Can you use lay on hands on yourself while pinned?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Gauss wrote:

So what you are saying Malachi is that any spell you cast or effect that you use you do not need to touch yourself even if it has a range of touch? That would be a revolutionary change to how 3.X/PF has always handled touch spells.

- Gauss

Not at all! Quite the opposite!

I'm saying that you are always considered to be touching yourself!

Searching for 'touch' in the magic chapter doesn't reveal anything suggesting you are always touching yourself. Do you have a citation or is this based on your interpretation of what makes sense?


Malachi: that is still revolutionary. My experience is that every edition of D&D that ever required you to touch for a spell considered that if you could restrain the caster from touching himself you can stop him from gaining benefit of a spell. Your idea is that you are always touching yourself is a new one at least from my experience.

For that matter, this would change grapple rules too. If you grapple someone holding a spell would you (using your rules) automatically discharge the spell? The implication from your interpretation is that yes, you would. After all, you are touching the person holding the spell arent you?

- Gauss

Silver Crusade

CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Are you using the touch spells in combat for being able to use a touch spell on yourself automatically? Because it also says I can automatically touch a friend too.

Yes. You still need to make physical contact however. The rules assume that you use a hand to do this, but they don't require a hand, they do require a touch; physical contact!

You are always in physical contact with yourself. : )

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
Searching for 'touch' in the magic chapter doesn't reveal anything suggesting you are always touching yourself. Do you have a citation or is this based on your interpretation of what makes sense?

You're kidding, right? You need a rules quote to tell you that you are always in physical contact with yourself?

Are you one of these people that requires a rules quote to tell you what actions you're allowed to take when you're dead?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Searching for 'touch' in the magic chapter doesn't reveal anything suggesting you are always touching yourself. Do you have a citation or is this based on your interpretation of what makes sense?

You're kidding, right? You need a rules quote to tell you that you are always in physical contact with yourself?

Are you one of these people that requires a rules quote to tell you what actions you're allowed to take when you're dead?

Welcome to the rules forum?

Besides, LoH is a (SU). It specifically says you need to touch the person you are healing (whether it is you or someone else) with your hand. You are just interpreting this ability in a way you want it to work, rather than the way it is actually written.

Quote:
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.

An awakened snake paladin could not use this ability as written.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with Malachi and Vestrial. Appears legit to my reading of the various snippets as well.

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Malachi: that is still revolutionary. My experience is that every edition of D&D that ever required you to touch for a spell considered that if you could restrain the caster from touching himself you can stop him from gaining benefit of a spell. Your idea is that you are always touching yourself is a new one at least from my experience.

For that matter, this would change grapple rules too. If you grapple someone holding a spell would you (using your rules) automatically discharge the spell? The implication from your interpretation is that yes, you would. After all, you are touching the person holding the spell arent you?

- Gauss

In every incarnation of the game I've played from 1st edition to Pathfinder, restraining a spellcaster prevents him from casting spell (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the edition). But it doesn't prevent a creature from using spell-like or supernatural abilities.

Being restrained could also prevent you from making a touch attack, or touching an ally, but you've always been considered to be in physical contact with yourself.

As for touching a creature who is grappling you, refer to the highly informative thread on whether a succubus can level drain a Druid that is grappling her. After diligently studying all aspects of the situations raised in this thread (which took some time), the conclusion is that if the Druid didn't want level-draining then the Druid shouldn't have grappled the creature that drains levels by touch! (the thread is still going strong, despite the fact that the OP has been answered. I wonder why? Perhaps I should go back there and give it a good checking out!)


The reason a Succubi can drain a druid is because she can attack freely if the druid grappled her. That is bad news for the druid. It does not mean that if you grapple an undead creature that drains via a slam attack you suffer negative level damage without the undead creature attacking you.

That is what I am talking about. Your POV lends itself to 'I grapple you, therefore any touch effects you have going automatically hit me without you having to attack me'. Why? because you said you are always touching yourself. If you are always touching yourself and you are always touching a grappler what is the difference? There is none.

The rules are simply not written this way. You must deliver touch effects as a specific action. Even if you are touching yourself.

Your way leads to madness regarding grapple rules.

Edit: Oh, if you are always touching yourself you cannot ever cast a touch spell and discharge it against another person. It always discharges on your own person instead.

PC: I cast Shocking Grasp and move to touch the enemy!
GM: Ok, roll your damage.
PC: What? I havent even rolled to hit yet!
GM: You are automatically considered to be touching yourself, therefore you discharge the spell onto yourself. Roll damage.
PC: WTF!?

- Gauss


Whale_Cancer wrote:


This ability, like many cleric/paladin spells/abilities, is based on the charisms (gifts from the Abrahamic god). Specifically, the gift of healing which requires the laying on of hands. \

Nope. There were twenty seven healing miracles of Jesus. Only seven involved laying of hands:

http://healingscripture.com/HealingRecord.shtml#officials

So you can't really use this as part of the argument for a tradition of laying on hands. You're better off citing Gygax.


Prawn wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:


This ability, like many cleric/paladin spells/abilities, is based on the charisms (gifts from the Abrahamic god). Specifically, the gift of healing which requires the laying on of hands. \

Nope. There were twenty seven healing miracles of Jesus. Only seven involved laying of hands:

http://healingscripture.com/HealingRecord.shtml#officials

So you can't really use this as part of the argument for a tradition of laying on hands. You're better off citing Gygax.

Jesus wasn't the only one with charisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laying_on_of_hands

Edit: Curing lepers was cure disease and curing the blind was cure blindness/deafness.

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
An awakened snake paladin could not use this ability as written.

With respect, b+*%~!@s!

If an awakened snake had at least two paladin levels it could make touch attacks and touch allies without having hands, and LoH is no exception. The only relevant sentence in the description of Lay On Hands is telling us to ignore the name!

The name itself is poetic, evocative and traditional to paladins in the game. But if the exact same ability had been simply re-named 'Healing Touch', without changing the game mechanics one iota, then the line, 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability' would not have been written at all, as the rules ready adjudicate touch-range abilities.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
An awakened snake paladin could not use this ability as written.

With respect, b@&%&!%s!

If an awakened snake had at least two paladin levels it could make touch attacks and touch allies without having hands, and LoH is no exception. The only relevant sentence in the description of Lay On Hands is telling us to ignore the name!

The name itself is poetic, evocative and traditional to paladins in the game. But if the exact same ability had been simply re-named 'Healing Touch', without changing the game mechanics one iota, then the line, 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability' would not have been written at all, as the rules ready adjudicate touch-range abilities.

Again, no. It says "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability". If it was as you say, it would read "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin does not need any free hands to use this ability". This is just a question of parsing an English sentence and I can't see this progressing anywhere. People can take what they want from this exchange.


Whale_Cancer wrote:


Jesus wasn't the only one with charisms.

Yes, it was common place at the time, and many believe it still is, but if the most famous person to do it only laid on hands seven times in his twenty-seven healing miracles, I don't think appealing to this tradition has much bearing on the argument at hand, other than to say you don't need to touch someone to heal them in the biblical tradition.


I do agree with Malachi that any creature could use a touch effect to discharge the LoH. Even an Awakened Snake. But, it is still a specific action and it would still not be usable if the snake is pinned because the snake cannot take any physical actions other than attempting to free itself.

And before people confuse my statement, I said physical actions. Verbal or Mental actions are still fine.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

I do agree with Malachi that any creature could use a touch effect to discharge the LoH. Even an Awakened Snake. But, it is still a specific action and it would still not be usable if the snake is pinned because the snake cannot take any physical actions other than attempting to free itself.

- Gauss

Why do you ignore the specific reference to touching with a hand in the LoH ability description?

I could see the validity of this as a houserule of course, but the ability specifically says 'Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability'. A free hand is specifically needed.

I think this is, in addition to the charism origin of this ability, is a reflection of the fact that classes are written for PCs and most PCs have hands.


Whale_Cancer wrote:

Welcome to the rules forum?

Besides, LoH is a (SU). It specifically says you need to touch the person you are healing (whether it is you or someone else) with your hand. You are just interpreting this ability in a way you want it to work, rather than the way it is actually written.

Please show me where the rules define 'free hand.' Also the condition of 'un-free hand' (or whatever it's called... flat-handed? lol)

The rules require a modicum of common sense. 'Free hand' in this case means "a 'hand' with which to touch the recipient." Nothing in pinned denies the paladin from touching himself. You want to house rule this minor jab to the pallies, go ahead, but don't pretend it's raw.

Also, by the rules, a 'hand' is not necessarily an appendage with five fingers-- see 'off-hand' attacks. (even for PCs that have actual hand-hands)


Whale_Cancer, the whole 'hand vs appendage' issue is a red herring. The real issue is whether or not hands/appendages are usable while pinned. The answer is: not for discharging spells.

While pinned the creature pinned is allowed to perform escape actions, use verbal actions, or use mental actions. No touching listed. Touching is an action in itself, usually a free action when performed as part of another action (such as spellcasting).

- Gauss


Vestrial wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

Welcome to the rules forum?

Besides, LoH is a (SU). It specifically says you need to touch the person you are healing (whether it is you or someone else) with your hand. You are just interpreting this ability in a way you want it to work, rather than the way it is actually written.

Please show me where the rules define 'free hand.' Also the condition of 'un-free hand' (or whatever it's called... flat-handed? lol)

The rules require a modicum of common sense. 'Free hand' in this case means "a 'hand' with which to touch the recipient." Nothing in pinned denies the paladin from touching himself. You want to house rule this minor jab to the pallies, go ahead, but don't pretend it's raw.

Also, by the rules, a 'hand' is not necessarily an appendage with five fingers-- see 'off-hand' attacks.

Quote:

Hand

Hands include most extremities used for fine manipulation. Called shots to the hand are tricky (–5 penalty).

Snakes have no hands by any stretch of the imagination. A tentacle is a hand, at least as far as the called shot rules are concerned (which I think we can generalize to LoH).

I already explained my reasoning up thread about pinned paladins and LoH. I said a DM could go either way on this one. I specifically said it is ambiguous, but I would rule no due to my understanding of what LoH represents.

If you cannot attack and cannot use somatic components, it seems to make sense (even a modicum of common sense, if you will) that you do not have a free hand. Note that if you tie someone up after you pin them they are bound. This is the same condition as pinned, but as a static DC based on the roll of the pinner. If you have a free hand while bound, then shouldn't you be able to rather easily untie yourself? Can you LoH adjacent allies? I think not.

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:
The rules are simply not written this way. You must deliver touch effects as a specific action. Even if you are touching yourself.

Actually, I agree. You must take a specific action to deliberately touch the target of a touch-range effect, whether or not you are the target. That's why the (comprehensive) rules on touch spells say that you have to touch the target rather than the target touching you. The Druid touching the succubus doesn't 'trigger' level-drain, but on it's own turn the succubus is already touching the Druid. It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

As for our pinned paladin, he is using 'a specific action', a swift action to Lay On Hands, targeting himself! Since he is already in contact with himself he doesn't need to move, just mentally activate the supernatural ability.


Gauss wrote:

Whale_Cancer, the whole 'hand vs appendage' issue is a red herring. The real issue is whether or not hands/appendages are usable while pinned. The answer is: not for discharging spells.

While pinned the creature pinned is allowed to perform escape actions, use verbal actions, or use mental actions. No touching listed. Touching is an action in itself, usually a free action when performed as part of another action (such as spellcasting).

- Gauss

I agree that it isn't relevant to the discussion of LoH while pinned, but it is relevant to the awakened snake paladin. This is, of course, a tangential issue. I might end up making a new thread about it, but it really isn't important as I assume most people will house rule it to be fairly reasonable.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
The fact that you cannot attack or use spells with somatic components suggests you do not have free hands to use.

You're conflating two concepts that aren't really the same thing though.

"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."

"Measured and precise movement of the hand" indicates something that involves your whole arm, like miming that you're throwing a baseball, or stretching out your fingertips as far out in front of you as possible, or holding up two fingers and bobbing your hand along like a little bunny, or swirling your finger by your temple in the universal gesture of craziness, or whatever is appropriate to the given spell. Anything that gives you less than full freedom to move your arms about is going to take that off the table. "A free hand" just means you aren't holding anything in that hand (presumably so you can press your palm somewhere, we don't really care where).

Whale_Cancer wrote:
Now, DMs may vary in how they think Lay on Hands works. Is it just a matter of having your hand touching yourself? So if you are tightly bound you can still touch yourself? For me, the laying on of hands takes a bit more effort than that (because of its origin as a charism); it's also an issue of game balance and consistency, why should paladins get to use one of their abilities that requires hands while pinned while others cannot?

I can totally get behind that logic. However, it undeniably takes less effort to use it on your self, being a swift action (quick enough not to keep you from doing anything else, so presumably a fraction of a second) which is precisely why I would then argue that the self-healing option is not giving yourself the whole formal treatment, it's just something you can inherently do just by kinda grunting and tensing your neck or whatever.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

But the relevant question is whether a pinned succubus could perform its energy drain on its pinner.

Following with Gauss' reasoning, it doesn't appear so.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
If you cannot attack and cannot use somatic components, it seems to make sense (even a modicum of common sense, if you will) that you do not have a free hand. Note that if you tie someone up after you pin them they are bound. This is the same condition as pinned, but as a static DC based on the roll of the pinner. If you have a free hand while bound, then shouldn't you be able to rather easily untie yourself? Can you LoH adjacent allies? I think not.

It only makes sense if you presume all actions requiring a 'free hand' (still undefined) require the same amount of 'free-handedness,' which is clearly not the case. You just choose to ignore that both attacking and casting spells requires far more freedom of movement than simply touching oneself. Brushing your teeth only requires a free hand, you think you could manage that while being grappled? How about signing your name? Somatic components are typically described as complex gestures describing runes in the air. Bit more complicated than just touching yourself on any random location. (if rules specified the wound must be touched I'd be in total agreement, but they don't)

Your quoted definition of hand is from alternate rules, not raw, and only defines hand for purposes of targeting one, not what the word means in general game terms, nor does it help us get any closer to an official definition of 'free hand.'

Silver Crusade

If the paladin is tied up such that he counts as having the 'pinned' condition, could he use LoH to touch an ally tied up in an adjacent square?

I'd say 'no' if they were bound separately, but I'd say 'yes' if they were tied together.

As for healing himself with LoH, he has to use a specific, mental action, but no free hand is required because he doesn't need to take any actions to change from 'not touching the target of the touch-range effect' to 'touching the target of the touch-range effect'.

Why? Because you are always in physical contact with yourself!

If you were somehow prevented from taking a swift action, and/or a mental action, then you would be prevented from using LoH on yourself. The 'pinned' condition prevents neither.


Googleshng wrote:
"Measured and precise movement of the hand" indicates something that involves your whole arm, like miming that you're throwing a baseball, or stretching out your fingertips as far out in front of you as possible, or holding up two fingers and bobbing your hand along like a little bunny, or swirling your finger by your temple in the universal gesture of craziness, or whatever is appropriate to the given spell. Anything that gives you less than full freedom to move your arms about is going to take that off the table. "A free hand" just means you aren't holding anything in that hand (presumably so you can press your palm somewhere, we don't really care where).

And this is why I think it would be reasnoble for a DM to go either way, although I think from a strict RAW perspective Gauss is right and no physical action other than an escape attempt is allowed while pinned.

The issue isn't about having a free hand (although that is necessary) but that the paladin has to touch themselves with that free hand. This is a physical action. Is it allowable while pinned? Again, I think Gauss already explained why, by RAW, it isn't possible.

Googleshng wrote:
I can totally get behind that logic. However, it undeniably takes less effort to use it on your self, being a swift action (quick enough not to keep you from doing anything else, so presumably a fraction of a second) which is precisely why I would then argue that the self-healing option is not giving yourself the whole formal treatment, it's just something you can inherently do just by kinda grunting and tensing your neck or whatever.

Why do you ignore the touching with a hand requirement (text I am responding to has been italicized)? How would you respond to Gauss' reasoning?

Gauss wrote:

I do agree with Malachi that any creature could use a touch effect to discharge the LoH. Even an Awakened Snake. But, it is still a specific action and it would still not be usable if the snake is pinned because the snake cannot take any physical actions other than attempting to free itself.

And before people confuse my statement, I said physical actions. Verbal or Mental actions are still fine.

- Gauss


Malachi, the paladin is using a mental action to activate the LoH. We agree here. Where we disagree is that he is already in contact with himself. IF he is already in contact with himself then any spellcaster is already in contact with themselves when they use ANY touch effect. Pity the poor spellcaster casting a Shocking Grasp spell in your games if this is true.

According to the rules regarding touch effects if you make contact with anything while holding the charge it discharges into that thing. Combined with your version of things you can never use LoH on another person because it would always discharge on the paladin.

Touching is an action, it is not an approved action while pinned. Therefore you cannot touch anything.

If I have cast Shocking Grasp and then I get grappled and pinned WITHOUT discharging it I will NOT be able to discharge it while pinned. Why? Because it is not an approved action. It is not an attempt to free myself, it is not a verbal action, nor is it a mental action.

Can I use a mental action that requires a touch attack? Yes. Can I make the touch attack? No. Can I use a mental action that allows me to heal myself with a touch? Yes. Can I touch myself? No. See above.

- Gauss

Edit: added stuff


PatientWolf wrote:
Gauss wrote:

PatientWolf:

It is explicit on what it states as actions you can perform.
Action 1: Free yourself (the means is variable)
Action 2: Verbal actions
Action 3: Mental actions

Usually applies to the means to free yourself, not the listing that freeing yourself is one of the actions you can perform.

- Gauss

So you are trying to tell me you can throw elbows, head butts or other attacks, in order to free yourself of course, but you can't touch yourself with one of your hands?

If you go under strict raw, you don't need to touch yourself (or an ally) with your free hand. It says you need a free hand, and you need to touch. So technically, RAW, if you have a free hand, you can headbutt or kick your ally and lay on hands on him. Or you could, if you dropped your sword when being pinned, touch your lips with your tongues while having a free hand, or your neck with your chin, or a thigh with another thigh, or half your butt with the other half, as long as your hand is free.

However, that's only the pure, literal, strict-to-words RAW. The RAI is that you *lay your hands* on the target. That means to put the palm over him. Like this:guy


Vestrial wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
If you cannot attack and cannot use somatic components, it seems to make sense (even a modicum of common sense, if you will) that you do not have a free hand. Note that if you tie someone up after you pin them they are bound. This is the same condition as pinned, but as a static DC based on the roll of the pinner. If you have a free hand while bound, then shouldn't you be able to rather easily untie yourself? Can you LoH adjacent allies? I think not.

It only makes sense if you presume all actions requiring a 'free hand' (still undefined) require the same amount of 'free-handedness,' which is clearly not the case. You just choose to ignore that both attacking and casting spells requires far more freedom of movement than simply touching oneself. Brushing your teeth only requires a free hand, you think you could manage that while being grappled? How about signing your name? Somatic components are typically described as complex gestures describing runes in the air. Bit more complicated than just touching yourself on any random location. (if rules specified the wound must be touched I'd be in total agreement, but they don't)

Your quoted definition of hand is from alternate rules, not raw, and only defines hand for purposes of targeting one, not what the word means in general game terms, nor does it help us get any closer to an official definition of 'free hand.'

Free hand = no weapon in hand.

Touching someone = making a touch attack with a free hand (hand defined in the broad terms I quoted from the called shot rules above; this isn't purely RAW, you are right, since it is from an alternate rule set. However, if we don't listen to that we are back to the English language definition of a hand.). You can touch yourself or allies without making an attack roll (i.e. anyone willing).

Touching someone is a physical action.

The pinned condition lists what you can do while pinned: attempting to escape, verbal actions, or mental actions.

You cannot touch someone, by RAW, while in a pinned state.

The issue at hand is the pinned state.


Gauss wrote:

Malachi, the paladin is using a mental action to activate the LoH. We agree here. Where we disagree is that he is already in contact with himself. IF he is already in contact with himself then any spellcaster is already in contact with themselves when they use ANY touch effect. Pity the poor spellcaster casting a Shocking Grasp spell in your games if this is true.

According to the rules regarding touch effects if you make contact with anything while holding the charge it discharges into that thing. Combined with your version of things you can never use LoH on another person because it would always discharge on the paladin.

- Gauss

Oooh, nice connection.

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

But the relevant question is whether a pinned succubus could perform its energy drain on its pinner.

Following with Gauss' reasoning, it doesn't appear so.

I don't follow Gauss' reasoning here, if that is his reasoning. I'm saying that a pinned succubus could level-drain a pinning Druid, because it requires a deliberate action to level drain (a standard, mental action on it's own turn) and the two to be 'touching' when that action is taken. And by the pictures I've seen on the Internet, yes they are touching!

I have to go now....!


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

But the relevant question is whether a pinned succubus could perform its energy drain on its pinner.

Following with Gauss' reasoning, it doesn't appear so.

I don't follow Gauss' reasoning here, if that is his reasoning. I'm saying that a pinned succubus could level-drain a pinning Druid, because it requires a deliberate action to level drain (a standard, mental action on it's own turn) and the two to be 'touching' when that action is taken. And by the pictures I've seen on the Internet, yes they are touching!

I have to go now....!

Props to you if you can commit an 'act of passion' as a mental action.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

But the relevant question is whether a pinned succubus could perform its energy drain on its pinner.

Following with Gauss' reasoning, it doesn't appear so.

I don't follow Gauss' reasoning here, if that is his reasoning. I'm saying that a pinned succubus could level-drain a pinning Druid, because it requires a deliberate action to level drain (a standard, mental action on it's own turn) and the two to be 'touching' when that action is taken. And by the pictures I've seen on the Internet, yes they are touching!

I have to go now....!

Quote:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

I think this is the part Gauss is referring to(correct me if I'm wrong). So if you're always touching yourself, your spell will always goes off onto you for touch ranged spells.


Malachi: A Succubus cannot perform her kiss because she is pinned and not grappled. She can only perform mental actions and not physical actions other than to escape. The kiss is a physical action. This seems to be the part you keep tripping over.

- Gauss


CrystalSpellblade, you are correct. Malachi's variation on touching yourself (always) would have very nasty side effects.

- Gauss

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Malachi, the paladin is using a mental action to activate the LoH. We agree here. Where we disagree is that he is already in contact with himself. IF he is already in contact with himself then any spellcaster is already in contact with themselves when they use ANY touch effect. Pity the poor spellcaster casting a Shocking Grasp spell in your games if this is true.

According to the rules regarding touch effects if you make contact with anything while holding the charge it discharges into that thing. Combined with your version of things you can never use LoH on another person because it would always discharge on the paladin.

Touching is an action, it is not an approved action while pinned. Therefore you cannot touch anything.

If I have cast Shocking Grasp and then I get grappled and pinned WITHOUT discharging it I will NOT be able to discharge it while pinned. Why? Because it is not an approved action. It is not an attempt to free myself, it is not a verbal action, nor is it a mental action.

Can I use a mental action that requires a touch attack? Yes. Can I make the touch attack? No. Can I use a mental action that allows me to heal myself with a touch? Yes. Can I touch myself? No. See above.

- Gauss

Edit: added stuff

If a spellcaster is touching something before he casts the spell, then the spell doesn't get discharged by that, only by things he touches afterwards, and even then, deliberately.

The pinned paladin is in contact with himself before, during and after he mentally activates LoH.


Malachi:

Then by your own wording he never discharges on himself since he was in contact with himself before. Thank you for resolving that for us. Now, nobody can ever use touch spells upon themselves because they are always in contact with themselves. This is a big improvement. :)

- Gauss

P.S. I was trying to inject some humor there, not be condescending. I realize it might come off that way.

Silver Crusade

Whale_Cancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
It still has to take a standard action on it's own turn to deliberately use the level-draining, and it doesn't need to make it's slam attack to do so; something as simple as a kiss is enough!

But the relevant question is whether a pinned succubus could perform its energy drain on its pinner.

Following with Gauss' reasoning, it doesn't appear so.

I don't follow Gauss' reasoning here, if that is his reasoning. I'm saying that a pinned succubus could level-drain a pinning Druid, because it requires a deliberate action to level drain (a standard, mental action on it's own turn) and the two to be 'touching' when that action is taken. And by the pictures I've seen on the Internet, yes they are touching!

I have to go now....!

Props to you if you can commit an 'act of passion' as a mental action.

I could definitely commit an act of passion if I were tied to a succubus!

Silver Crusade

Gauss wrote:

Malachi:

Then by your own wording he never discharges on himself since he was in contact with himself before. Thank you for resolving that for us. Now, nobody can ever use touch spells upon themselves because they are always in contact with themselves. This is a big improvement. :)

- Gauss

Nice try!

He can deliberately discharge the effect when he wants by taking a swift, mental action to do so!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Malachi:

Then by your own wording he never discharges on himself since he was in contact with himself before. Thank you for resolving that for us. Now, nobody can ever use touch spells upon themselves because they are always in contact with themselves. This is a big improvement. :)

- Gauss

Nice try!

He can deliberately discharge the effect when he wants by taking a swift, mental action to do so!

Okay, I've lost you. I have no clue where in the rules you have gotten your last couple posts from. Mind pointing out where your rules basis is for your last couple posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is not part of the rules Malachi.

CRB p185 wrote:
In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Note that touching yourself is not provided an exception. There is no statement that you are always touching yourself. It states that touching is a free action but that you may automatically (ie: not make an attack roll) touch yourself or a friend.

CRB p186 wrote:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

Nothing about deliberately touching a target to discharge the spell. In fact it says even unintentionally.

Paladin uses a Lay on Hands. Paladin must use a touch to do so. Nothing, ANYWHERE states that the paladin counts as touching himself at all times. He MUST perform a touch action (which is a free action) upon himself. If he is paralyzed, he cannot do so. If he is Pinned he cannot do so.

LoH is a mental action that gives him a touch ability. He must still have the means to use that touch ability.

I have tried to show you the irrationality of your argument. With your position anyone who casts a touch spell automatically discharges that touch spell upon themselves. In order for them not to you have to modify the second quote I provided above to include your 'deliberate' phrase.

You are well outside of RAW on this one.

- Gauss


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
If a spellcaster is touching something before he casts the spell, then the spell doesn't get discharged by that, only by things he touches afterwards, and even then, deliberately.

So when the spellcaster make a step to touch someone, it discharges the spell on the floor?

Quote:
The pinned paladin is in contact with himself before, during and after he mentally activates LoH.

Sure he is in contact with himself. But he is not *laying on hand on himself*, which is the point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
Malachi: that is still revolutionary.

How is that revolutionary? That's exactly how touch spells have always worked.

PRD wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself

You can automatically touch one friend, not possible while pinned since you're unable to move to do so; or simply use the spell on yourself. No mention of touching yourself there, since you already are.

Gauss wrote:
My experience is that every edition of D&D that ever required you to touch for a spell considered that if you could restrain the caster from touching himself you can stop him from gaining benefit of a spell. Your idea is that you are always touching yourself is a new one at least from my experience.

In my experience this has never been the case. The benefit of restraining the caster is keeping him from casting in the first place.

Gauss wrote:
For that matter, this would change grapple rules too. If you grapple someone holding a spell would you (using your rules) automatically discharge the spell? The implication from your interpretation is that yes, you would. After all, you are touching the person holding the spell arent you?

The grapple rules would still work normally. I think this was addressed in the succubus level drain question. Grappling wouldn't automatically discharge the spell since touch spells don't work that way, but the caster could certainly attack on his round.

Once pinned the caster would not be able to make that attack, since it doesn't fall under the actions he's allowed to take. If for some reason he wanted to discharge the spell on himself he could simply use the spell on himself, just like the touch spell description says.


Gauss wrote:
CRB p186 wrote:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

Nothing about deliberately touching a target to discharge the spell. In fact it says even unintentionally.

Actually, as touch spells are discharged when you touch something, even uninentionally (by the book), if a palladin is allways touching himself, then paladins can't heal anyone but themselves.

Pally A sees Fighter B bloody and near to death. He decides to lay on hands on him. When he charges his hands with positive energy, as he is touching himself in all moments, he unintentionally discharges and heals himself instead of fighter.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Gauss wrote:
CRB p186 wrote:
If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

Nothing about deliberately touching a target to discharge the spell. In fact it says even unintentionally.

Actually, as touch spells are discharged when you touch something, even uninentionally (by the book), if a palladin is allways touching himself, then paladins can't heal anyone but themselves.

Pally A sees Fighter B bloody and near to death. He decides to lay on hands on him. When he charges his hands with positive energy, as he is touching himself in all moments, he unintentionally discharges and heals himself instead of fighter.

LoH is not a touch spell. It is a (su) with specific text concerning touching its target.


Whale_Cancer wrote:

Free hand = no weapon in hand.

Touching someone = making a touch attack with a free hand (hand defined in the broad terms I quoted from the called shot rules above; this isn't purely RAW, you are right, since it is from an alternate rule set. However, if we don't listen to that we are back to the English language definition of a hand.). You can touch yourself or allies without making an attack roll (i.e. anyone willing).

Touching someone is a physical action.

The pinned condition lists what you can do while pinned: attempting to escape, verbal actions, or mental actions....

Rule that states touching yourself is a physical action?

There's nothing in the pinned condition that suggests that's an exhaustive list of the actions that are permissible-- it lists some that are never permissible, and some that are always permissible. Else, by your interpretation, blinking in morse code to an ally standing above you is impossible because it's an action not on the list.


Is a succubi's level drain automatic or triggered in sum fashon?


Vestrial wrote:


Rule that states touching yourself is a physical action?

There's not a rule stating that having sex is a physical action either. Or playing a citar, lighning a cigar, chewing gum, or painting a bear in yellow.

Are you suggesting that I can paint a bear in yellow while pinned, because the rule does not explicitly says I can't, just that I can't make physical actions, and no where in the rules says that painting bears in yellow is a physical action?


Vestrial wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

Free hand = no weapon in hand.

Touching someone = making a touch attack with a free hand (hand defined in the broad terms I quoted from the called shot rules above; this isn't purely RAW, you are right, since it is from an alternate rule set. However, if we don't listen to that we are back to the English language definition of a hand.). You can touch yourself or allies without making an attack roll (i.e. anyone willing).

Touching someone is a physical action.

The pinned condition lists what you can do while pinned: attempting to escape, verbal actions, or mental actions....

Rule that states touching yourself is a physical action?

There's nothing in the pinned condition that suggests that's an exhaustive list of the actions that are permissible-- it lists some that are never permissible, and some that are always permissible. Else, by your interpretation, blinking in morse code to an ally standing above you is impossible because it's an action not on the list.

By RAW, yes. That is why I said that (a number of times) a DM might consider it reasonable to use LoH on oneself while pinned; similarly, blinking is a pretty reasonable action to do while RAW.

We obviously disagree in our readings of the pinned condition, not sure what point there is to continue this exchange?


Gustavo, exactly my point. You do not discharge because you are always in contact with yourself. It clearly spells out that you must touch yourself. It makes Malachi's version where a person is in constant touch contact with themselves unusable.

- Gauss

101 to 150 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you use lay on hands on yourself while pinned? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.