - and without pumping Charisma out of the stars.
The error I made, of course, was not writing 'unusually low in my campaigns' (sometimes I forget that, playing always 25-point buy systems, my characters can easily afford a 14 Cha from 1st level)

Regarding Mercies - it's true that a Paladin must choose the 'Remove Disease' Mercy in order to cure diseases, while in 3.x he could do it automatically; however, in 3.x the number of applications of such power, although automatic, was VERY low (IMHO) - but the Paladin still didn't have the spell in his spell list, although it could have been beneficial even then. However, although he could heal hit points even before through Lay on Hands, he still had the various Cure spells on his spell list (which in 3.x were even suboptimal, with the crippled caster level Paladins had before).
IMHO in 3.x a Paladin could have gained a better benefit from the Remove Disease spell among his spell list, while the various Cure spells could have been not present in the list itself, but this was not the case; now, in PRPG, a Paladin can benefit from his Cure spells more than before (almost full caster level), and it's true that he still cannot cast Remove Disease - but he can choose up to 6 different Mercies during his career (even more with Extra Mercy), from a list of only 15 Mercies, and if he does so, he is much, much more effective than before.

I personally don't think adding the Remove Disease spell to the Paladin spell list is a necessity; of course, for people who disagree, it's an easy thing to add such a small house rule.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I'd almost prefer removing the other Mercy-accessible effects from the paladin's spell list, which would make mercy selection much more meaningful. (For now I'm just sticking with vanilla, tho.)


I got to say I really like most of the mercies, and have a hard time picking which one first usually.

I think a paladin that actually focused on his lay on hands and mercies could do a good job as a primary healer.

Figure first level as a human you take power attack and something else, at 3rd level extra lay on hands, selective channeling at 5th, extra mercies at 7~12th, then extra channel, possibly more extra lay on hands, you could end up with a guy that can still mix it up in melee, and really handle the healing (and by healing I'm including healing status effects too like blindness, poison, curses, disease, stunning, paralysis) without ever touching his spell list and not provoking for doing so too (fairly important if you are getting close to the enemy). You also have the benefit of being immune to many of the things that could shut down your team, which actually gives you a chance to save the day when everyone gets hit with nasty effects.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Pathfinder Paladin Spell List - Remove Disease All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rules Questions