Can you use lay on hands on yourself while pinned?


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 207 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Vestrial: Yes, touching yourself is a free action. This is spelled out on page 186.

- Gauss


gustavo iglesias wrote:
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?

You're making my point for me. The list is not supposed to be all-inclusive. And there is a difference between 'action,' and 'Action' in the game-sense. Some actions you can't take while grappling (painting bears), even though you may only technically need one free hand to do so. (and painting bears is an Action- craft)


Gauss wrote:

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

Does the pinned condition prevent a character from touching their fingers together, snapping their fingers to a catchy tune, or doing a one handed clap?


Archamus, yes to all of them. By RAW you are allowed three types of actions: Free yourself, verbal actions, mental actions. All three of the actions you listed are physical and are thus not included in what is allowed.

In order to separate the issues slightly: Do you think you can use Lay on Hands on yourself if you are paralyzed? Only mental actions can be taken while paralyzed.

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Archamus, yes to all of them. By RAW you are allowed three types of actions: Free yourself, verbal actions, mental actions. All three of those action types are physical and are thus not allowed.

In order to separate the issues slightly: Do you think you can use Lay on Hands on yourself if you are paralyzed? Only mental actions can be taken while paralyzed.

- Gauss

Short answer, no.

Long answer, I don't think characters are always automatically touching themselves. I just think that touching yourself is so arbitrarily easy that it is nearly impossible to prevent it. Paralyzation should do the trick though.

Howevery, by RAW if you can manage to cast a touch spell while paralyzed, there is an argument for being able to use it on yourself since the description of touch spells says, "touch one friend or use the spell on yourself". Of course you can also read 'use the spell on yourself' as meaning touch yourself, but it isn't explicit.

I can easily see RAW going both ways on this and strictly RAW I side slightly in favor of not being able to use it while pinned. I reach that conclusion because I think it's the intent of the rules though.

By RAW it requires a free hand and a touch, so pinned means you can't reach out and place your hand on yourself. But also by RAW there is no reason two fingers touching together wouldn't count as a touch. So you can use it. And saying that pinned means you can't move and thus can't touch your fingers together is a very weak argument. It seems fairly well accepted that that is referring to move actions and not all movement. If it was all movement, then casting spells with verbal components would be out, and it wouldn't make sense to be able to attempt a combat maneuver to free yourself since that requires movement.

I just get riled up when I see absurdities that in the end don't even make a valid point, like painting bears while pinned. Or blowing all out of proportions what someone has said, even adding to their statement, in order to give it implications far outside of anything they said.


The description of the touch spell also says free action to use. You cannot take physical actions while paralyzed.

I agree the whole 'cannot touch yourself while pinned' thing might be absurd but RAW is full of absurdities. I modify RAW for my games all the time. The problem is that this thread is not about house-rules. It is about RAW and to a lesser extent RAI.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:


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.

Unintentional discharge of a spell only occurs once the charge is a held. A charge is held only if you fail to make the touch attack on the round you cast the spell.

e.g.,
Cast spell (charge is not held)
Make touch attack (charge is still not held)
Your round is over (now the charge is held)

Which is still problematic if you are always touching yourself - but that is saying more than what Malachi means when he says you are always touching yourself. Malachi's meaning, I believe, is that you can always choose to trigger a touch effect on yourself of a spell/SLA/SU or held charge you have. Which just leads back to the original question, if pinned can you activate a ability that requires a free hand/appendage/tentacle/whatever and have it applied to yourself - of which question I have no interest in weighing in on.

For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, the first sentence here should be instructive for you. SKR

But I'll quote the most significant part of it

SKR wrote:
The core rules assume that you're a humanoid...

by implication if your character is not a humanoid you should make sensible/reasonable adjustments for rules that are written referring to humanoid anatomy.


bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].

I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).


Gauss wrote:
The description of the touch spell also says free action to use. You cannot take physical actions while paralyzed.

Good point.

Gauss wrote:
I agree the whole 'cannot touch yourself while pinned' thing might be absurd but RAW is full of absurdities. I modify RAW for my games all the time. The problem is that this thread is not about house-rules. It is about RAW and to a lesser extent RAI.

I still just haven't seen a clear cut case of it not being allowed by RAW. Everyonce in a great while situations like that seem to show up on here and this one of them for me anyway.


Nope, LoH does not state that it has somatic components, it states it requires a free hand. Pinned does not state that you do not have a free hand. Pinned does also not state that you cannot take any physical actions apart from the ones specified as always permitted. Thus, a paladin may Lay Hands On themselves.

(The above is the only paragraph that I intend as the points of my argument - the following paragraphs only exist because I am verbose and like the imagined sound of my own typed voice, and should be considered fluff, so to make a pertinent counter argument, you only need to reference the above.)

gustavo iglesias wrote:
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?

This argument is completely beside the point. As stated, the pinned condition states some actions that are always permissible, and some that never are. The list of neither is extensive nor complete.

Pinned does not say that you have no free hands to use. It specifically does not state that you may not take any physical actions - it gives a short list of physical actions you may not take, then states that you may always do the three things that Gauss continues to (irrelevantly) repeat.

Examples have been given upthread of physical actions that can obviously still be made while pinned, such as blinking, to which I would add kicking the ground, shaking one's head, struggling etc. These things are not specifically disallowed, and neither do they fall under the "you're bad for suggesting that the devs need to outlaw every single thing or you can do it" umbrella. These are reasonable things that people are making a stretching interpretation to disallow. If a GM did not allow me to take any physical actions while pinned, I wouldn't be playing with them any longer, because that ain't RAW. Pinned doesn't mean you cannot take any physical action at all, and it doesn't mean you have no free hands. If it did mean you couldn't take any physical actions at all, you would be required to be limp and unstruggling. You may even suffocate, as breathing is a physical action, no? (Silly joke, please don't interpret as intended to be seriously persuasive to my argument.)


Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].
I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).

Oh, I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but it was brought up. One of those things that seems to happen in the rules forum where people try to 'score points' in the RAW debates.

Though out of curiosity, would you allow a unicorn paladin to LoH by touching its horn to a person? I would feel this use of LoH by a unicorn very fitting thematically. I personally wouldn't see this as much different than a snake (or any animal really) using LoH by touching its nose to a person (and maybe giving them a snake lick).


bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].
I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).

Oh, I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but it was brought up. One of those things that seems to happen in the rules forum where people try to 'score points' in the RAW debates.

Though out of curiosity, would you allow a unicorn paladin to LoH by touching its horn to a person? I would feel this use of LoH by a unicorn very fitting thematically. I personally wouldn't see this as much different than a snake (or any animal really) using LoH by touching its nose to a person (and maybe giving them a snake lick).

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however. Again, we are talking about RAW here and not what anyone could or should allow in a game.

Edit: I originally asked "Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?" but this is going to set off an entirely different debate. I am, however, curious about this as I am unsure if you need hands for somatic components. Humanoids do, at least. Also, goblin snakes exist... and they specifically favor becoming spellcasters.


Gauss wrote:

In order to separate the issues slightly: Do you think you can use Lay on Hands on yourself if you are paralyzed? Only mental actions can be taken while paralyzed.

- Gauss

Your example is different enough to be irrelevant. The Pinned condition does not state that you can only take mental actions. It gives a list of permissible actions, and does not disallow every other action, as the word "only" does with Paralysed.


Whale_Cancer wrote:

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

Yes, by doing a snake dance similar to what a snake charmer gets a snake to do.


bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

Yes, by doing a snake dance similar to what a snake charmer gets a snake to do.

I am starting a thread on this.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].
I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).

Oh, I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but it was brought up. One of those things that seems to happen in the rules forum where people try to 'score points' in the RAW debates.

Though out of curiosity, would you allow a unicorn paladin to LoH by touching its horn to a person? I would feel this use of LoH by a unicorn very fitting thematically. I personally wouldn't see this as much different than a snake (or any animal really) using LoH by touching its nose to a person (and maybe giving them a snake lick).

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

The section I have emboldened adds exactly nothing to the argument, as it has exactly nothing to do with RAW. In fact, I have no idea why you wouldn't add class levels to a unicorn - it's right there in the book.

To suggest that a unicorn cannot use Lay On Hands because it doesn't have hands is both incorrect by RAW, and silly.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:
Nope, LoH does not state that it has somatic components, it states it requires a free hand. Pinned does not state that you do not have a free hand. Pinned does also not state that you cannot take any physical actions apart from the ones specified as always permitted. Thus, a paladin may Lay Hands On themselves.
Pinned condition wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.


littlehewy wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].
I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).

Oh, I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but it was brought up. One of those things that seems to happen in the rules forum where people try to 'score points' in the RAW debates.

Though out of curiosity, would you allow a unicorn paladin to LoH by touching its horn to a person? I would feel this use of LoH by a unicorn very fitting thematically. I personally wouldn't see this as much different than a snake (or any animal really) using LoH by touching its nose to a person (and maybe giving them a snake lick).

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

The section I have emboldened adds exactly nothing to the argument, as it has exactly nothing to do with RAW. In fact, I have no idea why you wouldn't add class levels to a unicorn - it's right there in the book.

To suggest that a unicorn cannot use Lay On Hands because it doesn't have hands is both incorrect by RAW, and silly.

I was asked a question and I responded how I would deal with something (I never said it was against the rules to give a unicorn paladin levels). What is your point?

A horn is not a hand. It is not capable of fine manipulation.

You are silly! (I can throw that tone around to, doesn't really help anything).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM Jeff wrote:

I would say a Paladin can LoH on himself, even when Pinned.

Being Pinned does limit you, but you're not Helpless. And you can still take actions that doesn't require both hands, like attack.

Okay, look at it this way:

Can you cast spells while Pinned? Only certain spells (not those that use Somatic or Material Components.)

Could you cast the level 2 cleric spell Aid (with a successful Concentration check)? Yes, the Aid spell does not use Somatic or Material Components.

The Aid spell gives a bonus to a living creature touched. If I can attack while pinned, I can touch attack while pinned. If I can touch attack, I can touch allies (in range) or myself.

So yes, I would say a Paladin can LoH on himself, even when Pinned.

The only "attack" you can make while pinned is to break the pin with a combat maneuver. You don't get the free touch needed to deliver Aid.


Quote:

littlehewy wrote:

Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
For those making the pedantic argument that you must in fact have actual hands to use LoH, [...].
I don't think anyone is making that argument. However, if you are a human you need to lay on hand and not lay on forehead or lay on buttcheek. If you are an awakened octopus, you can lay on tentacle. If you are a snake... well, I still hold you can't lay on hands. You have no limbs for fine manipulation (i.e. hand equivalents).
Oh, I don't think anyone actually plays that way, but it was brought up. One of those things that seems to happen in the rules forum where people try to 'score points' in the RAW debates.

Though out of curiosity, would you allow a unicorn paladin to LoH by touching its horn to a person? I would feel this use of LoH by a unicorn very fitting thematically. I personally wouldn't see this as much different than a snake (or any animal really) using LoH by touching its nose to a person (and maybe giving them a snake lick).

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

The section I have emboldened adds exactly nothing to the argument, as it has exactly nothing to do with RAW. In fact, I have no idea why you wouldn't add class levels to a unicorn - it's right there in the book.

To suggest that a unicorn cannot use Lay On Hands because it doesn't have hands is both incorrect by RAW, and silly.

I was asked a question and I responded how I would deal with something (I never said it was against the rules to give a unicorn paladin levels). What is your point?

A horn is not a hand. It is not capable of fine manipulation.

You are silly! (I can throw that tone around to, doesn't really help anything).

You're right, I am a bit silly :)

But you did state that you would allow it as a houserule, indicating that it would not be RAW. But it is RAW.

Don't make me poke my tongue out...

Seriously, apologies if I seemed rude. It happens unintentionally sometimes.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
bbangerter wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:

As a house rule, maybe. I probably wouldn't be advancing a unicorn with class levels, however.

Would you allow a snake to cast spells with somatic components?

Yes, by doing a snake dance similar to what a snake charmer gets a snake to do.
I am starting a thread on this.

Excellent :). I'm going to refrain from posting in that thread till tomorrow to see how all the rules lawyers answer it.


littlehewy wrote:

You're right, I am a bit silly :)

But you did state that you would allow it as a houserule, indicating that it would not be RAW. But it is RAW.

Don't make me poke my tongue out...

Have you read the whole thread? I don't really want to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

Lay on hands requires the use of a hand. A hand is something capable of fine manipulation such as a hand or a tentacle (maybe even a prehensile tail). A horn is a rigid stabby bit. It is not a 'hand.'

Would you allow a unicorn to cast spells with somatic components? Somatic components require use of a hand.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
GM Jeff wrote:

Again, nothing in Pinned says you don't have a free hand.

The only thing that applies is that a pinned creature is still grappled and grappled says creatures cannot take actions that require two hands to perform.

Pinned does not expand on this. In fact, you could say both of your hands are free. "I drop everything because I want both hands free to negate the -4 penalty to my combat maneuver roll when grappling."

Another action you can't do while pinned. It is reasonable to say that you can let go your weapon has you only need to open the hand but you can't drop a strapped shield.

As we are here, read the thread about a grappled succubus. With your idea that a paladin can use lay of hands while pinned a succubus can deliver her kiss wile pinned, a vampire can drain your blood and so on.

PatientWolf wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
Gauss wrote:

A Pinned creature can only take verbal or purely mental actions. Lay on Hands requires a free hand, thus it is not solely a verbal nor mental action.

- Gauss

You inserted the word only in there, it is not in the actual text.

Wow, that's some reading.

pinned wrote:
A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions
It says the pinned creature is limited in the actions it takes, and then it explicitly lists the actions that it can take. And you're reading that as saying that the pinned creature actually isn't limited at all in the actions it can take, and the fact that the condition states you can attempt to free yourself, make verbal action, and make mental actions is just because it's fun to be redundant?

Lets take another look:

Pinned wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus.. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself,usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Notice the use of the word usually with regard to combat maneuvers and Escape Artist checks. So not every action that can be taken is explicitly listed. Rather I read it as the actions that are limited in some way are explicitly stated. It explicitly states you can't move. Hmmmm...it seems to me that being unable to move qualifies as your actions being limited. It says you can't cast spells with somatic components. Hmmm...that seems to qualify for the definition of being limited in your actions. You are reading as if it says "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it may take to only the following:"

1) "Usually" refer to the actions you can use to escape, not to all the action you can take.

2( It use "usually" because there are enough special action in this game that listing every prohibited action and every possibly way to escape would take several pages.

A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself,usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check, but a vampire can free himself turning gaseous, a demon or devil reporting, a wizard with shapechnge active can shift shape to something that can't be pinned, .....

How many pages of exceptions do you need on your rulebooks?


littlehewy:

If you had been following the thread you would note that I am responding to the tangent of 'you are always touching yourself' line of thinking. That line of thinking is muddying the waters when it comes to being pinned. So to clarify that I went to the next best thing: Paralyzed.

To solve the one problem sometimes one needs to clarify a point using something else. This is a normal process in debates.

Summary: While paralyzed can a paladin touch himself to heal himself?

If the answer is no, then the whole debate on paladins always being able to touch themselves regardless of condition should be solved. Then we return to the debate on whether or not Pinned qualifies as a condition where you cannot touch yourself.

See how it works?

- Gauss

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The only reason you even need one hand is to actually satisfy the 'touch' range;

Lay On Hands (Su): "a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch."

"By touch" also includes the Paladin healing her own wounds.

A paladin needs one free hand to use the ability. There's no exception for when the paladin targets herself.

Except my hand is already touching me.

May I make a suggestion? Do a search for paladin using lay on hands on himself as that topic has been covered already too and gets down to the crux of the matter.

But I would like to point out simply having a touch component doesn't mean the supernatural ability has a somatic component. After all at that point any creature with a touch supernatural ability couldn't use it in a grapple including attack supernatural abilities.

Yes, and the reply by JJ was: "as he could swap his weapon to the shield hand to free one hand and hold it while curing himself I would allow that without even asking from the swap." or something very similar. Rephrased he would have to get a free hand, but asking how he get that would break the flow of the game, so I simply assume he would get it. Perfectly reasonable reply in 99% of the situations, not while pinned.


GM_Jeff:

Aid requires a Somatic Component and a Divine Focus. You cannot cast Aid unless you had Still Spell and had a means to remove the Divine Focus requirement such as being an an oracle. If you do manage to cast it (pending a concentration check), you still cannot deliver it. No touch spells may be delivered while Pinned because touch actions (a free action) are not on the list of approved actions.

Once again the approved actions are:
Free yourself (such as an escape artist check or CM check to escape)
Verbal only actions
Mental only actions

Verbal (only) Spells and Spell-like abilities fall into either Verbal or Mental categories but require concentration checks.

Summary: Even if you have a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability that you can legally activate as per the approved action list you still cannot use a touch action since that is a separate action (free action) and not on the approved action list.

- Gauss

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Grick wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
That line in LoH about only requiring one hand is saying that you don't need two, not that you need one even if you don't normally need any free hand to touch yourself!

There's nothing that says you don't need a free hand to touch yourself.

The ability is specific. It says you need a free hand to use it. Yes, that can mean that you don't need two hands. But no, it can't mean that you don't need any hands.

It does not say you need a free hand to use it! It says you only need one hand when the name implies that you would need two!

The relevant part of LoH as, '...a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch'. To adjudicate this we use the rules for using touch-range abilities:-

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically...use the spell on yourself.

Why you don't cite the whole text?

PRD wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

A bit different, ne?

By your interpretation a pinned paladin can use lay on hands on a friend as he can always touch him. What that row of text really say is that you don't need to hit your touch Ac or that of a friend to deliver a touch spell or power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Whale_Cancer wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

You're right, I am a bit silly :)

But you did state that you would allow it as a houserule, indicating that it would not be RAW. But it is RAW.

Don't make me poke my tongue out...

Have you read the whole thread? I don't really want to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

Lay on hands requires the use of a hand. A hand is something capable of fine manipulation such as a hand or a tentacle (maybe even a prehensile tail). A horn is a rigid stabby bit. It is not a 'hand.'

Would you allow a unicorn to cast spells with somatic components? Somatic components require use of a hand.

Yep, I have read the whole thread.

And yep, I would allow that unicorn to do so. As would the devs, and the RAW.

It has been established and confirmed that the use of "hands" when discussing somatic components in the CRB is a result of an understandably anthropomorphic perspective.


Gauss wrote:

littlehewy:

If you had been following the thread you would note that I am responding to the tangent of 'you are always touching yourself' line of thinking. That line of thinking is muddying the waters when it comes to being pinned. So to clarify that I went to the next best thing: Paralyzed.

To solve the one problem sometimes one needs to clarify a point using something else. This is a normal process in debates.

Summary: While paralyzed can a paladin touch himself to heal himself?

If the answer is no, then the whole debate on paladins always being able to touch themselves regardless of condition should be solved. Then we return to the debate on whether or not Pinned qualifies as a condition where you cannot touch yourself.

See how it works?

- Gauss

You are quite right in your description of your thought processes leading to your comment. That doesn't make it more relevant. I should have mentioned that the "always touching yourself" thing doesn't really float my boat either, but it is an unneeded distinction. Being in a constant state of touching oneself (sounds icky doesn't it?) is not necessary to sidestep any RAW prohibition on LoHing oneself, because there is no such prohibition.


Littlehewy: In order to deal with a single point one must discuss that point. You cannot make a cogent argument if you only deal with the end product of that argument. That is equivalent to 'is not! is too!'.

Someone presented a reason why they could LoH that had nothing to do with whether or not a free hand was required due to being pinned. I was dealing with that and thus it is quite relevant. By removing the pinned element of the discussion it deals with that thought process more cleanly.

In this case your belief there is no prohibition may be prohibiting you (pun intended) from seeing that the thought process I was responding to is relevant.

In any case, you still cannot do anything besides free yourself, verbal, or mental actions. LoH is comprised of two actions, mental and physical. The mental is fine, the followup physical is not allowed.

- Gauss


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:

The description of the touch spell also says free action to use. You cannot take physical actions while paralyzed.

I agree the whole 'cannot touch yourself while pinned' thing might be absurd but RAW is full of absurdities. I modify RAW for my games all the time. The problem is that this thread is not about house-rules. It is about RAW and to a lesser extent RAI.

- Gauss

This post, however, is my favourite of the thread, and a reminder that I wasn't going to participate in any of these meaningless RAW debates, as they don't have anything to do with actually playing the game - the rules weren't meant to be read like this, and these discussions ultimately lack any kind of closure unless a dev steps in (which is rare).

Also, I unintentionally come off as a rude ass sometimes, which I don't like. I apologise again if that's the case here.


littlehewy wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

You're right, I am a bit silly :)

But you did state that you would allow it as a houserule, indicating that it would not be RAW. But it is RAW.

Don't make me poke my tongue out...

Have you read the whole thread? I don't really want to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

Lay on hands requires the use of a hand. A hand is something capable of fine manipulation such as a hand or a tentacle (maybe even a prehensile tail). A horn is a rigid stabby bit. It is not a 'hand.'

Would you allow a unicorn to cast spells with somatic components? Somatic components require use of a hand.

Yep, I have read the whole thread.

And yep, I would allow that unicorn to do so. As would the devs, and the RAW.

It has been established and confirmed that the use of "hands" when discussing somatic components in the CRB is a result of an understandably anthropomorphic perspective.

Thanks for the link! Citations are good! Unfortunately, the text which allows things without hands to cast spells (which isn't even the issue here, unless you want to use that as a precedent for LoH) was excised from Pathfinder. Although James Jacobs does say this is the way it should work, that doesn't make it RAW.

3.5 wrote:
A spellcasting creature that lacks hands or arms can provide any somatic component a spell might require by moving its body. Such a creature also does need material components for its spells. The creature can cast the spell by either touching the required component (but not if the component is in another creature's possession) or having the required component on its person. Sometimes spellcasting creatures utilize the Eschew Materials feat to avoid fussing with noncostly components.


Gauss wrote:

Littlehewy: In order to deal with a single point one must discuss that point. You cannot make a cogent argument if you only deal with the end product of that argument. That is equivalent to 'is not! is too!'.

Someone presented a reason why they could LoH that had nothing to do with whether or not a free hand was required due to being pinned. I was dealing with that and thus it is quite relevant. By removing the pinned element of the discussion it deals with that thought process more cleanly.

In this case your belief there is no prohibition may be prohibiting you (pun intended) from seeing that the thought process I was responding to is relevant.

In any case, you still cannot do anything besides free yourself, verbal, or mental actions. LoH is comprised of two actions, mental and physical. The mental is fine, the followup physical is not allowed.

- Gauss

I did provide some cogent points in my first post, which so far hasn't been discussed...

But carry on!


If we're really getting into exact word for word, clearly these rules are written in precise, literal, pretending they were obviously written to be followed unquestioningly to the exact letter with no additional interpretation, and pshaw to that crazy talk of trying to convey concepts clearly in as few words as possible talk mode, some points need addressing:

- That STILL can't be used to suggest that "unable to move" means completely paralyzed. The fact that actions which require some part of your body is full-on contradicted later on when it starts listing things like escape artist checks without specifying that they are exceptions. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you're arguing this means anything other than "you cannot take any action which causes you to leave the space you currently occupy."

- The pinned condition does not actually prevent you from doing anything at all beyond move, and cast spells with somatic or material components. It is strongly implied that it is also unable to perform actions requiring two hands, use attacks of opportunity, or use stealth to hide from a creature grappling it, by way of a reasonable but not explicit interpretation of the phrase "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack." This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW.

- Additionally, penalties are given to AC, casting spells, using spell-like abilities, and if we are assuming all penalties from being grappled carry over, there is a -2 penalty to attack rolls and CMB checks. As there is no point in specifying a penalty to actions that are not possible, the exact wording implies that these actions are all specifically possible while grappled/pinned.

- Nowhere in the description of lay on hands is it actually specified that using lay on hands requires one to touch the target with their hands. On the subject of targetting the ability, all we have is: "Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch." In paragraph 3, it is additionally stated that "Using lay on hands [to damage undead] requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity." The only point at which hands are specified is at the end of paragraph 2, "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability." No mention is made of why this hand must be free. All we know is that there is not a weapon in that hand.

Nowhere in the description of the ability nor the condition is there one word which indicates lay on hands may not be used while pinned. By RAW, it can be used as normal, without penalty, on the paladin herself, the opponent grappling her, or any other creature in an adjacent space.

Attacking while pinned (with anything other than a two-handed weapon) is also totally fair game by strict-RAW-interpretation, by the way.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:

I did provide some cogent points in my first post, which so far hasn't been discussed...

But carry on!

Are you talking about the post where it says that being pinned doesn't stop you from taking physical actions? Because I did respond to that post. I'm curious as to what physical actions there are that don't involve moving.

EDIT: Of course, then it was brought up as I was posting this... I'm having great luck tonight...

Googleshng wrote:

If we're really getting into exact word for word, clearly these rules are written in precise, literal, pretending they were obviously written to be followed unquestioningly to the exact letter with no additional interpretation, and pshaw to that crazy talk of trying to convey concepts clearly in as few words as possible talk mode, some points need addressing:

- That STILL can't be used to suggest that "unable to move" means completely paralyzed. The fact that actions which require some part of your body is full-on contradicted later on when it starts listing things like escape artist checks without specifying that they are exceptions. I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you're arguing this means anything other than "you cannot take any action which causes you to leave the space you currently occupy."

So for some reason I thought similar language was used in other conditions like paralyzed to mean couldn't move their body, but that apparently was wrong, so I'll concede that point.

Quote:
- The pinned condition does not actually prevent you from doing anything at all beyond move, and cast spells with somatic or material components. It is strongly implied that it is also unable to perform actions requiring two hands, use attacks of opportunity, or use stealth to hide from a creature grappling it, by way of a reasonable but not explicit interpretation of the phrase "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack." This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW.

Sure, you could say that, if you decided you were going to ignore the entire logical structure of how the condition is written. Let's imagine that the sentence "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." is removed from the condition. We get some pretty interesting sentences:

- A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check.
Cool. But it could free itself anyway. Why do we need the pinned condition to tell us that. It's built right into the combat maneuver rules.
- A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component.
Cool. But we could've taken verbal and mental actions anyway. Why bother writing that part into the condition and just say that they can't cast a spell with a somatic or material component?

There's no point in the condition listing what you can do unless you couldn't do them normally. Since when we take out "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." from the condition, there's nothing limiting actions, guess what that sentence needs to do in order to make sense?

Quote:
- Additionally, penalties are given to AC, casting spells, using spell-like abilities, and if we are assuming all penalties from being grappled carry over, there is a -2 penalty to attack rolls and CMB checks. As there is no point in specifying a penalty to actions that are not possible, the exact wording implies that these actions are all specifically possible while grappled/pinned.

I can give penalties to things you can't do. They may not be the most useful penalties, but they do exist. They could print a feat that let you attack while pinned. When pinned is a more restrictive version of grappled, it make sense that some things that grappled penalized pinned would prevent from happening at all.

Besides, the only one of those that you wouldn't normally matter while pinned would be attacking since everything else you can do in a pin/is a defense.

Quote:
- Nowhere in the description of lay on hands is it actually specified that using lay on hands requires one to touch the target with their hands. On the subject of targetting the ability, all we have is: "Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch." In paragraph 3, it is additionally stated that "Using lay on hands [to damage undead] requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity." The only point at which hands are specified is at the end of paragraph 2, "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability." No mention is made of why this hand must be free. All we know is that there is not a weapon in that hand.

Sure, if you completely ignore "a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch". By touch is a game term. Touch attacks are a whole section of the rules. That's not just fluff text, that means something.

Quote:

Nowhere in the description of the ability nor the condition is there one word which indicates lay on hands may not be used while pinned. By RAW, it can be used as normal, without penalty, on the paladin herself, the opponent grappling her, or any other creature in an adjacent space.

Attacking while pinned (with anything other than a two-handed weapon) is also totally fair game by strict-RAW-interpretation, by the way.

Sure, if you completely ignore the game terms/the logical structure of how the pinned condition is written.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
p.185 CRB wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself.

This is not an accidental difference. You have to touch another creature, friend or foe, in order to target them with a touch-range ability.

According to the rule Gauss quoted, you do not have to touch yourself to target yourself with a touch-range ability, you just use the ability on yourself!

I've been saying that 'you are always considered to be touching yourself', when that is my interpretation of why the rule is that you don't need to touch yourself. That is RAW, and thanks Gauss for providing the quote.

Given this, then there is no physical requirement to using this otherwise purely mental supernatural ability.

I have to say that even if the rule was that you need to touch yourself as a physical act, the pinned condition is not the same as paralysis! I don't mean just by RAW (no argument there, I hope), but in a pin you are still thrashing around. The RAW on pin definately allows you to take the physical actions of 'escaping' and 'using a combat manoevre. Both of these must allow physical movement. It's absurd to say that any movement (blinking!) is not allowed. It even says that you lose your Dex bonus to AC, but if you actually could not move it would set your Dex mod to -5; it doesn't so you can move. Not enough to attack/reach out to touch someone who isn't pinning you, but touching is touching, and a touch-range effect works if you are touching your target (even through clothes and armour), regardless if you have a hand free or if you are being pinned or just tied-up back to back with an ally.

A succubus can level drain by any act of intimacy, and frottage will do the job nicely, so that Druid is in trouble when the succubus gets her turn!

The vampires blood drain requires a bite, and it couldn't do that if pinned!


Iammars wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

I did provide some cogent points in my first post, which so far hasn't been discussed...

But carry on!

Are you talking about the post where it says that being pinned doesn't stop you from taking physical actions? Because I did respond to that post. I'm curious as to what physical actions there are that don't involve moving.

EDIT: Of course, then it was brought up as I was posting this... I'm having great luck tonight...

In Pathfinder, moving means changing your location - a move action puts you somewhere else. Not being able to move does not mean paralysed, it means unable to change your location. Paralysed means paralysed.

Moving doesn't mean any physical motion in Pathfinder. It's a specific action.

Edit: Also, Googleshng summed it up perfectly above. I'm going to take my own advice and leave the Rules Arena, now that I know Googleshng is carrying the torch, and more eloquently than I could :)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
littlehewy wrote:

In Pathfinder, moving means changing your location - a move action puts you somewhere else. Not being able to move does not mean paralysed, it means unable to change your location. Paralysed means paralysed.

Moving doesn't mean any physical motion in Pathfinder. It's a specific action.

Yeah, that was dumb of me. I thought that language was used in other conditions. My previous post has my response to Googleshng now.


I think the quote "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something that needs to be consider about this situation. Pinned says I can't move(whether or not this means any sort of movement or just movement actions, I'm not going to try and argue, but if we want to take what we know of "move" from the rules then it would apply to move actions), I can always attempt to free myself(this list is not comprehensive and lists the ones usually used), mental and verbal actions. I can cast spells so long as they have no somatic or material components(suggesting I have no free hand with which to make the precise and measured hand movements nor one to touch the material components).

If you want to argue that because it doesn't say I can't take physical actions, then you could argue for any number of things that you can do because a rule doesn't say you can't. Now, what I've said may not be RAW but to me, it's better than assuming that I can do certain things because it doesn't say I can't


CrystalSpellblade wrote:

I think the quote "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something that needs to be consider about this situation. Pinned says I can't move(whether or not this means any sort of movement or just movement actions, I'm not going to try and argue, but if we want to take what we know of "move" from the rules then it would apply to move actions), I can always attempt to free myself(this list is not comprehensive and lists the ones usually used), mental and verbal actions. I can cast spells so long as they have no somatic or material components(suggesting I have no free hand with which to make the precise and measured hand movements nor one to touch the material components).

If you want to argue that because it doesn't say I can't take physical actions, then you could argue for any number of things that you can do because a rule doesn't say you can't. Now, what I've said may not be RAW but to me, it's better than assuming that I can do certain things because it doesn't say I can't

The problem with not considering that list exhaustive is it means pinned is, in some ways, better (for the person affected) than grapple. Since grapple and pinned do not stack, the restriction against, say, making AOO no longer apply if the list is not exhaustive.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:

I think the quote "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something that needs to be consider about this situation. Pinned says I can't move(whether or not this means any sort of movement or just movement actions, I'm not going to try and argue, but if we want to take what we know of "move" from the rules then it would apply to move actions), I can always attempt to free myself(this list is not comprehensive and lists the ones usually used), mental and verbal actions. I can cast spells so long as they have no somatic or material components(suggesting I have no free hand with which to make the precise and measured hand movements nor one to touch the material components).

If you want to argue that because it doesn't say I can't take physical actions, then you could argue for any number of things that you can do because a rule doesn't say you can't. Now, what I've said may not be RAW but to me, it's better than assuming that I can do certain things because it doesn't say I can't

The problem with not considering that list exhaustive is it means pinned is, in some ways, better (for the person affected) than grapple. Since grapple and pinned do not stack, the restriction against, say, making AOO no longer apply if the list is not exhaustive.

I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I was referring to the list of escape actions not being exhaustive so there are other ways one could free themselves(maybe by burning the ropes or something). There is no evidence that AOO can be made while pinned, so you shouldn't assume that is among the limited actions a Pinned person can take.


CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:

I think the quote "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something that needs to be consider about this situation. Pinned says I can't move(whether or not this means any sort of movement or just movement actions, I'm not going to try and argue, but if we want to take what we know of "move" from the rules then it would apply to move actions), I can always attempt to free myself(this list is not comprehensive and lists the ones usually used), mental and verbal actions. I can cast spells so long as they have no somatic or material components(suggesting I have no free hand with which to make the precise and measured hand movements nor one to touch the material components).

If you want to argue that because it doesn't say I can't take physical actions, then you could argue for any number of things that you can do because a rule doesn't say you can't. Now, what I've said may not be RAW but to me, it's better than assuming that I can do certain things because it doesn't say I can't

The problem with not considering that list exhaustive is it means pinned is, in some ways, better (for the person affected) than grapple. Since grapple and pinned do not stack, the restriction against, say, making AOO no longer apply if the list is not exhaustive.
I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I was referring to the list of escape actions not being exhaustive so there are other ways one could free themselves(maybe by burning the ropes or something). There is no evidence that AOO can be made while pinned, so you shouldn't assume that is among the limited actions a Pinned person can take.

Indeed, I thought you meant the actions listed in the pinned condition were not an exhaustive list of things that could be done while pinned. Apologies.


Whale_Cancer wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
CrystalSpellblade wrote:

I think the quote "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something that needs to be consider about this situation. Pinned says I can't move(whether or not this means any sort of movement or just movement actions, I'm not going to try and argue, but if we want to take what we know of "move" from the rules then it would apply to move actions), I can always attempt to free myself(this list is not comprehensive and lists the ones usually used), mental and verbal actions. I can cast spells so long as they have no somatic or material components(suggesting I have no free hand with which to make the precise and measured hand movements nor one to touch the material components).

If you want to argue that because it doesn't say I can't take physical actions, then you could argue for any number of things that you can do because a rule doesn't say you can't. Now, what I've said may not be RAW but to me, it's better than assuming that I can do certain things because it doesn't say I can't

The problem with not considering that list exhaustive is it means pinned is, in some ways, better (for the person affected) than grapple. Since grapple and pinned do not stack, the restriction against, say, making AOO no longer apply if the list is not exhaustive.
I think you may have missed what I was trying to say. I was referring to the list of escape actions not being exhaustive so there are other ways one could free themselves(maybe by burning the ropes or something). There is no evidence that AOO can be made while pinned, so you shouldn't assume that is among the limited actions a Pinned person can take.
Indeed, I thought you meant the actions listed in the pinned condition were not an exhaustive list of things that could be done while pinned. Apologies.

Glad to clear it up. I know that the internet can sometimes be a hard place to get a point across in. =D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Iammars wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
- The pinned condition does not actually prevent you from doing anything at all beyond move, and cast spells with somatic or material components. It is strongly implied that it is also unable to perform actions requiring two hands, use attacks of opportunity, or use stealth to hide from a creature grappling it, by way of a reasonable but not explicit interpretation of the phrase "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack." This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW.
Sure, you could say that, if you decided you were going to ignore the entire logical structure of how the condition is written. Let's imagine that the sentence "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." is removed from the condition. We get some pretty interesting sentences:

Repeated with emphasis, "This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW."

There is, within the description's condition, a list of things it prevents one from doing. This is unambiguous, straight-forward information.

There is also the statement, within the condition's description that "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." It is perfectly reasonable to infer from this sentence that there exist certain actions which the grappled condition is intended to disallow, which are too obvious and/or obscure to bother wasting words on, but we aren't arguing RAI here, we're arguing RAW, which in my defense, I did start that post by pointing out is generally not nearly as productive.

Alternatively/additionally, it could be inferred from that statement that "of the list of actions one can take while they have the Grappled condition, as detailed in the rules for the Grapple combat maneuver, creatures with the pinned condition cannot use those which could not be performed if they did not have the Grappled condition (move, pin, tie up, reverse and become grappler), with the following exception (escape from a grapple)."

If the intent of this sentence was to convey "No actions may be be taken other than attempting to escape, casting a spell, or using a spell-like ability," they could very easily have just printed that. The meaning is completely clear, and it's much shorter than what they ran with. But again, we're not addressing intent, we're dressing what's clearly written. So we are forced to acknowledge but ignore this highly ambiguous statement.

Quote:

- A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check.

Cool. But it could free itself anyway. Why do we need the pinned condition to tell us that. It's built right into the combat maneuver rules.

It isn't, actually. The combat maneuver rules fail to address the specifics of what can be done while pinned, simply stating that it is a more severe version of pinned with additional restrictions on what can be done, which can be found in the condition's description. Looking at said condition, we do indeed find additional restrictions, written quite plainly: You cannot move, and you cannot cast spells which have somatic or material components.

It is stated within said condition that "A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check," as a point of clarification that no matter what circumstances are inflicting the pinned condition, and the logical additional restrictions the GM may be inclined to pose based on them, they are not to rule that it is impossible to attempt escape.

Quote:

- A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component.

Cool. But we could've taken verbal and mental actions anyway. Why bother writing that part into the condition and just say that they can't cast a spell with a somatic or material component?

Clarity. It is a reasonable assumption that one could pin a person down in such a way that their mouth was forced close, making it impossible for them to speak (much as it is reasonable to assume one could pin someone in an inescapable position), so it's worth making a clarifying point that this is also beyond the intent of the condition.

The fact that mental actions, like activating a supernatural ability, are still on the table should go without saying, but apparently that isn't perfectly clear, because here we are arguing over one. Plus, this whole sentence is otherwise covering the full gamut of usage on spells and things that function similarly to spells, so it's worth spending the extra two words to go from clarifying almost everything to clarifying everything.

Quote:
There's no point in the condition listing what you can do unless you couldn't do them normally. Since when we take out "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." from the condition, there's nothing limiting actions, guess what that sentence needs to do in order to make sense?

Already covered, but since I'm going point by point: The point in listing things which can specifically be done while inflicted with a particular condition is to clarify that they may still be done when the rest of the condition's wording may imply otherwise.

Quote:

Quote:

- Additionally, penalties are given to AC, casting spells, using spell-like abilities, and if we are assuming all penalties from being grappled carry over, there is a -2 penalty to attack rolls and CMB checks. As there is no point in specifying a penalty to actions that are not possible, the exact wording implies that these actions are all specifically possible while grappled/pinned.
I can give penalties to things you can't do. They may not be the most useful penalties, but they do exist. They could print a feat that let you attack while pinned. When pinned is a more restrictive version of grappled, it make sense that some things that grappled penalized pinned would prevent from happening at all.

You can indeed give penalties to things that you are additionally stating can't be done in the first place. There is a huge difference between things that you can do, and things which the official Pathfinder rules actually do. I can't think of one single case anywhere in the rules where that particular sort of redundancy can be found. The style guideline followed is to print things in the fashion they usually operate, and when a specific feature causes them to operate differently, that ability lists its changes, along with a note of how things operate without that feature's presence.

The closest example I can think of to a rule anticipating a possible exception like that is under the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting, which specifically point out the existence, by name, of the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and what effects it has, to prevent some really bothersome crosschecking.

What you are suggesting is that the rules directly spell out how things would work under a theoretical exception to a rule, but aren't bothering to spell out the rule itself. This would be an incredibly silly thing to do.

Quote:
Besides, the only one of those that you wouldn't normally matter while pinned would be attacking since everything else you can do in a pin/is a defense.

Untrue. It is completely unambiguous that while pinned, you can cast spells, use spell-like abilities, use speech-based abilities, and use mental actions. By your own logic, there would also be no point in listing any things which you specifically cannot do.

Quote:

Quote:

- Nowhere in the description of lay on hands is it actually specified that using lay on hands requires one to touch the target with their hands. On the subject of targetting the ability, all we have is: "Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch." In paragraph 3, it is additionally stated that "Using lay on hands [to damage undead] requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity." The only point at which hands are specified is at the end of paragraph 2, "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability." No mention is made of why this hand must be free. All we know is that there is not a weapon in that hand.
Sure, if you completely ignore "a paladin can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch". By touch is a game term. Touch attacks are a whole section of the rules. That's not just fluff text, that means something.

Touch Attack is indeed a well-defined term with clear-cut rules, which are quite plainly stated in both the ability's description and slightly paraphrased in my excerpted quote, which you just quoted back, as only applying to Lay on Hands when it is being used to inflict damage to undead.

"Touch" and "Touch Attack" are not interchangeable terms, much like "Move" and "Move Action," "Full Round Action" and "1 Round Action," "Character Level" "Caster Level" "Wizard Level" or "Spell Level." Pathfinder's rules are full of similar but distinct terms like this, and very careful about which is used.

And even if this wasn't the case, the Pinned condition makes no mention of Touch Attacks or vice versa.

Quote:

Quote:

Nowhere in the description of the ability nor the condition is there one word which indicates lay on hands may not be used while pinned. By RAW, it can be used as normal, without penalty, on the paladin herself, the opponent grappling her, or any other creature in an adjacent space.

Attacking while pinned (with anything other than a two-handed weapon) is also totally fair game by strict-RAW-interpretation, by the way.

Sure, if you completely ignore the game terms/the logical structure of how the pinned condition is written.

If you see a contradiction to anything I'm saying here specifically spelled out, please quote it. If you think I'm playing the literal genie game here and want to go back to arguing RAI, I'll save you the trouble of digging out the arguments there:

- I'm generating this healing energy within my own body and thus obviously can effect myself without doing anything else.

- I don't need to actually do the hand laying when healing myself. That's why it's swift instead of standard.

- If you insist I have to touch some part of my body with my palm, I can make a fist and touch my fingers, or touch whatever part of my body my hand is being forced up against as part of the hold. Or heck, just crease my palm slightly. The only way I couldn't touch myself is if you disintegrate me.

- No, you can't restrain someone in a way that prevents them from doing any of those things. If you could, you could keep me from holding a weapon, and you'd get a free disarm with each successful pin.

- The text even specifies that you don't actually need to lay hands on someone despite the name.

- Touch range spells, as a similar precedent, quite clearly state they can be cast on a creature touched, or oneself.

Shadow Lodge

Googleshng wrote:
Iammars wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
- The pinned condition does not actually prevent you from doing anything at all beyond move, and cast spells with somatic or material components. It is strongly implied that it is also unable to perform actions requiring two hands, use attacks of opportunity, or use stealth to hide from a creature grappling it, by way of a reasonable but not explicit interpretation of the phrase "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack." This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW.
Sure, you could say that, if you decided you were going to ignore the entire logical structure of how the condition is written. Let's imagine that the sentence "A pinned creature is limited in the actions it can take." is removed from the condition. We get some pretty interesting sentences:

Repeated with emphasis, "This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW."

That was originally my position but as Grick pointed out this would mean you could light a torch with a tinderwig while pinned. Also loading a firearm requires one free hand. So if the actions on the list are simply the actions that are specifically limited and all other actions are unhindered then a gunslinger can reload a pistol while pinned.

After considering the ramifications I've had to concede that it does seem that the list is an exhaustive list of the actions you can perform instead of an exhaustive list of only those actions that are limited.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Googleshng wrote:
"Measured and precise movement of the hand" indicates something that involves your whole arm,

Ooooh, here's another one worth holding on to! "Hand = arm", this is just too rich! Totally keeping this link!


If you are able to move your whole hand around without your arm moving, I'd really love to see it. Can you post a video maybe?

PatientWolf wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
Iammars wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
- The pinned condition does not actually prevent you from doing anything at all beyond move, and cast spells with somatic or material components. It is strongly implied that it is also unable to perform actions requiring two hands, use attacks of opportunity, or use stealth to hide from a creature grappling it, by way of a reasonable but not explicit interpretation of the phrase "Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack." This is a complete and exhaustive list of actions prevented by having the grappled condition, by RAW.
That was originally my position but as Grick pointed out this would mean you could light a torch with a tinderwig while pinned. Also loading a firearm requires one free hand. So if the actions on the list are simply the actions that are specifically limited and all other actions are unhindered then a gunslinger can reload a pistol while pinned.

Those examples are already ruled out.


My ruling:

Somatic components require a free hand.
No somatic components while pinned.
You must not have a free hand, otherwise you could use somatic components (see grappled condition).
Lay on hands requires a free hand.
You can't use lay on hands while pinned.

Hand touching body is irrelevant. The action itself *requires* a free hand to perform.


Wow, 98 more posts and we're still circling the drain on this one?

RAW Lay On Hands - You only need one hand free to perform

RAW Pinned - You are tightly bound and cannot move and cannot cast any spells that need a somatic component.

You can houserule it any way you want.

RAW and Common Sense say you can't Lay On Hands while pinned...it doesn't make sense in either context.

FAQ it, houserule it, or don't allow it to happen.

151 to 200 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.