| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A paladin uses Lay on Hands to damage an undead creature. This requires a melee touch attack. The paladin misses. Is one use of Lay on Hands wasted with no effect, or is the paladin holding the charge with Lay on Hands and can attempt another touch attack next turn?
If yes, could that paladin use a held Lay on Hands to heal rather than make another melee touch attack against an undead?
I don't think that you can hold the charge, as that seems to only apply to spells:
In most cases, if you don't discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round until the spell is discharged. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can't hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
By my reading, it would expend a use of Lay on Hands with no effect (because you activated it as a standard action.) In a home game, I might rule that if you miss your touch you don't expend a Lay on Hands, but aren't holding the charge, either (so you have to use another standard action on your next turn if you want to try again.)
By my reading, it would expend a use of Lay on Hands with no effect
While you certainly can't hold the charge (because it's not a touch spell, like you said), one could argue that missing doesn't expend the use.
Lay On Hands (Su): "Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity."
One could say that, since using the ability that way requires a successful attack roll, failing that attack roll means the ability did not get used.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but can't come up with a good reason why.
By my reading, it would expend a use of Lay on Hands with no effectWhile you certainly can't hold the charge (because it's not a touch spell, like you said), one could argue that missing doesn't expend the use.
Lay On Hands (Su): "Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity."
One could say that, since using the ability that way requires a successful attack roll, failing that attack roll means the ability did not get used.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but can't come up with a good reason why.
I was debating this as well, but the reasoning behind my interpretation: it says "Using this ability is a standard action," which I interpret to mean that you declare your Lay on Hands first, and then get a touch attack. If the attack misses, it was still your standard action, but if it wasn't a use of the Lay on Hands ability, what was it? It was the use of Lay on Hands that allowed a touch attack in the first place. If you didn't use Lay on Hands, you wouldn't even be able to make a touch attack. The fact that it had no effect doesn't mean it wasn't used.
By "using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack", it could just be referring to "a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage." If the attack doesn't hit, it doesn't do any damage and hence wasn't used "in this way" (i.e., doing damage,) but it still counts as a "use".
It is rather ambiguous, though, probably worth FAQing.
By my reading, it would expend a use of Lay on Hands with no effectWhile you certainly can't hold the charge (because it's not a touch spell, like you said), one could argue that missing doesn't expend the use.
Lay On Hands (Su): "Alternatively, a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage for every two levels the paladin possesses. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity."
One could say that, since using the ability that way requires a successful attack roll, failing that attack roll means the ability did not get used.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong, but can't come up with a good reason why.
I was debating this as well, but the reasoning behind my interpretation: it says "Using this ability is a standard action," which I interpret to mean that you declare your Lay on Hands first, and then get a touch attack. If the attack misses, it was still your standard action, but if it wasn't a use of the Lay on Hands ability, what was it? It was the use of Lay on Hands that allowed a touch attack in the first place. If you didn't use Lay on Hands, you wouldn't even be able to make a touch attack. The fact that it had no effect doesn't mean it wasn't used.
By "using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack", it could just be referring to "a paladin can use this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures, dealing 1d6 points of damage." If the attack doesn't hit, it doesn't do any damage and hence wasn't used "in this way" (i.e., doing damage,) but it still counts as a "use".
It is rather ambiguous, though, probably worth FAQing.
Isn't that the same reasoning on why one would still would keep a spell held in one's hand after missing a touch attack, though? Gotta cast the spell (standard action, usually) first, then touch attack afterwards (free action if same round as casting spell, or standard action afterwards).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that the same reasoning on why one would still would keep a spell held in one's hand after missing a touch attack, though?
There are rules specifically for holding the charge of a touch spell. If there were not, then you couldn't hold the charge.
You can't cast a ray spell then not make the attack until later, for example.
Ah ok.