New idea for handling a Paladin's Remove Disease

[Grayhawk]

I've seen a few mentions of the Paladin's Remove Disease being too weak and it's 'X times/week' mechanic being overly archaic, and I've even seen somebody say that it might as well be removed all together. But since I feel that it's one of the sacred cows that shouldn't be put out to pasture just yet, I've come up with a new way of handling it:

'At 5th level a Paladin may Remove Disease by spending 15 points of Lay on Hands healing'

Obviously, this requires a minimum Cha of 16 to be usable at 5th level (a Cha of 14 will make it usable at 8th level, etc).

I don't think that this is a problem, as it has precedents in spellcasters needing a high ability score to learn higher level spells, and so on. Besides, the 'spend LoH points on something else' resembles the way turning can be used to fuel divine feats.

Plus it does away with the clunky 'X times/week' mechanic, which potentially can be annoying to keep track of.

To some, this may seem like too big a boost of the ability - a 15th level Paladin with a Cha of 18 could Remove Disease this way 4 times a day - but to me the ability could do with a power up to justify it's existence; and remember that it requires the sacrifice of all those Lay on Hand points, that could have been used for healing.

With a mechanic such as this in place, you could even expand on it with other curative abilities gained at other levels, at different point costs, like so:

'At 11th level a Paladin may Neutralize Poison by spending 30 points of Lay on Hands healing'

(Or at whatever level and cost seem appropriate to you.)

Comments welcome!

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Check out The Book of Iron Might.

 

[Staffan]

Check out The Book of Iron Might.

That's not much help until it's released.

 

[Grayhawk]

Check out The Book of Iron Might.

I'm guessing you say this because that book has a similar mechanic?

If so, do you have any details on it?

 

[Ferret]

That looks very nice, I don't know about it being so high. I don't think it's powerful enough to take up that kind of healing possibility, maybe if it was at 10?

 

[Grayhawk]

That looks very nice, I don't know about it being so high. I don't think it's powerful enough to take up that kind of healing possibility, maybe if it was at 10?

Thanks for your kind reply.

The reason for it being as high as it is (15 points), is to keep it somewhat in check. By the RAW the Paladin doesn't get Remove Disease until 6th level, and then only once per week.

While I don't mind him getting it a level early* and giving him the ability to use it daily, I feel that a 10 point cost is too low. Were it only 10 points, a Paladin with a Cha of 18 would be able to remove Disease twice per day when he first gets it, at 5th level.

(*3.0 gave the Paladin Remove Disease at 3rd level; in 2e and 1e you had the ability from the 1st level.)

Now, here comes the point where I would have continued defending the 15 point cost - 'If the cost was only 10 points, a 20th level Paladin with a Cha of 20 would be able to Remove Disease 10 times a day!', but going through the numbers I realise that my 15 point cost allows him to do it 6 times a day, so the difference hardly matters at those levels.

Also, if the cost was just the 10 points, a Paladin only needs a Cha of 14 at 5th level to be able to use the ability when he gets it, which might be more fair, depending on how ability scores are generated.

Bottom line: 10 points may just be the right amount.

Thanks for your input!

There's one thing though, that crossed my mind: In 1e and 2e you couldn't become a Paladin unless you had a minimum Cha of 17. When figuring out point costs for something like Remove Disease based on Lay on Hands healing, should you require a high score - to imitate earlier editions - or is it better to let the entry level be lower, while still rewarding higher stats? Would a Cha 14 Paladin be 'special' or blessed enough to gain the ability at it's earliest level?

I realise that there's no 'right' answer to this question, and people will have different opinions based on how they perceive a Paladin, but I would like to hear where you guys stand on the issue.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Great idea! I'm all for simplifying game mechanics. I like the 10 point version better; it's not like Remove Disease is an over-powered ability to begin with.

 

[DaveStebbins]

There's one thing though, that crossed my mind: In 1e and 2e you couldn't become a Paladin unless you had a minimum Cha of 17. When figuring out point costs for something like Remove Disease based on Lay on Hands healing, should you require a high score - to imitate earlier editions - or is it better to let the entry level be lower, while still rewarding higher stats? Would a Cha 14 Paladin be 'special' or blessed enough to gain the ability at it's earliest level?

In 3e, one of the core design decisions was to remove many high-stat barriers and just scale the reward based upon the stat. I like that idea.

Specific to your example, if the Paladin is built using a 25 or 28 point buy, it's very possible he might not have a CHA above 14, in which case he wouldn't be able to cure disease until 8th level if the cost is 15 points of LoH. The remove disease thing comes up rarely enough that I don't have a problem with the 10 point option/cost. In the end, I think I'll stick to the RAW, but my initial reaction was also that 15 points was too much, and my group uses a 32 point buy to generate character abilities.

-Dave

 

[Clay_More]

I agree that a 10 point cost wouldn't be overpowered. Unfortunately, I don't have my PhB with me, so I can' check what an average healing spell of the same level as the spell Remove Disease can cure, that might be an excellent guideline? Same goes for Remove Poison.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I like the idea of Lay on Hands being expanded to include other things like disease and maybe even poison. I'm not sure on the 10 vs. 15 point issue; I'd suggest playtesting.

I have a question, though. Why not just keep the Remove Disease idea the way it is, but make it X times/day, instead of per week? Don't get me wrong, I like what you've got; I'm just wondering why you didn't go with the simpler option. Was it just a flavor decision?