Casting Lay on Hands with Tower Shield + Longsword?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hi! I just started my first Paladin. (2nd game in total!) The thing is my DM says you can cast Lay on Hands while holding a Tower Shield and a sword. Even though i said it seems impossible, he says there is a way but i wont tell you. So my question is, is this really possible? I have quick draw feat and an empty feat if that helps.

Dark Archive

Yes, you require a free hand to use this ability in either form. But your DM can house-rule any rule, and being able to use this ability without a free hand is a HUGE benefit to you (i.e. you don't have to sheath or drop your weapon to use this ability).

Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can use this ability a number of times equal to 1/2 her paladin level plus her Charisma modifier. With one use of this ability, a paladin can heal 1d6 hit points of damage for every two paladin levels she possesses. Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action. Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.

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. Undead do not receive a saving throw against this damage.


You need a free hand to use lay on hands. Since you cannot carry an item in the same hand that has a tower shield equipped (you can with a light shield, though) this means you must unequip either your longsword or tower shield in order to use lay on hands. Since you have quickdraw, unequipping your longsword as a move action and then drawing it as a free action when you're done is probably your best option.


He is playing keep away with your own character's abilities when this is your second game...ever? That sounds like you might have problems, my friend, and it is not so much with the rules.

Anyway, as the paladin class ability says, you need at least one free hand in order to use lay on hands. While it is possible with some shields (bucklers and light shields generally leave you hand free enough), and even some weapons (gauntlets, brass knuckles, and cestus all allow you to use items while wearing them, so I would say they are fairly much free). But tower shield and longsword? I can't really see any way without one of them down or away

He might have been referring to some specific magical items (gloves of storing), in which case he should have said something along the lines of "there are magical items that could help, but very few ways to do it practically at low levels, so don't worry about it".

I may be missing some obvious trick, but hopefully the people of this forum are going to be more helpful than your DM appears to be. I'm just setting some lay discussion the helps speed other people along.

EDIT-since people are talking about 'best options' I will say that switching to a light shield would be the best option. It has less AC, sure, but the ability to heal yourself as a swift action seems too good to pass up, and it will likely serve you more as a tank than a couple extra AC would (especially since you are going with shield and heavy armor anyway, right?)


weapon cord or gloveo of storing

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've always ruled that you need a free hand to use Lay On Hands for anyone else since it's a standard action. But since self-healing using LOH is a swift action intended to let the Paladin melee and smite in the same round, I pretty much ignore it for that use.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
I've always ruled that you need a free hand to use Lay On Hands for anyone else since it's a standard action. But since self-healing using LOH is a swift action intended to let the Paladin melee and smite in the same round, I pretty much ignore it for that use.

That's fine for a home game and it makes sense that it might work that way. But RAW is that it can't be done.

Cheapest option is what lemeres suggests and to use a light shield.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, you need a free hand.

Yes, the iconic Paladin armament - Longsword and Heavy Shield - is a terrible lifestyle choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I've always ruled that you need a free hand to use Lay On Hands for anyone else since it's a standard action. But since self-healing using LOH is a swift action intended to let the Paladin melee and smite in the same round, I pretty much ignore it for that use.

That's fine for a home game and it makes sense that it might work that way. But RAW is that it can't be done.

RAI implies it and so at my tables I let it slide. Not that it's ever been an issue, since I've yet to see a Paladin call it into use.

Grand Lodge

LazarX wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I've always ruled that you need a free hand to use Lay On Hands for anyone else since it's a standard action. But since self-healing using LOH is a swift action intended to let the Paladin melee and smite in the same round, I pretty much ignore it for that use.

That's fine for a home game and it makes sense that it might work that way. But RAW is that it can't be done.

RAI implies it

I'd argue it doesn't as it clearly says the paladin needs a free hand. But it really doesn't matter as home games are home games and you're more than welcomed to introduce whatever variation fits for you and yours.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pupsocket wrote:

Yes, you need a free hand.

Yes, the iconic Paladin armament - Longsword and Heavy Shield - is a terrible lifestyle choice.

It's fine at 1st level, when you don't have the ability to lay on hands.. At 2nd level, you need to either buy a weapon cord or (far less cheesy) trade that heavy shield in for a light shield.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it very awkward design that classes assumed to be using weapons and shields should also be required to have a free hand. And I guess a lot of other people feel the same way, since many seem to house rule out those requirements.


You're going to run into the same problem when you acquire spellcasting too, since most spells require somatic components (gestures with a free hand).

Tower shields don't really work for paladins unless you pair them with a weapon that keeps your hand free, like a cestus or spiked gauntlet. You'll probably want to ditch it for a light shield that allows you to still make use of your class features.


As others have already suggested, the tower shield is terrible.

It comes with a -2 penalty to attack and uses up your hand such that you can't even hold anything else to it.

Switch to a light shield. It lowers your AC slightly (by 3), which might feel like a lot at low level but as you increase level and your AC grows from other sources that 3 will become a lot less significant. Further, being able to swift action heal yourself will be so powerful that you wont need to worry about take an extra hit now and again because you shield doesn't provide as much AC.


Melkiador wrote:
I find it very awkward design that classes assumed to be using weapons and shields should also be required to have a free hand. And I guess a lot of other people feel the same way, since many seem to house rule out those requirements.

Depends on who you are asking.

Some people assume that you would only grab a shield if you are also going with TWF (in which case you wouldn't want to go longsword and heavy shield anyway; either the shield goes light or you pick up a short sword). Because they think sword and board is not any good otherwise..... or more specifically, one of the problems I find people on these boards complain about with sword and board is that their GM's use their meta knowledge of your AC and just avoid you. As such, they abandon the idea of AC and just 2 handed weapon rocket tag instead. Of course, another problem they complain about is how being cleric turns you into just a heal bots, so there are a variety of problems here that have been around since long before 3.5 because of the various ways people believe the game is 'assumed to be played'....

Anyway, back to the main point, as I said early on, it is entirely possible to have a shield- you are simply using a light one. And there are a lot of mechanical advantages of a light shield when you consider the fact that paladins not only have lay on hands, but they are also spell casters (I know that at least a few of their spells need materials or a focus). Plus, there are a wide number of items, such as wands or potions.

In comparison, heavy shields only give you 1 more AC, and towershields give you 3, but take -2 from your attacks (lets ignore its cover uses, since that can be situational). And overall....it is note really worth it for a paladin. You are already going to have better and cheaper AC than someone without a shield due to enhancements (remember, armor and shields each cost half as much as a weapon from making them masterwork to getting those straight +'s). Making a small concession so you can use variety of abilities seems just the price of that.


Heavy shields are really good. You just have to use them as your primary weapon. Add shield spikes, take power attack and improved shield bash. Later you can take things like saving shield, shield focus, etc... if you want to.

Just treat the shield like a one-handed weapon wielded two-handed. No, it's not the highest base damage. But, you're a pally... what do you care about a weapon's base damage?


The Crusader wrote:

Heavy shields are really good. You just have to use them as your primary weapon. Add shield spikes, take power attack and improved shield bash. Later you can take things like saving shield, shield focus, etc... if you want to.

Just treat the shield like a one-handed weapon wielded two-handed. No, it's not the highest base damage. But, you're a pally... what do you care about a weapon's base damage?

For a second I was about to come and say, why would he want a heavy shield when he needs a free hand, but then I realized your suggesting wielding a heavy shield two-handed (with no other weapon, obviously). That would enable him to get two handed weapon bonuses from Power Attack and Strength, he wouldn't need improved or greater two weapon fighting and could get the ever awesome Shield Master feat. *He needs TWF for Shield Master, and would need to start with 13 dex if he can afford it (so he can get a +2 dex item to qualify for TWF).


Since i already have a +4 enchanted weapon, i cant use shield as primary weapon. My DM won't let me use lay on hands with light shield too, so i will just go with insaneogoddon's advice, Glove of Storing. 10k gold won't make a big difference to me.


I suggest you begin taking a closer look at the exact wording of the rules, since your GM either is not, or is ignoring them. I have always thought that a light shield will allow you do certain things, but the what that is isn't very specific.

Here is the description of a light shield:

Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Benefit:

Wooden or Steel: Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to some spells and effects.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its Armor Class bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.


Crummy Wizard wrote:
Since i already have a +4 enchanted weapon, i cant use shield as primary weapon. My DM won't let me use lay on hands with light shield too, so i will just go with insaneogoddon's advice, Glove of Storing. 10k gold won't make a big difference to me.

Your GM is wrong unless he is outright changing the rules.

You can use LoH in exactly the way I described it my first post, unless you GM is purposely changing the rules to disallow this. In which case, discuss it with him and ask him why.

Quote:

Light Steel Shield

Price 9 gp

Shield Bonus +1

You strap a light steel shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light steel shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it. Whether wooden or steel, a light shield offers the same basic protection and attack benefits, though the two varieties respond differently to some spells and effects (such as rusting grasp). A druid can use a light wooden shield, but not a light steel shield.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield. See "light shield" in the Martial Weapons table for the damage dealt by a shield bash with a light shield. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right

Use means cannot wield to attack. It does not mean cannot hold.

You use a free action to move the weapon into your other hand and hold it. Cast a spell or use LoH and the another free action to move it back.


Crummy Wizard wrote:
Since i already have a +4 enchanted weapon, i cant use shield as primary weapon. My DM won't let me use lay on hands with light shield too, so i will just go with insaneogoddon's advice, Glove of Storing. 10k gold won't make a big difference to me.

Or you could use a buckler. That has the same AC as a light shield, and it literally leaves your hand free. It leaves you hand free enough that you can use it to wield a weapon (not well, mind you; there is a penalty- I guess you get a -1 to your lay on hand's attack rolls when you use it to hurt undead?)

The only disadvantages bucklers have is that they can't be used as weapons (as far as I am aware) and they can't be quickdraw (there is a version of the lightshield that is quick draw; slightly more costly at level. 1, but after that the difference is only that it is more useful). But I guess that it doesn't need to be quickdraw, since you can literally always wear the darn thing. Even at the dinner table (better rank up diplomacy to convince your hosts to allow that though)

Silver Crusade

I've been playing since AD&D 1st ed, and in all that time and in all it's variations, paladins have had a healing abiliy called 'Lay On Hands'.

Some DMs have been dicks about it for nearly forty years. I've known of DM's who make the PC lose his paladinhood because he used LOH on himself!

One of the dick moves which was fairly common (but still wrong) was that because the ability is called 'Lay On Hands plural, that it required two hands! They forced the paladin to drop weapon and shield in order to use LOH.

The answer came, no, you don't need two hands just because 'hands' is plural in the name! The name isn't the rule.

The truth then, and now, is that LOH is simply an ability with a range of 'touch', and it follows those rules. When PF wanted to head the dick DMs off at the pass, they wrote that 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability', but that would have been better put as 'This ability has a range of Touch'.

'But, it says hands' I hear you cry! Think about that for a moment. The devs have already admitted that the CRB, and the descriptions of class abilities, feats and skills, is written with a humanoid in mind. This doesn't mean that the rules don't work for non-humanoids! TWF has an off-hand attack, but you don't need an actual 'hand' in order to make that attack.

Touch range wrote:
You must touch a creature or object to affect it.

You don't require a literal 'hand' to deliver a touch. A foot, tentacle, even a kiss will do the job. It even works through clothes, armour and spiked gauntlets (although you don't do the damage of the worn weapon when you do a touch attack).

And here's something else to consider: you are always touching yourself (stop sniggering at the back!). You don't have to use your hand to deliver a touch to yourself, you are always touching yourself!

So, the paladin with the longsword and tower shield can't use either hand to deliver the touch to an ally, but a boot or a kiss will do fine. As for the swift LOH on himself? No problem; he is always constantly touching himself (I said stop sniggering!) and his hands being full isn't an issue for that!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RAW: "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability." If they'd meant "needs no free hands" they would probably have said it.

Silver Crusade

Matthew Downie wrote:
RAW: "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability." If they'd meant "needs no free hands" they would probably have said it.

I admit that you have to actually apply your reason, instead of just accepting a sentence that cannot be literally true.

If you want to follow the reasoning then read my previous post. If you're happier without thinking for yourself then happy gaming.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I admit that you have to actually apply your reason, instead of just accepting a sentence that cannot be literally true.

If you want to follow the reasoning then read my previous post. If you're happier without thinking for yourself then happy gaming.

This is not a matter of not "thinking for yourself" - it's a matter of whether or not you can comprehend simple English. While there was some room for (mis)interepretation of this particular question in previous editions, things are quite explicit now.

When my sorcerer casts Otto's Irresistible Dance on a target with SR, there's no question as to whether or not the target's SR applies in Pathfinder - the spell's decription clearly states that it does. Were I were to argue, "But it says irresistible in the name!" that would be pure semantic pedantry. It would demonstrate a lack of decorum (and perhaps scruples) on my part, not any kind of higher cognitive prowess.

If you want to play/run games where paladins can "lay on hands" without any free hands involved, more power to you. As an aside, I used an equally liberal interpretation of lay on hands myself - in previous editions, when there wasn't an explicit "one hand" requirement. (As we've come a long way from "two points per class level once per day", I see little reason to complain about the change.) However, I would never conflate a house rule interpretation with being anything other than exactly that.


Arcane Bond (Ex): At 5th level, an arcane duelist gains the arcane bond ability as a wizard, using a weapon as his bonded item, allowing him to cast any one addition spell that he knows once per day. He may not choose a familiar or other type of bonded item. He may use the hand holding his bonded weapon for somatic components. This ability replaces lore master.

Silver Crusade

Azoriel wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I admit that you have to actually apply your reason, instead of just accepting a sentence that cannot be literally true.

If you want to follow the reasoning then read my previous post. If you're happier without thinking for yourself then happy gaming.

This is not a matter of not "thinking for yourself" - it's a matter of whether or not you can comprehend simple English. While there was some room for (mis)interepretation of this particular question in previous editions, things are quite explicit now.

Not quite as explicit as it seems at a mere glance.

As for 'the name is not the rule', that's my point! I would never point to the word 'irresistible' any more than I'd point to the word 'hands' in the name of an ability to determine the rules governing its use.

Put it this way: the statement "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability" is either literally true, or it isn't. If it is, then paladins who don't happen to have any hands can't use one of their main abilities. Birdmen, awakened lions, dolphins, eagles, many aberrations, loads of non-humanoid paladins are stuffed in PF in a way they never were before. Do you honestly think that this is a deliberate design change by Paizo? Or could it be that, just like the rest of the CRB, the rules are written from the perspective of a healthy humanoid, but that humanoid perspective is not a rule in and of itself, and if that's the case then the offending sentence is not literally true, but simply showing that you don't need more than one hand simply because the word 'hands' is plural. Hence the word 'only' in the phrase; if it didn't mean that then the word 'only' would be superfluous.

If a human paladin has had both hands cut off and replaced by hooks, where has the healing energy gone?

Do you really think that if you asked Paizo they would say that no couatl, gold or silver dragon, octopus man, sphinx, unicorn or lantern archon with levels in the paladin class can ever use Lay On Hands because they don't have literal hands? Because all of these creatures could use LOH in previous editions of the game.

To believe the literal interpretation, you also have to believe that Paizo deliberately changed LOH so it can't be used without actual hands when it always could before, when we already know that Paizo says its rules are written from a humanoid perspective but that perspective doesn't deny non-humanoids the use of the rules.


You're heavily twisting the wording to fit your vision for how the ability should function. Yes, if you don't have hands you cannot use Lay On Hands. In exactly the same way that if you don't have hands you can't cast spells with somatic components.

Go ahead and house rule it in your own games, but don't try to convince people that the text in the book is lying to them.


The RAW calls for a free hand so if you have hands you must use them. Bow if you have claws common sense says they would work. You can not however just use any random appendage.


Actually creatures without hads can casr spells with somatic components. Thr rules are written from a PC centric POV. Blink dogs and I think Nagas are examples of this but Malachi is wrong if he is saying you can use your feet. The intent is clear. It is not like feet are normally occupied so if that was the intent the sentence about free hand would be pointless. They could have said "any limb currently not in use" or something similar .

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Actually creatures without hads can casr spells with somatic components. Thr rules are written from a PC centric POV. Blink dogs and I think Nagas are examples of this

This is exactly what I've been saying!

Do you really think that 'The rules are written from a PC centric POV' applies to all the rules except Lay On Hands? When it never did in any previous edition, and PF had absolutely no reason to go against this principle? When there is a good reason for clarifying that the plural 'hands' in the name doesn't mean that plural hands are required to use it?

Quote:
but Malachi is wrong if he is saying you can use your feet.

For the complex, dextrous concept of somatic components, I agree. To deliver a touch spell or effect? No problem.

Quote:
They could have said "any limb currently not in use" or something similar .

TBH, they should have said 'Despite the name, this ability has a range of Touch, and follows those rules.'


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Actually creatures without hads can casr spells with somatic components. Thr rules are written from a PC centric POV. Blink dogs and I think Nagas are examples of this

This is exactly what I've been saying!

Do you really think that 'The rules are written from a PC centric POV' applies to all the rules except Lay On Hands? When it never did in any previous edition, and PF had absolutely no reason to go against this principle? When there is a good reason for clarifying that the plural 'hands' in the name doesn't mean that plural hands are required to use it?

Quote:
but Malachi is wrong if he is saying you can use your feet.

For the complex, dextrous concept of somatic components, I agree. To deliver a touch spell or effect? No problem.

Quote:
They could have said "any limb currently not in use" or something similar .
TBH, they should have said 'Despite the name, this ability has a range of Touch, and follows those rules.'

The thematic idea of laying on hands is also enforcing the rules. "Laying hands on someone" is also a call to the idea of someone powered by divine energy healing you with a touch of your hands.

It is a case of a rule made from flavor.

If you want we can FAQ this but I am sure they will use the thematic reference to enforce the book's intent.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Put it this way: the statement "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability" is either literally true, or it isn't. If it is, then paladins who don't happen to have any hands can't use one of their main abilities. Birdmen, awakened lions, dolphins, eagles, many aberrations, loads of non-humanoid paladins are stuffed in PF in a way they never were before. Do you honestly think that this is a deliberate design change by Paizo?

No, it's a side-effect of a design decision by Paizo. And a trivial one, unless paladin dolphins are more common that I thought.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If a human paladin has had both hands cut off and replaced by hooks, where has the healing energy gone?

If a wizard has both his arms cut off and can't reach his component pouch or make somatic gestures, he can't cast those spells any more. Where does the magic energy go? Who cares? The wizard can't cast most spells if he fills his hands with equipment. Why shouldn't a paladin suffer similar restrictions?

If I was going to house-rule away the RAW because I suddenly started to worry about discrimination against birdman paladins, I'd say that any organ that can be used for somatic components can also be used for lay-on-hands, which would increase the number of species that can be effective paladins. But I wouldn't rule that human paladins can do it with both hands full.

Silver Crusade

Matthew Downie wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Put it this way: the statement "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability" is either literally true, or it isn't. If it is, then paladins who don't happen to have any hands can't use one of their main abilities. Birdmen, awakened lions, dolphins, eagles, many aberrations, loads of non-humanoid paladins are stuffed in PF in a way they never were before. Do you honestly think that this is a deliberate design change by Paizo?

No, it's a side-effect of a design decision by Paizo. And a trivial one, unless paladin dolphins are more common that I thought.

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If a human paladin has had both hands cut off and replaced by hooks, where has the healing energy gone?

If a wizard has both his arms cut off and can't reach his component pouch or make somatic gestures, he can't cast those spells any more. Where does the magic energy go? Who cares? The wizard can't cast most spells if he fills his hands with equipment. Why shouldn't a paladin suffer similar restrictions?

If I was going to house-rule away the RAW because I suddenly started to worry about discrimination against birdman paladins, I'd say that any organ that can be used for somatic components can also be used for lay-on-hands, which would increase the number of species that can be effective paladins. But I wouldn't rule that human paladins can do it with both hands full.

Somatic components are complex hand and finger gestures. Supernatural and spell-like abilities don't have or need them. If either is an ability with a range of touch, then a touch by any body part (even one clothed in armour) is all you need.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

The thematic idea of laying on hands is also enforcing the rules. "Laying hands on someone" is also a call to the idea of someone powered by divine energy healing you with a touch of your hands.

It is a case of a rule made from flavor.

If you want we can FAQ this but I am sure they will use the thematic reference to enforce the book's intent.

Are you saying that Paizo would support the idea that dragon or unicorn paladins are completely unable to use their LOH ability because they lack hands, while at the same time believing that they can cast spells with somatic components because 'The rules are written from a PC centric POV'?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Somatic components are complex hand and finger gestures. Supernatural and spell-like abilities don't have or need them.

Normally, yes. In the case of Lay on Hands, no. That's a specific exception, a supernatural ability that involves using hands (somehow).

If handless creatures are unable to use somatic spells, which I believe they are by RAW, they're terrible wizards, clerics, oracles, magi, bards, sorcerers, inquisitors... Is it a big deal that they're not that great at being paladins either?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the question of spellcasting animals, SKR and James Jacobs weighed in on another thread, stating that creatures lacking hands can substitute other natural body movements for their somatic components. While neither deals directly with FAQ inputs, the first post on the thread indicates that the FAQ writers deemed the response from these two satisfactory enough to not make an FAQ entry.

It's important to note, however, that polymorphing into a form lacking hands when you naturally have them still prevents you from casting spells with somatic components by default.

One might point out this is discriminatory to all those spellcasters who were born with hands but lost them after the fact. The answer: So what? Awakened dog and whale paladins can't use swords and shields - is this some great travesty of justice? Without making additional addendums to the rules, those same paladin's can't make use of magical rings made for humanoids - the fact that those exceptions will only exist by DM fiat doesn't keep me awake at night.

In my opinion, however, all this is neither here nor there. Even if you had a paladin character who was born with arms and lost them later in life, I don't see any problem with making allowances for that character to "lay on hands" using other gestures (whether by DM fiat or even the gods interceding in game to give special powers to a favored servant). But this has nothing to do with a paladin who has two perfectly functional arms to use their lay on hands ability with.

Some years ago, a former coworker of mine lost both of his (perfectly functional) legs due to a horrible medical mishap. Among other things, he now uses a motorized wheelchair, which was undoubtedly covered by his health insurance. Should I therefore, with my body largely intact, feel entitled to a motorized wheelchair of my own? I mean, he didn't have to pay for his wheelchair at all, and I'm pretty sure he probably didn't even want to be using one, so I should be able to get one too, right? Why should I be required to walk around with my own two legs when he doesn't have to? After all, we both have the same health coverage.

You want an exception for a paladin who has hooks for hands? If I were your DM, that's fine by me. While it's not explicitly stated anywhere, I'll grant you that the game designers don't intend for paladins in such a predicament to be denied the ability to lay on hands. And the same would apply to his blink dog paladin cohort, who was never born with any hands to begin with. But that wouldn't be grounds for the dual-wielding paladin in the same party to suddenly throw down his swords and start complaining, "Wait a minute, you'll let both of them do this without any hands at all, but I've got to clear up one of mine?"

PS: As an aside, the rules in Pathfinder are clear regarding whether or not you need a free hand for lay on hands - for you to continue claiming that this is not the case is extremely disingenuous (in addition to being outright inaccurate). Should you want to say something is inconsistent or doesn't make sense, then say that. Don't misrepresent the facts.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The thematic idea of laying on hands is also enforcing the rules. "Laying hands on someone" is also a call to the idea of someone powered by divine energy healing you with a touch of your hands.

It is a case of a rule made from flavor.

If you want we can FAQ this but I am sure they will use the thematic reference to enforce the book's intent.

Are you saying that Paizo would support the idea that dragon or unicorn paladins are completely unable to use their LOH ability because they lack hands, while at the same time believing that they can cast spells with somatic components because 'The rules are written from a PC centric POV'?

You did not read my previous comment. I said if something does not have hands it could use what passes for a hand, such as a claw. Dragons have claws. If you have hands and they are occupied, and you do not have a claw or similar appendage then you can not lay on hands.

In some fantasy stories unicorns have touched people with their horns, so I would allow them to use their horn as the delivering body part.
Some GM's might even allow them to use their hooves. That(using hooves) would not be allowed by the rules or disallowed by the rules since unicorns are not covered by the "hand" rule. We don't have rules for every creature so some of this will fall into GM Fiat territory.


I would guess that the GM is either thinking weapon cord (pre-nerf) or activating a crystal of healing hands (which is expensive to taunt a level 1 paladin with).

-TimD

Silver Crusade

'Somatic components' and 'Lay On Hands' (or other supernatural or spell-like abilities) have some things in common, but are different things. I'll address each seperately.

Somatic components: what does PF say?

Quote:
A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

So, you can't cast a spell with a somatic component unless you have a hand. So, RAW in PF, nagas and other handless creatures cannot cast spells.

And yet, they can.

Why? Because PF, like it or not, originated as (effectively) D&D 3.75, and developed out of 3.5 by people who understood 3.5. These PF devs knew that creatures without hands can cast spells! But how did they know? It doesn't say so in either the CRB or the Bestiary!

Well, in 3.5 somatic components required the same free hand as PF. The PF entry is cut & paste from the 3.5 PHB!

So how could handless spellcasters function in 3.5? Because there is an entry in the 3.5 Monster Manual which is lacking in the PF Bestiary:-

3.5 MM p.315 wrote:

Spells: Sometimes a creature can cast arcane or divine spells just as a member of a spellcasting class can (and can activate magic items accordingly). Such creatures are subject to the same spellcasting rules that characters are, except as follows.

A spellcasting creature that lacks hands or arms can provide any somatic component a spell might require by moving its body.

So, it's clear that handless creatures can cast such spells in 3.5 with no problem, and the PF devs still understand that to be true, so much so that they didn't feel the need to write it in the rules.

Learning how to cast actual spells (as opposed to just willing an SLA to take effect) is a process that is not exclusive to humanoids, and non-humanoids learn to move their bodies to cast a spell, and humanoids use their hands to do the same thing.

A creature born as a humanoid who assumes the shape of a handless creature has not had this education, and is stuffed for somatic components, although there is a feat which helps, in both 3.5 and PF.

So how do PF justify ignoring the written word of 'You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component'? Because the CRB is written from the POV of humanoid races, but should not be understood as excluding non-humanoids from obeying the same rules just because they aren't humanoid.

Have you got your heads round that principle? Good. Now I can talk about Lay On Hands.

LOH has been a feature of paladins since their first appearance in D&D, always under that cool name. The specifics have changed in each edition, but despite some dick DMs saying that you needed more than one hand to use it (because the name of the ability says 'hands', plural), it has always simply been a touch range ability, and followed those rules.

Don't believe me?

3.0 PHB p.42 wrote:

Lay on Hands: A paladin can heal wounds by touch.

....Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all (of these healing points) to deal damage to undead creatures. Treat this attack just like a touch spell.

Nothing about hands, just about 'touch' and 'like a touch spell'.

3.5 PHB p.44 wrote:

Lay on Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch.

...Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.

Nothing about hands, just about 'touch' and 'melee touch attack'. We know that a touch attack doesn't require a 'hand' specifically; any body part will do.

So, the game that the PF devs learned, the game that became PF, had dragon, couatl, unicorn, even maimed human paladins, fully able to use their LOH ability, and their lack of an actual hand was simply not relevant.

Does anyone really believe that the very same devs who understood that handless creatures can cast spells with somatic components despite the rules saying they do and no rule saying they don't, really intentionally decided to prevent handless paladins from using LOH?

PF CRB p.61 wrote:
Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch.

It seems to me that there is no intention to change anything. If they wanted to, they could have written, 'Lay On Hands (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touching with a hand.'

It goes on to say:-

Quote:
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.

Sound familiar?

So what does this line mean?

Quote:
Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.

What's the 'only' for? If it was their intent to change how LOH always worked into an ability that requires an actual hand (why?), that word has no function. 'A paladin needs one free hand to use this ability' would be what they wrote.

Either they deliberately decided to deny LOH to creatures without hands (again, why?) or, as the word 'only' makes clear, it's just clarifying that you 'only' need a single hand and not plural hands just because of the name.

And as we know, just because a rule says that it requires a 'free hand', doesn't mean that it needs a hand! Strange?

LOH wrote:
a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.
Somatic components wrote:
You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component.

The devs understood how 3.5 worked, and didn't feel the need to add rules explaining that just because the rules are written from a humanoid-centic POV that they also work for non-humanoids.

Silver Crusade

In the thread 'How can blink dogs be sorcerers' (one in which Wraithstrike was a contributor):-

James Jacobs wrote:

If nagas can be sorcerers... I have no concerns or worries about blink dogs doing the same. Material components are the only things that are really a concern for handless spellcasters, and sorcerers get Eschew Materials for free.

For humanoids, somatic components include hand gestures. For things with other shaped bodies, somatic components include whatever gestures their body naturally makes, be that paw or leg movements, tail wagging, squirming bodies, or whatever.

In reply:-

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Aww... I'm kind of disappointed that a paizo official had to come here and spell this out. People should have to think for themselves. Maybe you are just kinder than I :)

I can't make people think for themselves, but when you do you are rewarded with a game that makes much more sense than if you just accept stuff without applying critical thought to a line in a rule which seems to make little sense in context.


I brought up blink dogs because I remembered that thread . :)
I will read your long post when I get home .

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

I brought up blink dogs because I remembered that thread . :)

I will read your long post when I get home .

Can't say fairer than that, my friend. : )


Nobody ever said you needed plural hands. You do however need one free hand or the equivalent. A foot is not the equivalent of a hand, and it is also possible that using the LoH touch attack mechanic is different than using it for healing yourself, but I doubt it.

Using LoH is not equivalent to using a somatic component for a spell.

You need a free hand for LoH in the same sense that a magus needs a free hand for certain abilities, or that you need a free hand to carry something in your hand-->Because the rules say so.

I noticed that in you did not quote the entire 3.5 paladin lay on hands. It has no provision requiring a "free hand", which Pathfinder does.

I don't think you need a hand because of the name of the ability. You need a free hand because a foot is not a free hand, nor is a knee or elbow, or hip.


But then you lose the classic visual of paladins with swords and tower shields hopping about on one foot and healing people with the other.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
I noticed that in you did not quote the entire 3.5 paladin lay on hands. It has no provision requiring a "free hand"

Exactly! That's my point! LOH has never required an actual hand, so why would the devs start now? What would be their motive? How does it improve the game to screw with non-humanoid paladins?

I don't think that LOH, or any other touch range ability, requires the kind of gestures that somatic components require (any body part will do), but I don't believe that the same devs who see somatic components requiring a 'hand' by RAW but really don't think that a hand is required, would see LOH requiring a 'single hand' by RAW and disallow handless paladins from using one of their class abilities.

There are two possibilities:-

• the devs wrote 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability', and meant this to mean that 'despite the name of this ability saying hands, plural, you don't need more than one'

OR

• they wrote 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability', because they deliberately decided to change the way LOH has always worked, just to screw with non-humanoid paladins

Which one of these is credible, Wraithstrike?

Remember, just as much as RAW says 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability' in LOH, iRAW also says 'You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component', and what's the dev attitude for that? What's good for one is good for the other, and if you can't go against RAW for one then you can't for the other, especially given all the other supporting evidence.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:


There are two possibilities:-

• the devs wrote 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability', and meant this to mean that 'despite the name of this ability saying hands, plural, you don't need more than one'

OR

• they wrote 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability', because they deliberately decided to change the way LOH has always worked, just to screw with non-humanoid paladins

Which one of these is credible, Wraithstrike?

Remember, just as much as RAW says 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability' in LOH, iRAW also says 'You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component', and what's the dev attitude for that? What's good for one is good for the other, and if you can't go against RAW for one then you can't for the other, especially given all the other supporting evidence.

I don't know what the first option means other than you trying to say you only need one free hand. Which I have already said you need one free hand as a humanoid or an equivalent such as a claw so I guess it is option 1 and you have come around to my way of thinking.. :)

And since I already said another creature such as a unicorn would likely use its horn I guess my idea still falls in line so I can take option 1 and still say nonhumanoids still get to use lay on hands.

The devs also said you have to read RAW in context. It just so happens that we see the context differently at times.

Needing a free hand to provide a component is different than needing one to use an ability at all. The somatic component is there for movement(a "gesture" by RAW). It just so happens that the rules force PC's to use their hands for their "gestures". Other creatures can move in other ways to cast the spell. Other creatures also can use their other body parts for LoH as suggested by the unicorn. Humanoids however don't get to sub out hands for other body parts when using somatic components or lay on hands because they actually have hands. If they don't have hands because they can grow claws then those can suffice at most tables. However there is nothing in the game suggesting Humus the human paladin with hands can use his feet for a somatic spell component or Lay on Hands. He has hands, so he has to use them.


Crummy Wizard wrote:
Hi! I just started my first Paladin. (2nd game in total!) The thing is my DM says you can cast Lay on Hands while holding a Tower Shield and a sword. Even though i said it seems impossible, he says there is a way but i wont tell you. So my question is, is this really possible? I have quick draw feat and an empty feat if that helps.

Your paladin would know this, even if you do not. The only think I can think of is sheathing the sword, using lay on hands and then quick drawing the sword.


There's a Jacobs quote around here somewhere about letting them use LoH with a buckler or a light shield.

Search should turn it up. That may be enough for your DM.

1 to 50 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Casting Lay on Hands with Tower Shield + Longsword? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.