A 6th-level paladin can lay on hands some 7 times per day for 3d6 hp. He can heal himself as a swift action.
This is precious little different from fast healing 10, for the whole of a fight or two, on a 6th level PC.
It seems to me that anything that can even remotely threaten a paladin will easily rip through any other PC.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this is not a problem?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
A 6th-level paladin can lay on hands some 7 times per day for 3d6 hp. He can heal himself as a swift action.
This is precious little different from fast healing 10, for the whole of a fight or two, on a 6th level PC.
It seems to me that anything that can even remotely threaten a paladin will easily rip through any other PC.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this is not a problem?
Because a paladin relies on multiple stats, particularly Charisma, it is more likely that a paladin will have less Constitution than a typical fighter or barbarian. Thus, while he has the ability to heal himself, he often lacks the sheer volume of hit points of other mainline combat classes.
Plus, by expending most of his uses of lay on hands on himself, the paladin is giving up the ability to use them in other capacities later. Paladins also must use up their lay on hands in order to channel energy, if they so choose. Now, if the party has both a paladin AND a cleric in it, that becomes somewhat unnecessary.
I do think that the number of daily uses the paladin gets is a bit high, though. I think it should be something static like 3 + CHA modifier per day instead of half the paladin's level + CHA. At 20th level, that's 10+ uses a day for 10d6 healing each!
You generally just hide behind your friendly neighbourhood paladin and kick whatever is still twitching after he's done! I as a GM dropped a CR 9 Devil on my party, and them being 5th lvl you'd think they'd be toast... But after much heroic epic and all that, fighting, the paladin was at 2 hp, having used all his lay on hands and they prevailed. Only just, though! The fight took all night and it was sooo much fun, for all of us! Lay on hands? No problem! What I fear, as a GM, is Smite Evil! That's just so... Evil?
It's useful, and paladins do pack a punch, having offensive, defensive, and healing abilities.
I wouldn't call them overpowering compared to, say, fighters, though.
You do not play AGAINST the rest of the party, but WITH them.
I don't understand how this addresses my concerns.
Of course you play with the rest of the party. Nonetheless, if one character is vastly more durable than all the others, the others might start feeling like liabilities or supporting cast. In more practical terms, they might start regularly dying from anything that can present a credible threat to the vastly more durable character.
I as a GM dropped a CR 9 Devil on my party, and them being 5th lvl you'd think they'd be toast...
It depends on a lot of things: How generous the character generation parameters are, how big the party is, how effective the characters were created, how well-equipped they are, whether they were at full strength when they hit the devil and had their most powerful stuff, on the match-up (devils are right up a paladin's alley). And, of course, on the Lady and what she does with the dice.
CR +3 is quite hard already, and CR +4 can kill the party, but if they're powerful and well-rested enough and it's an enemy they're especially good at handling, it's still doable.
Nonetheless, if one character is vastly more durable than all the others
Then he might just be a warrior, while the rest are experts, arcanists, priests.
What does the rest of the party look like?
Warriors are supposed to be durable. They'll be in the front lines, right in the enemy's face! If everything goes according to plans, they'll draw the blunt of the enemy's attacks and either evade or survive them.
That's a big part of what a warrior's usual role is.
You generally just hide behind your friendly neighbourhood paladin and kick whatever is still twitching after he's done!
That's exactly the description of my perceived problem, not the solution. I want all characters to contribute roughly equally, not be the paladin's sidekick.
I as a GM dropped a CR 9 Devil on my party, and them being 5th lvl you'd think they'd be toast... But after much heroic epic and all that, fighting, the paladin was at 2 hp, having used all his lay on hands and they prevailed. Only just, though! The fight took all night and it was sooo much fun, for all of us! Lay on hands? No problem! What I fear, as a GM, is Smite Evil! That's just so... Evil?
After your experience with that fight, what's your best guess: had it been a 5th-level character of any other class instead of the paladin, would any of the party still be alive?
I dunno, frankly, I think if you pit a paladin against an equal-level fighter who specializes in damage-dealing and isn't evil, you'll find the paladin's shortcoming. Without Smite, they just don't have much in the way of output.
That's what it all boils down to: Situations. Every warrior class has his situations where it can shine:
Paladins get to shine against a limited number of enemies that must be evil, and are ideally evil dragons, outsiders or undead. In those cases, they can do a great deal of damage. And they're generally well-protected against all sorts of attacks.
Rangers get to shine against a few specific types of creatures and in a few specific types of environments. Most of it works all day long, but some abilities are usable in a more limited fashion. They can also empower companions, either by granting their fellow party members some of their bonuses, or by having a faithful animal companion who adds to their offensive power directly. And they're great skill users.
Barbarians get to shine a limited amount of time (though it's usually enough to last through the day) with increased damage and HP against everything, and with the use of specific abilities they get to choose. They are usually relatively easy to hit, but will take a lot convincing to lay down and die.
And fighters... they will just bring the pain. All the time. Against pretty much every enemy, no matter what type of critter it is, or whether it is enemy number one or one hundred for that day. And while they're generally not as protected as a paladin, their AC will be better - and AC is what prevents the very damage the paladin has to heal.
Personally, I'd rather have the Fast Healing 10.
You're too modest. Me, I demand regeneration.
I as a GM dropped a CR 9 Devil on my party, and them being 5th lvl you'd think they'd be toast...It depends on a lot of things: How generous the character generation parameters are, how big the party is, how effective the characters were created, how well-equipped they are, whether they were at full strength when they hit the devil and had their most powerful stuff, on the match-up (devils are right up a paladin's alley). And, of course, on the Lady and what she does with the dice.
CR +3 is quite hard already, and CR +4 can kill the party, but if they're powerful and well-rested enough and it's an enemy they're especially good at handling, it's still doable.
It's all true.
Every time the paladin uses LoH to heal himself he loses a mercy he could use on someone else.
If you're concerned that the paladin is too durable then kill the rest of his party first. If something sees that it can't kill the paladin, why wouldn't it move on to something it can kill? A noble paladin would do his best to protect them. If he's using standard actions to keep them up then that's less he can do for himself. You've just turned the fighter into the healer.
There is no reason that an encounter isn't good for the party unless there's a chance it can take out the most powerful member. Every encounter will be more dangerous to one particular character over another anyway.
Paladins get to lay on hands. That's a good thing. Rather than worrying about this or that class feature, why not just embrace what the characters are capable of, design encounters to be fun and memorable, and let everyone have as good a time as possible?
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Personally, I'd rather have the Fast Healing 10.You're too modest. Me, I demand regeneration.
You are both too modest. Me, I demand Regenerationa AND Fast Healing, both 55, like the ELH abominations.
AND lazors beams from the eyes.
Anyway, OP, you overstimate the LoH, IMO. Is powerful but quite a few monsters exist that are able to consider 3d6 trivial. x3, x4 crit damage weapons bring in dire damage bursts. And so on.
Be able to heal himslef and party is a great thing for the paladin, but that's all. Other classes are better in other things, an has less limited resources.
If you're concerned that the paladin is too durable then kill the rest of his party first.
That will certainly show them they're not weak or a liability!
|
A 6th-level paladin can lay on hands some 7 times per day for 3d6 hp. He can heal himself as a swift action.
This is precious little different from fast healing 10, for the whole of a fight or two, on a 6th level PC.
It seems to me that anything that can even remotely threaten a paladin will easily rip through any other PC.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why this is not a problem?
Yep, you are missing the big picture. :)
Every ability if you focus on it will show how powerful something is in comparison to other stuff. When you mix it all together it is fairly well balanced.Run a session/module/campaign and you will see that yes there will be points where the paladin shines and there will be points the other characters will shine.
And really at the end of the day, having the PCs survive is kind of a good thing (especially if they know that you as the GM took the gloves off!). So extra healing in the party is never a bad thing (of course trying to kill a party including 3 clerics can be a long, long fight. :)
And just keep in mind that compared to other classes abilities at lvl 6, some of their abilities will be pretty darn impressive too (wizards/socerors have 3rd lvl spells).
Run a session/module/campaign and you will see that yes there will be points where the paladin shines and there will be points the other characters will shine.
I've ran the first two adventures of Kingmaker.
There is a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, a multiclassed barbarian/fighter, and a paladin in the party.
My experience has been that the wizard shines when he manages to guess or gather intelligence about appropriate spells to target the enemies' weaknesses. The cleric shines when the monsters spread the damage around. The ranger shines against his favoured enemies. The barbarian/fighter shines against monsters that have a lot of hp, but don't hit back hard. The paladin shines against evil monsters and particularly deadly monsters.
Which one of those do you think comes up most often? Which one do you think feels most important? Which one has the most overlap with the others?
I'm not idly musing over the rules, I'm trying to think through an issue I've noticed in actual play.
Remember the paladin needs a free hand to use lay on hands on himself- making sword & board less attractive to the Paladins.
Not if they used a light shield :P
Nonetheless, if one character is vastly more durable than all the othersThen he might just be a warrior, while the rest are experts, arcanists, priests.
Don't you think lay on hands makes the paladin vastly more durable than the other warriors?
That has certainly been my experience so far, between the paladin, a multiclassed fighter/barbarian, and a ranger.
Maybe it's just the way the dice landed, or the way the specific characters were made, which is why I'm asking about it here, but the arguments so far don't seem convincing.
Trying to generalize some numbers:
Say the fighter and the barbarian will go with
Str 17
Dex 13
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 8
while the paladin has
Str 17
Dex 12
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 8
Cha 14
Hit points: fighter 55, barbarian 56, paladin 43.
AC: fighter 25 (+1 full plate + +1 heavy shield + Dex 13 + Dodge), barbarian 21 (+1 breastplate + +1 heavy shield + Dex 13), paladin 23 (+1 full plate + +1 light shield + Dex 12).
The fighter has +1 to attack and damage, all the time. The barbarian has +2 to attack and damage, and +12 hp, but also -2 to AC practically all the time. The paladin has +2 to attack and +6 to damage and +2 to AC against the two most powerful opponents each day, and can heal himself as a swift action for 3d6 for 8 rounds. Let's say the fighter has Toughness and Dodge because they factor simply apply into the numbers above, and ignore his other two bonus feats, just like we'll the paladin's and the barbarian's abilities that are more difficult to assign worth to here (like uncanny dodge, weapon bond, save bonus &c.)
A full attack from a CR 7-9 melee brute will deal some 30 damage, more to the barbarian, somewhat less to the fighter. So all three warriors can expect to going down after taking two or three rounds of full attacks.
However, after the first round, the paladin can heal for 3d6, all but tying for hp with the fighter. If he lucks out or the monster isn't that deadly, and he survives the second round, he's all but tying for hp with the raging barbarian, who has an AC lower by 4.
If each of the three is supported by a friendly healer, as is likely, things are even more favourable for the paladin. If the monsters aren't that tough (and these are the toughest a 6th-level party is normally expected to face), things are even more favourable for the paladin.
Unless the monster one-shots the paladin, he will either match or outlast both the barbarian (the meat slab hit point guy) and the fighter (the armor master defense guy). In less extreme situations, he will outlast them greatly. I'd also argue that he will outdamage them in the most dangerous fights (making up where he has the least advantage in durability).
I've yet to see any reasoning that suggests the contrary.
Paladins get to lay on hands. That's a good thing. Rather than worrying about this or that class feature, why not just embrace what the characters are capable of, design encounters to be fun and memorable, and let everyone have as good a time as possible?
If I were content to have some characters consistently and significantly outshine the others and having the others relegated to a sidekick/follower role, why would I have bought Pathfinder? I could've kept playing 3E.
Remember the paladin needs a free hand to use lay on hands on himself- making sword & board less attractive to the Paladins.
Light shield, and use the free action to transfer the weapon to his shield hand.
Personally, I think it's silly that he has to have a free hand to LOH himself. To heal others, that's a reasonable limitation, but yourself?
|
|
Unless the creature the paladin is fighting is evil and he is using smite, (and even then sometimes), he needs those lay on hands to stay alive while he deals his moderate damage to it. The fighter, barbarian, and even ranger in my game crush opponents, often in a round or two, and so far invariably the paladin is still beating on his opponent at the end of the fight. Not to say you could not build an optimized paladin that deals lots of damage, just that most are not as effective as the fighter, barbarian, or even ranger (esp bow) in putting the smackdown on creatures. Plus this ability is balanced by the fact that he will often be healing other party members due to his alignent, unless the DM does not enforce his code of honor or you have a super vigilant cleric/healer in the party. Our cleric is just as likely to be on the other end of the battlefield chasing down something with his holy scimitar :)
I've yet to see any reasoning that suggests the contrary.
From my experience, your view may be skewed due to your party. Build a solid 6th level barbarian, with power attack, 2handed weapon, etc, and he will deal enough damage to kill that beast in 1 round with a little help, or two with no help most times. The barbarian in your example should also be raging and have an extra 12 hps more than listed. A fighter build 2-handed, bow specced, or even two weapon at lower levels is going to dish similar damage. Just like a barbarian is built to absorb a lot of damage but get hit more often due to low AC, a paladin is supposed to outlast his opponent with lay on hands, and typically does not dish out devastating damage. When smite is running on our party's paladin, he still does less damage than our power attacking barbarian, who tends to end his fights sooner thant he paladin, and therefore the paladin tends to need more healing. Honestly, with a solid cleric armed with a decent charisma, the paladin will hardly need his lay on hands anyway. Its only because our group is large and tend to get separated, aka more than 60' apart at times, that our paladin even needs to regularly LOH.
The balance between classes shows up more when you look at the overall picture rather than a snapshot from a particular angle.
|
|
If you're playing a Paladin properly, he should be throwing himself at the monsters, and forcing them to concentrate on him, meaning that he needs those extra hps in the form of lay on hands.
Just because it takes longer to put him down, doesn't mean that the other characters are suddenly irrelevant. They can be working hard to put down the enemies, just letting the Pally actually take the damage.
Personally, I think the idea of a balanced party where everyone contributes equally is MOSTLY just a myth. My gaming group has been together for over 20 years now, and I can only think of one campaign where everyone was fairly well balanced in comparison to each other.
The truth is the players themselves create most of the disparity, not the game system. We have all different styles of gamers in our group, from the casual gamer to the roleplayer to the metagamer (Though metagaming has basically died out as we all have matured a little at least) I think the bottom line should always be to have fun. Of course fun can be a little elusive....the right combination of characters and style is still something we haven't perfected in over 20 years of gaming.....most of the time when it happens, it JUST happens..like magic. =)
|
|
Also, with a witch, wizard, cleric, and fire sorcerer in our group, I am usually more worried about their affect on the party balance than the barbarian, paladin, or any other melees. And it only gets worse as the levels get higher. As a GM, I am more vexed with the witch in my game evil eye-ing and slumbering everything that moves regardless of level, than I am concerned about whether the paladin lasts a few extra rounds :)
|
|
Run a session/module/campaign and you will see that yes there will be points where the paladin shines and there will be points the other characters will shine.I've ran the first two adventures of Kingmaker.
There is a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, a multiclassed barbarian/fighter, and a paladin in the party.
My experience has been that the wizard shines when he manages to guess or gather intelligence about appropriate spells to target the enemies' weaknesses. The cleric shines when the monsters spread the damage around. The ranger shines against his favoured enemies. The barbarian/fighter shines against monsters that have a lot of hp, but don't hit back hard. The paladin shines against evil monsters and particularly deadly monsters.
Which one of those do you think comes up most often? Which one do you think feels most important? Which one has the most overlap with the others?
I'm not idly musing over the rules, I'm trying to think through an issue I've noticed in actual play.
I'm currently playing thru the first Kingmaker. Our party is an alchemist, a bard, an inquisitor, a paladin and a sorceror. So far all the characters have had some shiny moments. But currently the one leading the way for damage is the alchemist (when he doesn't explode himself or party members). But healing is kind of light, so the paladin has on ocassion been running around the battlefield using lay on hands on fallen party members to stabilize them.
It all deals with the party dynamic.
With you having a cleric in the party, then sure the paladin is free to use lay on hands on himself. And you will see a difference in your game because it looks like you have 3 mainly type fighters (ranger, ftr/barbarian & paladin).
Strangely enough our party is kind of light on the main line fighter as our paladin uses a whip, our inquisitor is ranged, our bard... well he sings for us... :)
From my experience, your view may be skewed due to your party. Build a solid 6th level barbarian, with power attack, 2handed weapon, etc, and he will deal enough damage to kill that beast in 1 round with a little help, or two with no help most times. The barbarian in your example should also be raging and have an extra 12 hps more than listed.
He should also have -2 to AC, and I accounted for both when trying to work out how much damage each of the three warriors would take from the toughest melee monsters they can expect to face.
A fighter build 2-handed, bow specced, or even two weapon at lower levels is going to dish similar damage.
A paladin with a two-handed weapon will also deals more damage than a paladin with a one-handed weapon.
In fact, in my example above, the paladin loses the least if they all go two handed: they all get bigger weapon dice, another +1 to damage (from another 1/2 Str), and the barbarian gets another +1 while raging. But the fighter and barbarian lose 2 AC, while the paladin only loses 1.
I compared them all with shields because I was trying to be charitable to the fighter and barbarian.
Just like a barbarian is built to absorb a lot of damage but get hit more often due to low AC, a paladin is supposed to outlast his opponent with lay on hands, and typically does not dish out devastating damage. When smite is running on our party's paladin, he still does less damage than our power attacking barbarian,
I honestly can't see how that works out.
Rage (at 6th) is +2 to attack, +3 to damage. Smite is (with Cha 14) +2 to attack, +6 to damage.
Rage stays the same all the way until 11th, while smite steadily improves. At 11th, rage is +3 attack, +4 damage. Smite is... let's say the paladin managed to get a +2 Cha item: +3 attack, +11 damage. 20th: rage is +4/+6, smite is (say a +4 Cha item) +4 attack, +20 damage.
Obviously, smite is not applicable as often as rage, but when it is on, I fail to see how your paladin manages to be less deadly than the barbarian.
(Unless he deliberately chooses to be; lower Str, Skill Focus (knowledge [religion]) instead of Power Attack... but that's not a feature of the class. Str (before rage) and feats are just as readily available for paladins as they are for barbarians.)
Interestingly, there are many, many situations where the paladin is honor-bound to heal other people — he must help non-evil characters in need. Therefore, he is less likely to have to opportunity to be selfish with his healing than any other class.
Uhm, that Paladin with Wisdom 8 is going to have a hard time when trying to cast spells. The average Paladin would prolly have at least Wisdom 10.
PF paladin casts from Charisma.
Paladin with wisdom 8 will have no problems casting spells since they are charisma based casters.
LoH is not as good as fast healing because fast healing always heals -- you got to be concious to use LoH... so if you drop you're down.
Uhm, that Paladin with Wisdom 8 is going to have a hard time when trying to cast spells. The average Paladin would prolly have at least Wisdom 10.
In Pathfinder, paladin spells work off Cha.
Considering he has good Will and a bonus on top from divine grace, Wis is almost completely irrelevant for a paladin. I'd expect average paladin Wis to be very close to 7, except for a vague sense of the appropriate in the players suggesting that a lawful, stolid, religious type of person somehow shouldn't be an easily distracted ditz.
Afaik a 6th level Paladin with Cha 14 can use Lay on hands 5 times per day, not 8 (1/2 level + Cha modifier).
Right you are! I was thinking 3 + 1/2 level + Cha, because the player in my game has something closer to that amount. He either invested a lot in it, or miscalculated, which are both the best arguments so far for it not being overpowered.
|
Of the classes the Paladin is the single most defensive. They also have really good offenses vs evil, just be glad they don't hit that hard against everything. Pit them against neutral creatures and they will last the longest, but they probably won't do quite as much damage as the other classes. Golems are ideal for dealing with paladins, they have DR, they have lots of HP, they are neutral, and some of them have nasty side effects like making it really difficult to heal them using magic. Just don't do it all the time, your player will get pissed because you are making most of their abilities useless.
Though this avoids the fact that you shouldn't treat this game as a competition, you shouldn't be trying to kill the players.
|
|
A paladin with a two-handed weapon will also deals more damage than a paladin with a one-handed weapon.In fact, in my example above, the paladin loses the least if they all go two handed: they all get bigger weapon dice, another +1 to damage (from another 1/2 Str), and the barbarian gets another +1 while raging. But the fighter and barbarian lose 2 AC, while the paladin only loses 1.
I compared them all with shields because I was trying to be charitable to the fighter and barbarian.
Firstly, how does he LoH himself if he's using a two-handed weapon? Let go, LoH, put hands back, and then attack? Even if allowed that seems a bit cheesy.
About the broader issue: played through Red Hand of Doom converted into PF, with a rogue, a fighter, a paladin, a monk, and a wizard (after a while I couldn't play the wizard myself, but one player continued to run both his and my characters). Even with many evil drageons present, the other players did not feel outshined from levels 5-9. This was because each player had a different idea of what feels "most important." Your concern seems to stem from all the players thinking that being the one who gets in the bad guys face, gets his attention, and vanquishes him personally is the only, or most important, way to shine. This just happens to be exactly what the paladin is designed to do.
Each other party member shined in a different way, and had chosen their class to do what they liked doing. The fighter and monk worked in tandem to disarm, trip, and in general make life for enemies miserable. They shined when the fighter got enlarged and choked a hydra to death or when the monk tripped, disarmed, and punched the hell out of an ettin that could do nothing to fight back. The wizard shined mostly out of combat, being a diviner and facilitator of reconnaissance and interrogations. He would also regularly cast fly on the paladin so he could chase dragons and charge them in the air. I wasn't around for the last session, but I heard the paladin got killed, then the rogue used UMD to resurrect him so he could charge a dragon into Hell. The rogue would use Hat of Disguise, invisibility and bluff to be a front man and face for lots of stuff. No one felt underpowered, no one felt like supporting cast.
If everyone in your group measures importance by being able to slay the truly evil BBEG in single combat, then they should probably all be paladins, because that is what they are built for doing, although their being king of that job is even a bit debatable (but the smiting paladin charging a dragon with a lance was damn impressive).
Anyway, my two cents, different classes shine at different things, in an AP with lots of evil dragons the other guys didn't feel sidelined because taking out the swarms of pissed off hobgoblins that were also there was equally important.
-Drillboss
Firstly, how does he LoH himself if he's using a two-handed weapon? Let go, LoH, put hands back, and then attack? Even if allowed that seems a bit cheesy.
You can hold a 2H weapon with one hand just fine, you just can't attack with it. Doesn't seem cheesy at all.
|
|
You can hold a 2H weapon with one hand just fine, you just can't attack with it. Doesn't seem cheesy at all.
Firstly, how does he LoH himself if he's using a two-handed weapon? Let go, LoH, put hands back, and then attack? Even if allowed that seems a bit cheesy.
Ah, so all good to just hold it for just the duration of that swift action?
Actually wondering here.
We play in a 3.5 game where one player has a PF paladin (as the 3.5 version is... sub-par to say the least). I have noticed a definite... angle to how some combat sessions play out.
We're in the AOW campaign, so the prevalence of evil foes is high. We also have a bucket-load of healing in the team - even the scout/ranger (me) packs a wand of cure moderate wounds, and the two other players are both clerics. But we only have one front line warrior, the paladin.
'Normal' combats, where we're not being challenged too much, are pretty much as I would expect it. Everyone contributes, the characters shine relatively evenly, and the game continues, barring any silly rolls or stupid decisions.
[rant]Now, when a pivotal encounter happens, this generally means we're looking at an evil opponent or group of opponents, and the stakes are pretty high.
In this scenario, it becomes the paladin's one man enemy dismemberment show, with everyone else as background. I remember one session where the entire combat revolved around the clerics pumping the paladin full of healing so he could keep on hitting, because no-one else could hit hard enough.
Everyone is participating still, and everyone has a role, but that role is to make the paladin as good as possible because everything revolves around him. Can you imagines how that ends up looking?
At this point, I should point out that my character also has some moments where he shines where the others can't - namely, being more quiet and scouting without being seen - but my 'special moment' doesn't involve all the others ignoring all the stuff they could do to make sure I could hide and move silently.[/rant]
Apols if it sounds too negative. Especially to Snorter. Not his fault. :-)
If I were content to have some characters consistently and significantly outshine the others and having the others relegated to a sidekick/follower role, why would I have bought Pathfinder? I could've kept playing 3E.
If you want characters to be mechanically balanced across levels and classes, then play 4E. That aside, there is no one class in either PF or in 3E that "consistently and significantly" outshines the others.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
OK, you got me. I'll admit I thought this was something other than a paladins are broken rant. If you're always looking for what paladins do better than everyone and calling them broken for it you'll never be sorry.
Good news, at least I gained some board reading XP for encountering the trap.
Personally, I'd rather have the Fast Healing 10.
+1
Every time the paladin uses LoH to heal himself he loses a mercy he could use on someone else.
If you're concerned that the paladin is too durable then kill the rest of his party first. If something sees that it can't kill the paladin, why wouldn't it move on to something it can kill? A noble paladin would do his best to protect them. If he's using standard actions to keep them up then that's less he can do for himself. You've just turned the fighter into the healer.
There is no reason that an encounter isn't good for the party unless there's a chance it can take out the most powerful member. Every encounter will be more dangerous to one particular character over another anyway.
In this situation a Pally's best move is usually to hit whatever it is as had as he can or possibly use a Combat Maneuver to prevent further attacks somehow. Healing 10hp every turn as your action when the beastie is doing 20 is not smart math. Especially since the Cleric can heal the same 10hp to everyone. Off the top of my head, the only situation in which I would LoH someone else in combat (other than to cure a debilitating ailment like stunned) is if an ally is a single hit away from death/unconciousness, AND I'm confident the beastie will die in a round (two at the most). Other wise, my LoH just can't keep up and I will lose a Damage vs. Healing contest. Every Single Time.
