Paladin Lay on hands and number of actions

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

So lay of hands is one somatic action for a minor heal/harm undead effect. However as I am understanding the system (and that is tenuous at best at this stage) My paladin of Sarenrae is wielding a glaive in battle (a two handed weapon) His friend gets in trouble so I then have to
Action 1: Thrust my glaive into the ground to free up a hand.
Action 2: Lay of hands my friend
Action 3: Retrieve my glaive

Taking my whole round to perform a tiny heal.

If I take the feat Warded touch my lay of hands loses the need for complicated action and loses the "manipulate trait"

I don't know what this means. Per the power it has a somatic action. Nothing is mentioned about a manipulate trait.

Does this feat mean that I can cast Lay on hands with my hands full. Thereby negating my need to free up a hand?

[Shinigami02]

Taking a hand off of a weapon is a free action, it's only putting it back that takes an action. As for the Manipulate trait, that's just a part of the Somatic casting action that basically says you need a hand to perform the action, and that feat might let you LoH someone else without a hand free, I'm not sure.

[N-Sphere]

You just cast it and tell the GM he is free to do the bookkeeping on where your character's hands are, because you sure ain't gonna do it.

[vagabond_666]

Shinigami02 wrote:

Taking a hand off of a weapon is a free action, it's only putting it back that takes an action. As for the Manipulate trait, that's just a part of the Somatic casting action that basically says you need a hand to perform the action, and that feat might let you LoH someone else without a hand free, I'm not sure.

My reading is that manipulate is the trait on the somatic action that causes it to provoke AoOs. Removing this does not remove the "you have a free hand" requirement from the Somatic action. All warded touch does is stop you from provoking.

[Long John]

Has the rulebook define what a free hand is? I only ask that because I can definitely touch my chest even if a shield is strapped to my arm. It's not "Lay on Open Palms" or anything.

[Matthew Downie]

Is this valid?

Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

[N-Sphere]

I assume that depends on what your definition of is is.

"How does a paladin lay hands?" is to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" : Golarion is to earth.

[vagabond_666]

Long John wrote:

Has the rulebook define what a free hand is? I only ask that because I can definitely touch my chest even if a shield is strapped to my arm. It's not "Lay on Open Palms" or anything.

Sadly, the Somatic action defines exceptions as to what somatic actions don't require a free hand (eg. cleric holding a holy symbol when casting a divine spell). The Paladin using Champion abilities is not a listed exception.

[Colette Brunel]

I am really curious as to how this works as well, because the struggles paladins have to go through to use Lay on Hands are an absolute mess right now.

Some official word would be nice.

[Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!]

Colette Brunel wrote:

I am really curious as to how this works as well, because the struggles paladins have to go through to use Lay on Hands are an absolute mess right now.

Some official word would be nice.

Come on now, you cant have someone doing 1d4 healing all willy-nilly like it is nothing :)

I think that Lay hands has just become a victim of trying to make sure everything works with there new action economy. I am betting the devs will make a ruling on it allowing it to be used with full hands or something similar.

My main problem is that until that happens we have to use it as printed and that means it sucks. Kind of like my sorcerer with a 16 dex and an 11 AC/TAC because he is not trained in unarmored defense. I think the devs meant for everyone to be trained in this but it is not stated in the book so until they officially errata this a lot of wizards and sorcerers are going to die like the cloth wearers they are.

[vagabond_666]

Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! wrote:

My main problem is that until that happens we have to use it as printed and that means it sucks. Kind of like my sorcerer with a 16 dex and an 11 AC/TAC because he is not trained in unarmored defense. I think the devs meant for everyone to be trained in this but it is not stated in the book so until they officially errata this a lot of wizards and sorcerers are going to die like the cloth wearers they are.

Currently I'm trying to work out if being a Paladin of Irori and just punching people isn't the best "Sword" and Board Paladin.

As far as I can tell so far, you no longer provoke attacking with a fist, and damage is tracked the same, nonlethal just means if you strike the blow that drops them to 0 they get knocked out instead of dying.

I suppose I should check the bestiary and see what is immune to nonlethal. (edit: Golems and Animated Objects by the look of it)

[willuwontu]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Is this valid?

Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

That that is valid, do note that since it's 2-handed weapon though, you couldn't make attacks with it between rounds since you're not wielding it in both hands.

[N-Sphere]

It seems like an exceptionally poor choice to have a class get exactly two default class actions at 1st level essentially sabotage each other.

I doubt retributive strike is all that great in practice either, since without LoH being an efficient option to heal it doesn't seem like bad tactics to just hit the paladin. Not that simply walking out of melee range and attacking the target you want appears to be anything less that completely viable.

[Lavieh]

If you look under the Free hand section it specifically mentions Manipulate actions and not necessarily Somatic actions. I wonder if this just needs clarification. When I originally read Warded Touch it read like it removed the free hand requirement.

Some clarification would be nice because this is a pretty deal for paladins.

[N-Sphere]

Somatic actions have the manipulate keyword on them and it also has the requirement for a free hand.

The definition of the manipulate keyword states that it requires that you physically manipulate an object or make gestures. It says creatures without the appropriate appendage can't perform this action. One might assume this appendage must be free, but the rule doesn't explicitly state that.

So the somatic action has a requirement for a free hand because it has a requirement for a free hand. It also has the manipulate keyword which at a minimum requires an appendage capable of making gestures, which subject to interpretation, might or might not need to be free.

Warded touch only removes the manipulate keyword while making no mention of removing the free hand requirement.

Attacks of opportunity trigger off manipulate actions. As written it seems to simply function as a means to avoid triggering an attack of opportunity (that many monsters may not even have).

[Kigvan]

Include me in the camp that is quite concerned with the action economy, especially for a sword and board paladin (that seems to be well supported with other paladin class options).

[N-Sphere]

The action economy is fine for 'concept' actions.

Moving raising your shield to a 'concept' where the action essentially equates to the clear concept of your character slowing down their tempo to establish a strong defensive posture.

The action economy is complete and total garbage for 'administrative' things.

Drawing weapons as actions is going to cause martial players and GMs to basically start every combat with an argument about who did or didn't have their weapons out. It is basically the 'you didn't say you checked THAT 10 foot square for traps' dynamic reborn. Of course spellcasters get a double standards free pass per usual.

Doing bookkeeping on the current position of your hands is simply pants on the head stupid.

Trying to go 'off the rails' and do something cool as a martial class under the administrative action economy is just begging for the martial player to get their actions taxed to hell and back. Of course spellcasters will just wave their fingers and use magic to go completely off the rails from across the battlefield without getting any of their actions taxed away on administration.

Net result looks like it is going to put martial classes into the worst straight jacket they've ever been in. The old argument was always: the rules don't say you couldn't do something heroic via muscle power, just do it. Well, now the rules DO state you can't do something heroic without getting action taxed to hell and back. The paladin is just the canary in the coal mine, since the paladin is a martial trying to do actions other than 'hit things' and is finding the system comes to a screeching halt.

edit: The rule needs to be three MEANINGFUL actions of CONSEQUENCE per turn. Adjusting the grip on your sword isn't meaningful or consequential. The bard isn't going to add a line to the ballad about how brave sir Paladinpants meaningfully adjusted the grip on his sword. Well, maybe they would if the ballad was a comedy...

[Malthraz]

I too think it is very strange to give Paladins Lay on Hands and then make it very difficult to use.

Quote:

Round 1:
Action 1: Attack
Action 2: Attack
Action 3: Release one hand as free action and heal friend.

Round 2:
Action 1: Heal friend again
Action 2: Grip glaive
Action 3: Attack

This looks like a good combo, but it is no good for sword and board.

Unarmed and board looks like it might be possible, although this seems weird to me.

Finally, multiclassing to Cleric for EMBLAZON SYMBOL is an option as well. Actually not a bad option for 2 feats and wis 16, you get 2 cleric cantrips: Sheild and Stabilise; as well as access to wands, scrolls etc.

In any case, this whole design seems awkward.

At least you can buff it to d6 with a feat and then it heightens very well.

[Alenvire]

As a sword and board paladin let me see if I have this right. First, lay on hands only heals willing creatures or enemies. (you count as a willing creature right?)

I take a big hit. On my turn I raise my shield as a action. 'drop' my sword as a free action... I use lay hands, causes a attack of opportunity chance unless I have warded touch. Then, I pick up my sword which is a manipulate action which cause a attack of opportunity. (if they have not already from a un warded touch.)

Is that really the best course of action I have?

Theoretically I can also just free action drop sword, cast lay hands 3 times right in one turn? Is there a page I can read that clarifies whether thats allowed or not?

It really looks like paizo just decided that a paladin should not be able to heal themselves. I am struggling to see a point in them at the moment. I don't see a reason to play them over a fighter if you want martial ability, or a cleric if you want ok martial with healing. Since, the paladin is just a tad bit better martial then a cleric.

[Alenvire]

To clarify, right now I am ignoring the whole lay hands thing and going Iomedea weapon surge. Though... still trying to figure out if weapon surge causes attack of opportunities since it says you raise your sword and don't need a hand free.... But, still has manipulate... So confusing this new system.

[ChibiNyan]

Mark Seifter said on the ENWorld previews thread that it eliminated the need for a free hand.

Sadly that forum has been deleted.

[HWalsh]

ChibiNyan wrote:

Mark Seifter said on the ENWorld previews thread that it eliminated the need for a free hand.

Sadly that forum has been deleted.

Okay, we'll need to see if Mark can comment here on that.

[David knott 242]

I think the issue here is that we don't have a clear definition of the Manipulate trait. Apparently, actions with the Manipulate trait require you to have a free hand, and removing that trait from an action lets you do it without a free hand -- but while that seems to be implied in several places, I haven't been able to find any direct statement to that effect in the rules.

[N-Sphere]

Still doesn't address the fundamental issue though. The action economy looks to be simply brutal for any class with martial leanings that wants to do anything other than be a meathead who hits things unless you find a mechanical loophole to exploit or pay your feat taxes.

Locking basic freedoms granted under basically every other edition behind a feat tax to buy back only a narrow slice of those freedoms comes off as really unappealing and a recipe for frustration.

Taking Diety's domain feat? Prepare to get wrecked by the administrative nit-pick action economy. Well, unless you can game the system by doing something like getting fists and a favored weapon or find some loophole in a splat book.

edit: like the ENTIRE problem just goes away for EVERYONE if they remove the level of nit-picking detail, and removes a bunch of stupid feats that don't feel fun from the game. Who wants to spend their first class feat on using chalk to draw holy symbols on their shield otherwise the DM is going to audit you like the IRS every time you try and cast a spell? edit edit: I mean you ALREADY open yourself up to an attack of opportunity if you cast a spell. Doesn't that already systemically encapsulate the idea that you were up to something that gave a competent attacker an opening? Why do you have to get taxed on actions AND open yourself up to an attack of opportunity? Getting charged twice by the system for the same item.