Yes, there is no free hand requirement written into that spell, and no general free hand requirement for spellcasting.
Yeah, it's a bit weird in the since that Lay on Hands does have the manipulate trait. Which says "You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions."
Lay on Hands doesn't provide any further restriction, though one could argue that the spell is called Lay on Hands and the description says "Your hands become infused with powerful vitality, capable of healing a living creature or damaging an undead creature with a touch."
But it's a debate of how much of that is rules requirements versus how much is narratively descriptive.
Although, I'm wondering if Hammerjack's response is more focused on needing a freehand to cast the spell (which isn't the case) but potential ignores the issue of needing a hand available to deliver the spell.
Which isn't concrete.
I think the majority of people allow champions to deliver LoH even when both hands are on a weapon, but I don't think it's unreasonable if a GM rules you need to be able to touch them with your hand.
In PF1, we had the conductive weapon quality to enable a Paladin to use LoH through their weapon. I don't think we have an equivalent in PF2.
And the description of the spell is somewhat inconclusive evidence.
Mechanically you need to not be prevented from using Manipulate actions (such as from Restrained) and will suffer any failure chances from conditions like Grabbed. And since the spell has a range of Touch, then the target will need to be in your natural reach.
But don't add more mechanics restrictions than that because of narrative description. The Manipulate trait lists making gestures as qualifying, and you can do that with your hands full. And you can make contact for delivering the spell with any body part.
So yes, you can cast Lay on Hands or Vampiric Feast with your hands full.
I vaguely remember it being mentioned as a deliberate clarification that spellcasters are supposed to be able to cast their spells with their hands full. Maybe in the Remaster announcements and summaries of changes? Or maybe I am just hallucinating that.
I don't think it's unreasonable if a GM rules you need to be able to touch them with your hand.But you can touch them with your hands. They are just holding a weapon at the same time. Not really a big problem even if a bit awkward. Nothing says you need to touch them with an open palm :)
Agreed, but that argument is why I'm saying I can't fully tell a GM that no their interpretation is 100% wrong.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Premaster actually had a clear rule about this:
Somatic
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or
gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the
manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You
can use this component while holding something in
your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise
unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require
a somatic component. You can do so while holding
something as long as part of your hand is able to touch
the target (even if it’s through a glove or gauntlet).
In the remaster spell components were done away with and those spells now just have the Manipulate trait, so this text no longer exists.
I don't think the intent was to quietly start requiring free hands for spellcasting though. Especially for a class that's designed to be very Sword & Board like the champion, that wouldn't work with Lay on Hands.
I also can't find anything in the new Player Core saying manipulate actions require a free hand.
While you might think that Manipulate does sound sorta like having a hand free might be necessary, I think that's taking things too far. They could have very easily put that in the description of the manipulate trait, but they didn't.
|
Mechanically you need to not be prevented from using Manipulate actions (such as from Restrained) and will suffer any failure chances from conditions like Grabbed. And since the spell has a range of Touch, then the target will need to be in your natural reach.
But don't add more mechanics restrictions than that because of narrative description. The Manipulate trait lists making gestures as qualifying, and you can do that with your hands full. And you can make contact for delivering the spell with any body part.
So yes, you can cast Lay on Hands or Vampiric Feast with your hands full.
I vaguely remember it being mentioned as a deliberate clarification that spellcasters are supposed to be able to cast their spells with their hands full. Maybe in the Remaster announcements and summaries of changes? Or maybe I am just hallucinating that.
It was in the core spellcasting rules before the Remaster.
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component. You can do so while holding something as long as part of your hand is able to touch the target (even if it's through a glove or gauntlet).
Player Core changed that description and removed the section on somatic components, so it doesn't seem to be spelled out any more. But the only mention of needing a free hand is under Costs and Loci.
As part of Casting the Spell, you retrieve the locus (if necessary, and if you have a free hand), and you can put it away again if you so choose.
Though there's gale blast, a specific spell that does require having a free hand (and gets a bonus if you have two).
Coming back to this, the removed text relating to somatic components is really the issue.
When that text existed, it was easier to point to it and say yeah, they don't need it.
Now with that text removed, I don't really have evidence besides history, the way it was.
If a GM insists that Lay on Hands requires a free hand, while I don't agree with them, I don't have evidence to tell them they're wrong other than "well it used to be this way".
|
|
Well the key point really is that nowhere in the manipulate trait does it say you need a free hand. Whereas other actions like climbing and grab a ledge do talk about how many free hands you need. So if it was intended to require it, the text would say so.
It doesn't help though that many manipulate actions do require a free hand. Interacting to draw a potion for example would require a free hand to hold the potion. However, there's also many manipulate actions that are about using something you're already holding in your hand.
Oil of Potency for example has "Usage: held in 2 hands" and "Activate: Interact (manipulate)". If you needed a free hand because of manipulate, then nobody ever could use this item.
You could say that clearly in that case the manipulate should be fine because you're manipulating an item you're already holding. But does that also go for potions that need only 1 hand to use? Or is the GM gonna require one hand to hold it and another to pop the cork? If the GM is going to start inferring extra requirements that aren't written down, where do you draw the line? How can you know it's fine for oils and potions but not for spells?
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.
All it really asks for is "gesturing". I can gesture with a staff, pointing at where I want my fireball to go.
The PC1 text is a bit annoying though;
Casting a spell requires the caster to make gestures
and utter incantations, so being unable to speak prevents
spellcasting for most casters.
It's kinda odd that it says not being able to talk prevents you from spellcasting, but doesn't actually say anything about being able to make gestures. The sentence is asymmetrical.
---
TL;DR - It's annoying that the book doesn't just clearly say you can gesture while holding things. It would have been very helpful. But when you reason it through I think it's clearly the best interpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming back to this, the removed text relating to somatic components is really the issue.
When that text existed, it was easier to point to it and say yeah, they don't need it.
Now with that text removed, I don't really have evidence besides history, the way it was.
If a GM insists that Lay on Hands requires a free hand, while I don't agree with them, I don't have evidence to tell them they're wrong other than "well it used to be this way".
Generally speaking things that require a free hand say they do, such as Battle Medicine. The manipulate trait doesn't do that, because if it did a spellcaster wouldn't be able to cast spells while doing things like using a shield and holding a scroll.
LoH doesn't require a free hand because it's a spell, and spells don't require a free hand unless something says they do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fistbump of Healing!