Lay on Hands - Is it so Handy?

[SDOgre]

Page 91 PHB says under the Lay on Hands power, You spend a healing surge but regain no hit points.

For Target it reads One creature.

But on page 57 under Target it says, "Creature" or "creatures" means allies and enemies both, as well as you.

So can you heal yourself with a Lay on Hands?

 

[Dalzig]

link
9. Can a Paladin gain healing from his own lay on hands ability?

Yes he can.

...

 

[Kordeth]

Yes. Read the second sentence of the Effect. "Instead, the target regains hit points..." You gain no hit points from the act of spending the healing surge, you instead gain them from being the target of the power (for which "you" are a valid choice).

 

[SDOgre]

Yes. Read the second sentence of the Effect. "Instead, the target regains hit points..." You gain no hit points from the act of spending the healing surge, you instead gain them from being the target of the power (for which "you" are a valid choice).

I could see that one argued until the cows come home. It's not clear at all.

But the FAQ is definitive. Thanks Dalzig.

 

[VannATLC]

This is a serious question;

How is that not clear?

 

[jaelis]

On the off chance that you want a second answer, it is also today's Ask Wizards question, complete with reasoning.

Q: Can a paladin use the lay on hands ability on himself and regain hit points as if he spent a healing surge?
--John

A: Yes. The target of the lay on hands power is one creature. “Creature” or “creatures” means allies and enemies both, as well as you (Player’s Handbook p57 under “Target”).

 

[SDOgre]

This is a serious question;

How is that not clear?

Maybe I shouldn't say it's not clear. The interpretation is valid and obviously the correct one. But you could just as easily say that the line, "You spend a healing surge but gain no hit points." trumps it.

Along with the description on p 91 that says, "Using the lay on hands power, paladins can grant their comrades additional reesilience with a touch of their hands and a short prayer, though they must give of their own strength to do so." You could you could put those together and say the intent is obviously a that lay on hands is a selfless act and is not supposed to benefit the paladin.

But again, the FAQ trumps it. I shouldn't have said unclear, I should have said debatable.

 

[Lurker37]

The "regain no hit points" clause is there because otherwise Lay on Hands would heal the paladin AND his target for one healing surge. If the paladin tageted himself, it would heal him twice.

Without "regain no hit points":
Paladin spends healing surge (regains hit points) and heals target (who also regains hit points)

With "regain no hit points":

Paladin spends healing surge (but regains no hit points) and heals target (who regains hit points, even if it is the paladin).

 

[Runestar]

The "regain no hit points" clause is there because otherwise Lay on Hands would heal the paladin AND his target for one healing surge. If the paladin tageted himself, it would heal him twice.

It would have been all too easy to word it concisely and get the basic idea across. Simply say something like "target regains hp = its healing surge value. This ability uses up one of your healing surges. You may not use this ability if you have no surges remaining".

The designer seemed to be shooting himself in the foot by wording the ability in such a roundabout manner and causing all this confusion.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I second that ..

Personally, I would have preferred all mechanics to be worded like M:tG.
No soul, all mechanics, less confusion.
Fluff can be as verbose as desired to make up for it.

Yes, to the point of employing logic over grammar for syntax.