So the description of this wonderous item states:
"This palm-sized holy symbol is composed of tiny pieces of stained glass held in a gold frame. The exact symbol is determined upon the item's creation. As a free action, the creature holding the ornament can project the image of the holy symbol upon any creature or surface within 15 feet, similar to using a shadow puppet and lamp. This light is not bright enough to illuminate an area. If the bearer is a paladin, she may use her lay on hands ability on a creature touched by the symbol's light (effectively increasing her lay on hands range from touch to 15 feet)."
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Craft Wondrous Item, sacred bond; Cost 5,000 gp
I have a player claiming that this allows him not only to use his LoH on someone up to 15' away, but also as a free action as well.
The way I read it, you can use this to extend your LoH range as a free action, but it still requires the action to use the Lay on Hands. Am I reading it wrong?
You are correct, the player is wrong.
Thanks Alex, but can I perhaps get a PDT chime in here? He's not going to just take my word. We've already had a heated discussion on this.
The last sentence talks about using Lay on Hands. The last sentence is separated from the part talking about free actions by that period.
Elephants are good topic changes.
You can have unrelated ideas in sentences next to each other, or in other spots in the paragraph or even the same page, is this sentence referencing elephants or the proper use of periods in punctuation?
Tell your player that English punctuation is why he doesn't get free action lay on hands.
You don't need a game designer to know that.
I'm right there with you Alex. Basically I'm getting back: but....but....it says free action. If it was that simple I wouldn't be here.
I'm right there with you Alex. Basically I'm getting back: but....but....it says free action. If it was that simple I wouldn't be here.
Using the item is a free action. Period. Full stop.
New sentence.
Also, you may use it to use lay on hands at a range. No mention of lay on hands being a free action, that was sentences ago, new thought.
Go buy him a book on punctuation and grammar if he continues to disagree.
Again, I'm right there with you, made those exact arguments. Denial is a powerful thing. I would just like a 8-word post from someone at Paizo that says "Does not allow free action Lay on Hands". That is the only thing that's going to settle this.
If you're the GM, you don't need someone else to make the ruling.
It's unlikely that you will get an employee of Paizo to comment on this.
Best of luck to you.
Just trying to avoid the butt-hurt from what's being seen as GM fiat.
You can't fix stupid
Show him this thread.
Don't be afraid to use 'GM fiat', he is clearly, obviously wrong, you don't have to give in to him just because he is arguing against you.
Giving in will merely set a precedent for others to do the same.
He is definitely not stupid Dave, just stubborn. And I'm not giving in, just trying to settle the argument. We game as a group of friends and I don't want any hard feelings from what is being perceived as an arbitrary decision.
Nothing in the reading of this item indicates it shortens the LOH action.
And honestly, if Paizo can do a FAQ on the Sleeves of Many Garments, which is clearly an illusion effect, then I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a simple message board post from the PDT guys to answer a question.
This item only helps with setting up the conditions for a ranged Lay on Hands. Setting these up is a free action. It only does what is written there. It doesnt change anythig about Lay on Hands itself.
A lot of people come to the boards asking for developer intervention. Maybe 1% of those who ask get it. Usually because a developer happens to randomly see the thread and comment on it, giving their personal opinion. Not even the official development team opinion, just their opinion.
You're not going to get an official clarification here.
You're player is wrong. Explain to him you sought the judgment of others and they confirmed your interpretation. If he cannot agree to your ruling, which you sought input on then he's just being childish. If this is the case, let him be butthurt.
He is definitely not stupid Dave, just stubborn. And I'm not giving in, just trying to settle the argument. We game as a group of friends and I don't want any hard feelings from what is being perceived as an arbitrary decision.
I was being a bit flippant, but my core point was that this is basic reading comprehension. There isn't anything more we can do to help.
Hopefully seeing that a bunch of others agree with you will help but that is about the limit that can be done.
Thanks all, I appreciate the input!