Lay on hands and temporary charisma boost

[Li Shenron]

DM: "The identified item is a +4 Cloak of Charisma."
PC Wizard: "Ok Paladin, it's your cloak since it will help you most."
PC Paladin: "No, no, no, I don't want it. I'd rather have the Cleric cast Eagle's Splendor on me 5 times a day and take my share in more useful magic items."
PC Cleric: "Great. <grumble>"

If a Cleric decides to prepare 5 Eagle's Splendor to help the Paladin, he's spending a lot of spell slots which he can't use for something else.

This group has to choose if it's best for them to give the cloak to the Paladin and save those 5 spells, or give it to someone else and ask the Cleric prepate more ES. If you play that ES is useful only once, there is no reason for the second choice.

I'm just saying that I prefer to give the party one more tactical choice. Since the RAW are NOT clear in this case, I'd run against the grain and allow the multiple benefits. It won't seriously change the game in favor of the PC, and probably very few groups would choose this option anyway, but e.g. it may give a tiny extra reason for others (Wiz/Sor) to learn this spell.

 

[Endur]

Interpretation, or if you prefer, application of the rule. And yes, rulebooks do it all the time for purposes of clarity. One sentence gives a rule. Next sentence says this applies to X or does not apply to Y. Then the wording of the second sentence becomes important. Does sentence #2 include the word "only" or some other indication that the rule only applies here. Does sentence #2 make you think its an exception or the only exception. And so on.

I don't want to get on a rules-lawyering tangent, but I think the rule is unclear, and the better interpretation is that the Paladin does not get extra turn attempts or extra lay on hands points while affected by Eagle's Splendor. I would give those extras to a Paladin with a cloak of charisma. As I would give extra spell slots to a Paladin with a periapt of wisdom and not give extra spell slots to a Paladin with Owl's Wisdom. The Lay on Hands ability and Turn Undead attempts are received when the Paladin prays for his spells by RAW, they should not change later when someone else casts Eagle's Splendor. Divine Grace and the Smite Bonus to hit, on the other hand, should change when someone casts Eagle's Splendor.

And, for what's it worth, I primarily play Paladins.

I am not sure I understand your distinction between interpretation and exception. Does a rulebook make ad hoc interpretations of itself?

The RAW on this subject is Table 1-1: Ability Modifiers And Bonus Spells on page 8 of the PHB. All other rules references to bonus spells based on ability scores can only be understood in the context of that table. The table does not make any distinctions regarding sources or durations of stat boosts, so that must be the basis of our discussion.

 

[Durifern]

That went out with Int boosting items increasing skill points.

Means you can´t get increasing skill points unless your ability is increased permanently, right?

 

[Nail]

I thought you were just being a smartass when I first read this. On reflection, I realize you are being a smartass but there is a serious question here.

LOL

"Smartness" aside: It's clear enough that a Cha boost gives you extra lay on hands, turning attempts, etc. (I'm not sure why Endur keeps sticking to his incorrect interp....but Rule Zero works, I guess.) What's not clear is what happens when the bonus goes away...and then comes back again, for whatever reason.

That is to say, putting on a Cloak of Charisma and then taking it off is effectively equivalent to casting Eagle's Splendor and then having the duration run out. So casting Eagle's Splendor multiple times is the same as taking the cloak on and off, on and off, etc. The rules make no distinction between these sources....indeed they are both called enhancement bonuses and don't stack.

I think it's silly to allow a Paladin to get extra healing multiple times by taking the Cloak on and off multiple times. There are no explicit rules for this, other than the "different sources" rule...and even that takes some twisting to make it come out right. Still, it seems reasonable to say "keep track of how much you lay-on-hands, and you can never exceed your (boosted) Cha max during a day". If you want to keep track of this as negative healing points, so be it.

Anything else just looks silly. And as the Minister of Silly Walks is out for the day, we'll have none of that here!

 

[Nail]

Means you can´t get increasing skill points unless your ability is increased permanently, right?

As I understand it, yes. Inherent bonuses only, IIRC. Someone have a handy rules quote (or those blasted RotG)?

 

[KarinsDad]

If a Cleric decides to prepare 5 Eagle's Splendor to help the Paladin, he's spending a lot of spell slots which he can't use for something else.

This group has to choose if it's best for them to give the cloak to the Paladin and save those 5 spells, or give it to someone else and ask the Cleric prepate more ES. If you play that ES is useful only once, there is no reason for the second choice.

I'm just saying that I prefer to give the party one more tactical choice. Since the RAW are NOT clear in this case, I'd run against the grain and allow the multiple benefits. It won't seriously change the game in favor of the PC, and probably very few groups would choose this option anyway, but e.g. it may give a tiny extra reason for others (Wiz/Sor) to learn this spell.

I guess humor isn't your forte.

In any case, I agree with Nail. The rules allow for the extra healing, keep track of your maximum healing while boosted and do not allow more healing than your maximum in a day.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Ever hear of the Persistent Spell feat?

Yes, that's that feat that doesn't work with Eagle's Splendour, right? Because of something about requiring personal/fixed range and Eagle's Splendour being touch.

 

[Li Shenron]

I guess humor isn't your forte.

But... I was being serious

 

[ThirdWizard]

As I understand it, yes. Inherent bonuses only, IIRC. Someone have a handy rules quote (or those blasted RotG)?

Wasn't the Int thing changed in 3.5 to "used a whole lot" instead of "always active?" I expect someone will correct me, but I think I remember talk about that when 3.5 first came out.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If a Cleric decides to prepare 5 Eagle's Splendor to help the Paladin, he's spending a lot of spell slots which he can't use for something else.

I would certainly agree there is nothing unbalanced about allowing this tactic. Perfectly fair to spend valuable resources to get other resources in this manner. The RAW does not happen to allow it in this case, but it would be a reasonable thing to rule zero because it seems cool.