Lay on Hands and Self Healing

[Roshan]

A paladin has a large number of spells with a cast time of Immediate Action, this is pretty cool but when they cast these kinds of spells they can't heal themselves with lay on hands. Can a paladin use a Standard Action to heal themselves instead of a swift action?

[Avenger]

The logic might be sound, but strictly by RAW, the short answer is no.
It's more of a 'speak to your DM to houserule it' issue.

[master_marshmallow]

In editions past you would have to. I think the main issue is that in those editions there were less immediate action spells.

As DM I am very careful when it comes to playing with actions as doing so without any precedent RAW would invalidate any future releases that may allow for it.

The paladin has the ability to channel as a standard which heals the same number of d6, or could quick channel as a move if he has the feat for it, if you are specifically looking for something you can do to heal and don't have a problem using something other than your swift action.

With enough LoH uses, the paladin could Swift action, move action, and standard action heal for 3x the healing in one round.

[Lifat]

RAW is a no go. By RAW casting a swift action spell excludes you from using lay on hands on yourself.

I would houserule on this subject.
Swift action spells are nearly always worse than a standard action spell, but with the advantage that it can be cast alongside a full round action or another spell cast with the standard action.

Standard action --> Swift action
Seems to me that this would be fine. It doesn't increase the amount of spells per round and it will almost always be worse than doing a swift and a standard action anyway.

Move action --> Swift action
This seems broken to me. It increases the amount of spells cast per round, and a move action is inferior to a swift action in a lot of situations so allowing this would be a significant power upgrade for people with loads of swift actions.

In short I would allow Standard action to Swift action and as per the RAW a standard action to a move action but I would never allow a move action to become a standard action or a swift action.

[aceDiamond]

I don't quite understand. If you're using an immediate action, does that bar you from using a swift action? Can a paladin also not take a 5' step and declare a smite target?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

aceDiamond wrote:

I don't quite understand. If you're using an immediate action, does that bar you from using a swift action? Can a paladin also not take a 5' step and declare a smite target?

Using an immediate action 'uses up' your next swift action, and since you only get one swift per round if you cast a spell with a casting time of '1 immediate action' then you don't have a swift action to take on your next turn.

BTW, a 5-foot step is not an action at all; not swift, not free, just 'not an action'.

[aceDiamond]

I thought a 5' step was under the immediate action pool. Hmm.

Either way, couldn't one just Lay on Hands first and then cast?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

aceDiamond wrote:

I thought a 5' step was under the immediate action pool. Hmm.

Either way, couldn't one just Lay on Hands first and then cast?

You could Lay On Hands as a swift action on your own turn, then after that turn is complete and someone else was taking their turn then you could cast as an immediate action, using up the swift action of your next turn.

[Lifat]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

aceDiamond wrote:

I thought a 5' step was under the immediate action pool. Hmm.

Either way, couldn't one just Lay on Hands first and then cast?

You could Lay On Hands as a swift action on your own turn, then after that turn is complete and someone else was taking their turn then you could cast as an immediate action, using up the swift action of your next turn.

It depends on your question AceDiamond...

1 round gives you the following:

1 standard action
1 move action
1 swift action
X free action (X is limited by GM only)

You can combine 1 standard action with a move action and use them to take a full round action.

You can take all the actions seperately.

Lay on Hands is a swift action. This means that if you have a swift action spell you want to cast, then it CANNOT be accomplished in the same round because you only have 1 swift action.

You can use lay on hands in the same round as a standard action or 1 round spell. In case of the standard action spell you get to choose in which order you do it. In the case of the 1 round spell you have to do lay on hands before. You can also perform a full attack action in the same round as a lay on hands and you would get to choose in which order you take the actions.

Certain rare abilities and spells are defined as immediate actions.
These are abilities or spells that you can use when it ISN'T your turn. This means that you could theoretically cast a standard action spell, take a move action, use lay on hands and then end your turn. Immediately after ending your turn you could then declare the use of the immediate action ability or spell. But using an immediate action power uses up your next round's swift action, which means that in the following round you will be unable to use lay on hands.

This is how it works rules as written.

Personally I would houserule it and allow people to expend their standard action to get a second swift action.

[Starglim]

I think the least problematic solution is to let the paladin treat herself as merely a creature, allowing her to Lay on Hands as a standard action.

aceDiamond wrote:

I thought a 5' step was under the immediate action pool.

Heck no. You definitely can't take it outside your turn. A 5' step is a miscellaneous action that has its own rules for action economy. It doesn't use up any other action type.

[Komoda]

Allowing a swift action to be taken as a standard action can cause its own problems. For instance, can a monk now activate 2 ki powers per round? Can a character activate or change two stances?

On the surface it seems like no big deal. Then you start looking into the details and it gets murky.

[Lifat]

Komoda wrote:

Allowing a swift action to be taken as a standard action can cause its own problems. For instance, can a monk now activate 2 ki powers per round? Can a character activate or change two stances?

On the surface it seems like no big deal. Then you start looking into the details and it gets murky.

Those are fair points and they are good reasons not to introduce the houserule I suggested. But there could be fixes to it. So I guess it really comes down to an individual choice of whether or not the houserule is worth working with to get it to work.

[Java Man]

If you add "no activating the same power/ type of power (or ability or whatever) twice in the same round" then I wouldn't see a problem with allowing you to use a 'bigger' action to accomplish something like this. Not supported by RAW, to my knowledge, but I would rule it that way in my games.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

I used to think that the 3.5 rules said that you could use your standard action (though not your move action!) to use a power/ability/spell/whatever that had a swift action casting/activation time; basically swapping your standard for a second swift. But when challenged I could never find it again.

I can't insist I was right if I can't provide the evidence, but I think there must have been a reason that I thought this, and it seems others thought it too.

Do any other 3.5 players remember this?

[Claxon]

Personally, I think the swift self heal version was meant to be a bonus, not a drawback. Since the paladin could use it as a standard action on anyone else, I feel it is reasonable to let him use it on himself as a standard action as well.

The letter of RAW would imply that you cannot, but to me this goes against the spirit of the ability and the rules.

[Lifat]

@Claxon: Completely agree!

[Sarrah]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I used to think that the 3.5 rules said that you could use your standard action (though not your move action!) to use a power/ability/spell/whatever that had a swift action casting/activation time; basically swapping your standard for a second swift. But when challenged I could never find it again.

I can't insist I was right if I can't provide the evidence, but I think there must have been a reason that I thought this, and it seems others thought it too.

Do any other 3.5 players remember this?

Yes, but you have to remember that there were over 80 books in 3.5.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Sarrah wrote:

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I used to think that the 3.5 rules said that you could use your standard action (though not your move action!) to use a power/ability/spell/whatever that had a swift action casting/activation time; basically swapping your standard for a second swift. But when challenged I could never find it again.

I can't insist I was right if I can't provide the evidence, but I think there must have been a reason that I thought this, and it seems others thought it too.

Do any other 3.5 players remember this?

Yes, but you have to remember that there were over 80 books in 3.5.

Great! I have a lot of those 80.

Which book(s) contained the rule I'm looking for?