RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there any reason why a paladin can't use lay on hands twice in one round? When targeting themselves, paladins can "touch" themselves as a swift action... could they then use their standard action to do it again (assuming they have more uses left)? I don't see anything in the rules to suggest that they couldn't.
I have a paladin player in my game using the Warrior of Holy Light archetype from the APG. This archetype gives up all spellcasting in favor of some neat light-flavored abilities and additional uses of lay on hands. She's also taken the Endurance/Diehard feat chain and wants to portray a character that just will not go down. Being able to double-heal in a single round (particularly after dropping below 0 HP) would go a long way towards that goal. Is it legal? If not... why?
|
Is there any reason why a paladin can't use lay on hands twice in one round? When targeting themselves, paladins can "touch" themselves as a swift action... could they then use their standard action to do it again (assuming they have more uses left)? I don't see anything in the rules to suggest that they couldn't.
Not a serious answer...
Core, 61, "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action."
Core, 182, "Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
So the paladin can heal themselves once, and someone else once per turn. But they cannot heal themselves twice.
Is it game-breaking? Not really... I'd allow it as a house-rule personally.
I don't see why they couldn't. Nothing in the rules say you can't use your lay on hands as much as you can legally.
She can lay on hands herself as a swift action. She could lay on hands a friend as a standard action. She only has one swift action per turn. So I can see her doing the following :
Swift Lay on Hands (Self)
Move
Standard lay on hands (Friend or self)
Or,
Swift lay on hands (Self)
5 ft adjust
Full Attack Action
Or
Swift Lay on Hands (Self)
Standard Lay On Hands (Self)
Move
Core, 61, "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action."
Core, 182, "Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
So the paladin can heal themselves once, and someone else once per turn. But they cannot heal themselves twice.
Is it game-breaking? Not really... I'd allow it as a house-rule personally.
I disagree, you can use a standard action to take a swift action, if you have already used your swift action. So taking two swift actions in a turn is doable. It just takes a standard action to perform the second swift action.
|
Core, 61, "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action."
Core, 182, "Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
So the paladin can heal themselves once, and someone else once per turn. But they cannot heal themselves twice.
Is it game-breaking? Not really... I'd allow it as a house-rule personally.
True, but you only have one move action, but can use your standard action to do another move action. Why couldn't you do the same for swifts?
True, but you only have one move action, but can use your standard action to do another move action. Why couldn't you do the same for swifts?Core, 61, "Using this ability is a standard action, unless the paladin targets herself, in which case it is a swift action."
Core, 182, "Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per turn."
So the paladin can heal themselves once, and someone else once per turn. But they cannot heal themselves twice.
Is it game-breaking? Not really... I'd allow it as a house-rule personally.
You cannot because the rules do not allow for replacing a standard action for a swift.
Core, 181, "In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action."
Standard and move OR full round.
Also One swift and variable free actions.
Can replace the standard with another move action instead.
Those are the choices for actions you can take in a round.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
As a secondary question to the original: If a paladin possesses the "staggered" mercy and uses it on someone below 0 HP who possesses the Diehard feat, assuming they remain below 0 HP (unlikely) but are still able to act under the auspice of Diehard, would they no longer be staggered and can take a full range of actions even though they are still below 0? Or would the "unless the target is at exactly 0 HP" caveat kick in here and force them to remain constrained? I doubt it would ever come up, since lay on hands will almost certainly bring anyone who isn't totally dead back up into positive HP (particularly at level 6+ when the staggered mercy becomes available), but stranger things have happened.
As a secondary question to the original: If a paladin possesses the "staggered" mercy and uses it on someone below 0 HP who possesses the Diehard feat, assuming they remain below 0 HP (unlikely) but are still able to act under the auspice of Diehard, would they no longer be staggered and can take a full range of actions even though they are still below 0? Or would the "unless the target is at exactly 0 HP" caveat kick in here and force them to remain constrained? I doubt it would ever come up, since lay on hands will almost certainly bring anyone who isn't totally dead back up into positive HP (particularly at level 6+ when the staggered mercy becomes available), but stranger things have happened.
I'd say it removes the staggered condition, but that condition is then immediately re-applied as they are still under 0HP and using diehard.
As a secondary question to the original: If a paladin possesses the "staggered" mercy and uses it on someone below 0 HP who possesses the Diehard feat, assuming they remain below 0 HP (unlikely) but are still able to act under the auspice of Diehard, would they no longer be staggered and can take a full range of actions even though they are still below 0? Or would the "unless the target is at exactly 0 HP" caveat kick in here and force them to remain constrained? I doubt it would ever come up, since lay on hands will almost certainly bring anyone who isn't totally dead back up into positive HP (particularly at level 6+ when the staggered mercy becomes available), but stranger things have happened.
They are still staggered because the staggered condition is from a still existing status(0 hp).
I disagree, you can use a standard action to take a swift action, if you have already used your swift action.
Actually, you can't. A character is only allowed a single swift action each round. There is no way to gain more than this.
Maybe make a trait the paladin can take that allows a paladin with Endurance and Diehard to be able to use both a swift and standard action in the same round to heal herself.
Endurance and Diehard are pretty reactive feats, so this lets her use them kind of pro-actively. Heck, if she can heal herself twice a round, she may never get to use the Diehard feat at all!
Not a serious answer...
** spoiler omitted **
+1
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Maybe make a trait the paladin can take that allows a paladin with Endurance and Diehard to be able to use both a swift and standard action in the same round to heal herself.
Endurance and Diehard are pretty reactive feats, so this lets her use them kind of pro-actively. Heck, if she can heal herself twice a round, she may never get to use the Diehard feat at all!
Well, the idea is, she can sustain a crapload of punishment and, IF she gets reduced below 0 HP, Diehard keeps her standing... and she can then heal herself with lay on hands and keep rolling. The problem is, while a SINGLE use of lay on hands is almost certain to pull you out of the negative threshold, it is probably not enough to keep you from going straight from positive HP to negative CON and instant death in the next round. A double-heal would go a long way towards Diehard being something useful instead of an express train to New Characterville.
Huh,
Never noticed that. Seems rather poorly thought out. The definition of a swift action is that it takes less effort than a standard action, but more than a free action. It seems reasonable then that you could use a standard action to perform a swift action, but strict RAW say otherwise.
*le sigh* yet another house rule.
|
Huh,
Never noticed that. Seems rather poorly thought out. The definition of a swift action is that it takes less effort than a standard action, but more than a free action. It seems reasonable then that you could use a standard action to perform a swift action, but strict RAW say otherwise.*le sigh* yet another house rule.
Unfortunately, the rules have the burden of history that follows them around. The rule about replacing a std action with a move action is part of the original rules. The addition of swift actions and the other almost free variants followed later; editing a ruleset so that additional rules filter everywhere they should takes an incredible effort to insure it filters into all nooks and crannies. In other words, it isn't poorly thought out, it just isn't fully incorporated.
I don't see a problem with it.
If a wizard only had two Quickened Magic Missiles left to cast for the day, it is common sense that the wizard could cast both in the same round (one swift, one standard) instead of requiring one of the spells to take longer to cast (= not quickened) to be able to cast them both.
Unfortunately common sense in this case is wrong. The wizard could not cast both spells, as the time required is a swift action for both, and you can only perform 1 swift action/turn.
Huh,
Never noticed that. Seems rather poorly thought out. The definition of a swift action is that it takes less effort than a standard action, but more than a free action. It seems reasonable then that you could use a standard action to perform a swift action, but strict RAW say otherwise.*le sigh* yet another house rule.
Unfortunately, the rules have the burden of history that follows them around. The rule about replacing a std action with a move action is part of the original rules. The addition of swift actions and the other almost free variants followed later; editing a ruleset so that additional rules filter everywhere they should takes an incredible effort to insure it filters into all nooks and crannies. In other words, it isn't poorly thought out, it just isn't fully incorporated.
I disagree, the addition of the swift action (and immediate action) was poorly thought out. This could have been adressed easily when adding the new action thusly :
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move or swift action in place of a standard action."
|
|
I disagree, the addition of the swift action (and immediate action) was poorly thought out. This could have been adressed easily when adding the new action thusly :
"In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions. You can always take a move or swift action in place of a standard action."
I'm describing the history and what it lead to. I'm not justifying the lack of consistency, I'm merely explaining it. I think it should have been modified for over all consistency.
While you can't substitute free actions for std actions, either, free actions are only limited by the GM, so I'm not sure this does much in the discussion. (free actions brought up by another poster)
Edit: Ignore this paragraph, I intended to double check before posting it and failed my memory check... Note, that you can ready an action (in itself a standard action) that later results in the performance of a free, move, or standard action. But not swift. This is another example in the same theme; swift actions are tacked on and not fully incorporated.
MDT, I don't disagree with your basic premise.
Note, that you can ready an action (in itself a standard action) that later results in the performance of a free, move, or standard action. But not swift. This is another example in the same theme; swift actions are tacked on and not fully incorporated.
Actually, you can ready a swift action.
Core, 203, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
|
|
Note, that you can ready an action (in itself a standard action) that later results in the performance of a free, move, or standard action. But not swift. This is another example in the same theme; swift actions are tacked on and not fully incorporated.Actually, you can ready a swift action.
Core, 203, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
Thanks for the correction. I've edited my failed post.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Note, that you can ready an action (in itself a standard action) that later results in the performance of a free, move, or standard action. But not swift. This is another example in the same theme; swift actions are tacked on and not fully incorporated.Actually, you can ready a swift action.
Core, 203, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
Okay, so, why couldn't the character use a swift action to heal themselves, and then use their standard action to "ready" a swift action to heal themselves again, with the condition of "as soon as <whoever is next in initiative order> begins to act"? At this point, aren't you really just mincing words?
Okay, so, why couldn't the character use a swift action to heal themselves, and then use their standard action to "ready" a swift action to heal themselves again, with the condition of "as soon as <whoever is next in initiative order> begins to act"? At this point, aren't you really just mincing words?Actually, you can ready a swift action.
Core, 203, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
The second one is not cast as a swift action, so RAW is not violated.
Swift Action: cast Quicken Magic Missile
Full Round Action: Ready an action to cast Quicken Magic Missile as soon as your readying action is complete.
Same problem with both of these. You only get one per turn, period.
Core, 188, "You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take."
|
|
Core, 188, "You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take."
Excellent Rules Fu.
I, for one, am retracting my concerns about swift not being fully implemented. It is implemented. It just isn't how some would like to see it.
***********************
Side note on readying actions: Personally, I see ready action triggers being something that happens in the game world and can be responded to. Never something that is merely a matter of game mechanics, such as when someone's turn to act comes up. Never as the result of something you trigger yourself, such as the cheap ride-by attack concepts. The first is on much firmer ground than the latter from a written rules perspective. I think both are on firm ground regarding game design and the game concepts involved.
the reason you can ready a swift action is if you haven't used it yet.
example paladin is I'n a bear trap and cannot move. but aside from his leg being caught is okay. the party wizards is badly ended.
the paladin readies his swift action to heal the wizard when he is I'n rang.
he cannot swift lay on himself then ready to use it on the wizard .
if you argue you can the same logic would allow for multiple 5 foot steps via 5 foot tsp then ready action to take a 5 foot step. you can not do this or swift actions.
if you argue you can the same logic would allow for multiple 5 foot steps via 5 foot tsp then ready action to take a 5 foot step. you can not do this or swift actions.
I don't see what the problem with that would be. If a player of mine wishes to use his standard action for the round to ready a 5-foot-step, then I'd gladly let him do so (even if he had already used a 5-foot-step in the current round).
if you argue you can the same logic would allow for multiple 5 foot steps via 5 foot tsp then ready action to take a 5 foot step. you can not do this or swift actions.I don't see what the problem with that would be. If a player of mine wishes to use his standard action for the round to ready a 5-foot-step, then I'd gladly let him do so (even if he had already used a 5-foot-step in the current round).
The biggest problem I can see is "I ready to 5' step away when something attacks me."
Fighter comes in, rolls his first attack, your ready goes off, you make a free 5' step away, he can't follow. AC is now worthless, yay!
he cannot swift lay on himself then ready to use it on the wizard .Actually, yes he can. Using it on SOMEONE ELSE is a standard action. Using it on yourself is a swift. You most certainly CAN take a swift and a standard action in a round. That point is not in debate here.
your right I was thinking I'n terms of the swift becoming a standard.
meh.. I screwed up my own example.
if you argue you can the same logic would allow for multiple 5 foot steps via 5 foot tsp then ready action to take a 5 foot step. you can not do this or swift actions.I don't see what the problem with that would be. If a player of mine wishes to use his standard action for the round to ready a 5-foot-step, then I'd gladly let him do so (even if he had already used a 5-foot-step in the current round).The biggest problem I can see is "I ready to 5' step away when something attacks me."
Fighter comes in, rolls his first attack, your ready goes off, you make a free 5' step away, he can't follow. AC is now worthless, yay!
you can ready and 5foot tsp as part of the ready.
example. fighter readies to hit a wizard when he cast spells. wizard 5 foot steps back. the fighters ready goes off. he f foot steps I'n and hits the wizard.
what doesn't work is if the fighter had to 5 foot step next to the wizard then readied. because he would have already used his 5 foot step.
you can only use 1 swift action per turn if you have already used it you cannot ready to use it.
you can ready and 5foot tsp as part of the ready.
example. fighter readies to hit a wizard when he cast spells. wizard 5 foot steps back. the fighters ready goes off. he f foot steps I'n and hits the wizard.
what doesn't work is if the fighter had to 5 foot step next to the wizard then readied. because he would have already used his 5 foot step.
you can only use 1 swift action per turn if you have already used it you cannot ready to use it.
Err, somehow I missed that you said you can't do multiple 5 foot steps. I thought you were saying you could 5 foot, then ready to take another 5 foot. My bad.
I'm going to change my position to partially agree with Mojorat here.
The rules specifically state that you can use a 5-foot-step during a readied action, but goes on to say that you can't if you have moved any distance during the round. So, taking a 5-foot-step on your turn and then readying to take a 5-foot-step wouldn't work.
The rules on swift actions state that you can only use one swift action each turn, so you could (IMO) ready an action to perform a swift action on someone else's turn. However, you could not use such a readied action to cast a swift action spell if you had already cast one such spell, since the rules for spell casting times specifically say you can only cast one swift action spell each round.
I'm going to change my position to partially agree with Mojorat here.
The rules specifically state that you can use a 5-foot-step during a readied action, but goes on to say that you can't if you have moved any distance during the round. So, taking a 5-foot-step on your turn and then readying to take a 5-foot-step wouldn't work.
The rules on swift actions state that you can only use one swift action each turn, so you could (IMO) ready an action to perform a swift action on someone else's turn. However, you could not use such a readied action to cast a swift action spell if you had already cast one such spell, since the rules for spell casting times specifically say you can only cast one swift action spell each round.
Lay-on-Hands is not a spell.
Lay-on-Hands is not a spell.
Right; I was just trying to be as complete as possible concerning all the various things that were thrown about in this discussion. Someone did mention swift action spells as a reason to disallow this :)
I agree that you can use lay-on-hands, then ready an action to use it again on someone else's turn.
A double-heal would go a long way towards Diehard being something useful instead of an express train to New Characterville.
She can't Lay On Hands herself twice, but she could Lay on Hands herself once, and then channel energy to heal herself + allies. The latter takes two uses of LOH (and Selective Channeling if you don't want to be resurrecting fallen enemies and healing still standing ones left and right) though.