D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Gamers Online Now: 1,340
208 members and 1,132 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 06:04 PM.
The fantasy role-playing game Dragon Warriors has a healthy following and the Lands of Legend have been around for many years; as such there are a lot of stories to tell from around this vast... [Read More]
This is the seocnd issue of Ordo Draconis, a fan-made ezine (fanzine) for the recently re-released Dragon Warriors RPG. Spanning over twice the pagecount of Issue 1 (released in September 2009), it... [Read More]
Hi, when i built a paladin on the character builder i wondered why there are two feats that do nearly the same thing, but one of them gives a free healing surge to the paladin.
My reasoning:
devoted paladin only gives +cha if you use it on an ally.
healing hands gives +cha even if you use it on yourself.
But: healing hands also states that the touched ally regains extra hp, but has no clause: "if you use it on an ally,..."
So what is RAW and what is RAI?
From a balance standpoint, i would allow a paladin to give himself extra charsma hp when he heal himself...
Well, there has been no official errata released for Healing Hands, but yes, Devoted Paladin would make Healing Hands obsolete if Healing Hands also affected allies only.
As a side note, the text of Healing Hands in the character sheet of the sample paladin for the 4E D&D Basic Game uses "target" instead of "ally", but this is not official errata either.
I would say that there is a good case for Healing Hands to heal additional hit points if the paladin uses lay on hand on himself, but this is something that each DM will have to decide for himself.
Unless I'm mistaken, a paladin can take both - so neither makes the other obsolete; these are feats which do almost the same thing and if that's your focus, you'll take both.
Really, it's not exactly a big balance issue whether or not the paladin can get the bonus when targeting himself. There is a simplicity issue, however; as written, it's easy to miss the implicit exception of yourself that Devoted Paladin makes. If there were to be an errata, I'd prefer both feats to simply apply to all usages of lay on hands - or, alternatively, to call attention to the distinction via language such as "when you use lay on hand on a target other than yourself".
In any case, I don't think it's a big issue either way. It's a little weird they made two such very similar feats in the first place, but oh well...
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
No it is not. It is like the second avenger feat, but on a less broken base...
I would like to see wisdom added instead of charisma for devoted paladin. Having two similar feats and one is strictly better than the other sounds wrong to me. At least the broken avenger feat has higher prerequisites.
A better more obvious wording would be appreciated. And maybe a wis requirement of 13 for the devoted paladin feat (this would usually be not that hard to fullfill, but it makes 13 wisdom better than 8 wisdom for such a paladin, and maybe the resulting lower constitution will be remedied by the extra healing surge)
Unless I'm mistaken, a paladin can take both - so neither makes the other obsolete; these are feats which do almost the same thing and if that's your focus, you'll take both.
If that was the case they could have just issued errata.
Unless they don't mind the redundancy so a paladin can take both which isn't actually all that bad.
Also, this isn't an MMO. Expecting that level of attention to balancing feats out when it's more economic just to release another feat is... unrealistic at best.
They aren't afraid of obsoleting past feats. Melee Training?
Gamers Online Now: 1,340
Linear Mode
