Talonhawke's page

"Spell-Like and Supernatural Abilities: Treat the activation of a spell-like or supernatural ability as the casting of a spell by a sorcerer. Spell-like abilities therefore do not have material components, but do generally have somatic components requiring a move action to perform, and require an additional partial action to direct"

From Chapter 7 Page 4

So you still need 2 actions per spell-like ability.

Question for Kirth or anyone else that might have a answer.

I am in the process of reworking Strength of Thousands (2e AP) over to these houserules. Thanks to the bestiary that part has gone fairly well for book 1 so far. I am looking at the free Devotion feat that comes with the AP and trying determine the best way to keep the feel of everyone has some magic ability but not sure what the best way to do it with Kirthfinder is.

Well some other things to consider would you allow

1. A rogue to use Acrobatic Assist?

2. What about Got Your Back?

3. Sleight of Hand Stunt maybe?

4. Stealth Stunt

Didn't find many cases outside of those rogue ones on a quick search but it's a few more things one has to consider when deciding whether or not making attacks of oppourtunity and using uses of AoO are the same thing.

Healing magic purges disease from a creature's body. You attempt to counteract one disease afflicting the target.

Looking at the text if you make the check its gone, unless something tied to the disease or another effect would keep it around.

Hell if they insist on this ruling I would look at retraining out of my companion.

This should be in the ranger and Druid feats. I think Mature Companion for Rangers lets a companion take one action vs hunted prey (Stride or Strike) and one of the Druid feats does the same but without reference to hunted prey. These are bonuses to allow the companion to take combat actions even when not commanded, and shouldn't be considered to override the companion's 'idle behaviour' imho

Right it shouldn't be saying that without a forth level feat your animal companion stays right where it is an dies.

SilverScorpion81 wrote:

I'm setting up a ranger and plan on using a bird for my animal companion my gm argues if previously flying and don't command it the next turn it will fall. Yet in minion trait it says it will avoid obvious harm if not commanded wouldn't falling be obvious harm? I'm concerned that if I'm paralyzed or get downed or incapacitate in some way that my companion would just fall possibly to its death. What's the ruling on what avoiding obvious harm includes

It's all about actions per round, not flavor or "reality".

At some point the companion is going to have its own action if not commanded, but it would only be able to use it to stride ( no fly ) or strike ( normal strikes ).

I can't say for sure whether the "stride > No fly" might be intended or an oversight, but mechanically speaking it's easy to get.

Normal companion? You have to command it. Being commanded the companion can also take the fly action.

Normal companion not commanded? It stands still doing nothing ( because the player didn't expend 1 of its action to give 2 to the minion ).

Mature companion ( 1 free action if not commanded )? It can take 1 single action which can be either stride or strike.

So, talking about a mature companion, it can either slowly fall down ( slowly falls down to prevent arguing like "the bird won't fall down harming itself" > "Don't worry, the bird safetly lands on its feets, then can stride" ) and then stride or can use the stride action to also fly depends the DM.

Where is the rule on only Stride/Strike if on it's own. if it's there I want to know so I can point players at the rule I'm changing.

So then the rings would make that weapon benefit from the runes that are already on it. Which is another way to say it would do nothing.

Yeah for some reason my head had it that if the rings shut off they were off till you used an action. I was thinking about ways to keep it "active"

Right! I've argued my point and the best he's willing to do is have it land if no actions are granted. His argument is that I could keep it out of reach of most enemies witch is one of the pluses of a flying AC since AC's are pretty squishy but to me the draw back of them is there attacks aren't the best. And anyways it would have to be in threat when used anyhow so I don't see the issue in having the option to get it mostly out of harm way if needed. He's just one to follow specific rule over discretion, but if I can get a moder to weigh in and agree with me he'll probably change his stance

It's not just land and stand still the Minion will activly defend itself or move to avoid harm.

If given no commands, minions use no actions except to defend themselves or to escape obvious harm.

It won't just land and sit there like a bump on a log while Glen the Goblin slices it up. And it's not going to fly to obvious harm.

I think I most agree with Errenor and Vali's takes on the subject. The Precious trait seems to be for guidance in the crafting system of P2E rather than intended for any kind of combat application and, as Vali says, is a bit of a red herring for this topic. There was an early on suggestion to treat the spell as a conjuration effect which is most likely going to be the easiest solution for a table that isn't interested in getting down to the nitty-gritty on the matter; past that I would say GM gets to decide for their own table (including PFS as there are many times a GM has to make a ruling and stick with it there of course) as the RAW vs. RAI conversation can get, as evidenced here, lengthy.

The only thing that bothers me about the conjuration aspect is of course the lack of needing anything. Now the character never has to worry about something to drop, or something laying around the spell is always ready to go.

Wait, wait! There are technicalities even more technical here!

let's see...
* wearing both rings: check
* both hands are wielding a melee weapon: check
* not thrown attacks: check.
* not (holding a weapon but not wielding it): check?

It's an odd case but I agree with this, you are still wielding a weapon with each hand..... it just happens to be the same weapon.

So just now getting to actually play some 2E and am looking at playing a magus. My main question is if spellstrike counts as Casting A Spell or Making a Strike for the purpose of feats/abilities that need your next action or last action to be one of those things.

Just want to say still find everything you keep bringing to the table amazing work.

Lookibng over the Arsenal Sniper archetype for the Kinetic Shinobi and was wondering if the Armed Jutsu ability used the standard damage for the blast or the weapons damage?

So just wondering as I stumble back through the thread giddy again at just how amazing this work is. Did anyone ever really attempt to intergrate Sop/SoM. Would to see it if they have, I've learned in the last few years that I don't have the right head for doing that kind of stuff.

Talonhawke wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I guess the answer to the title is still "depends on the GM". Do we have something about this in PFS?

Table Variation I assume. I mean it seems to me that this big selling point of 2E GM arbirtation is as much of an issue as it is a boon.

It always has been, it's just Paizo would rather give GMs the benefit of the doubt (especially in PFS) than have them chained to rules, thus forcing GMs to either enforce rules they don't like or houserule it (which takes work, and not something they can do in PFS).

It's a boon if you and your fellow players are on the same wavelength. It isn't if you're in a group where someone is a dick or obsessive rules lawyer. And the more things that are predicated on GM FIAT, the more important this tenant becomes.

But on the inverse the more things left to GM FIAT the more things like this situation we end up in. And the more things in PFS will likely havet to PFS Rulings on. Because 2 players in organized play running the same feat shouldn't have wildly differing experiances using it in the same spot on the same scenario. Imagine trying to use a feat and being told no or that it takes a bunch of unlisted actions to preform. Someone dies to this, when talking to some other players they ask what happens and are shocked because it worked just fine when they did it.

I guess the answer to the title is still "depends on the GM". Do we have something about this in PFS?

Table Variation I assume. I mean it seems to me that this big selling point of 2E GM arbirtation is as much of an issue as it is a boon.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

My point is that if you're going to hinge off a word in the rules implying certain things, then you need to show where in the rules those things are actually defined.

The argument about "drawing as part of the action" argument comes from "its been abstracted, you also put down your sword and pick it up again as part of the action cost for the feat." You can't just take that argument, cut it in half, and then argue the exact opposite thing using the half as your supporting evidence.

Bandoliers wrote:

A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.

Sounds like the RAI is you draw them, even though RAW you don't have to. Strange, isn't it?

But really, abstraction is another word for rules cheesing here. I can't hold a wand and a sword in the same hand and expect to use both of them effectively, what hope does Healer's Tools for Battle Medicine have? "Because we want/need it to work" isn't a good rules answer, nor does RAW care about that.

that doesn't say much though.

yes, the bandolier, in general, allows you to draw tools IF the action requires to have tools on hand.

That was never in question. There are several skills that specifically require you to have tools on hand that the bandolier works with, like Repair.

The question still remains that "do you need to have healer's tools on hand to use battle medicine"

Unfortunately we only have snipets of contradicting rules and/or missing text, that allow both sides to argue their point perfectly good.

My stance still remains that "RAW is inconclusive. So, play it in your homegame as you wish, and for PFS wait for the PFS team to make a ruling"

Well we know that we need to at least have the tools based on Errata.

In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.”

Well clearly a suitable appendage can't be no appendage. It does still have to be some sort of appendage. And yes maybe some GMs might rule that a foot or tail is enough to make it work. But X requires you to have a suitable item from a subset doesn't suddenly mean that not having an item from that subset works.

If all usages of kits/tools always require the number of listed hands then as i stated earlier quick alchemy for one doesn't work for any current player character I know of. Kit takes 2 hands and you still need a free hand.

Talonhawke wrote:

Just to clarify are you saying that any [manipulate] action is also the Interact action?

Items when activated can have interact as the action. This gives them manipulate.

It's inductive logic that you're interacting with the tools in battle medicine because of the manipulate trait.

Items can have their use tied to being held or worn, same as the requirement for battle medicine after the FAQ errata.

But are you saying that Interact is always the rule for manipulate?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

To be fair, I don't find either of these to be a reasonable interpretation at all. And it's not so much what I want, but what can ultimately become of it if taken to its inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the reducto ad absurdum that arises from your interpretation, too bad.

Not to mention ignoring things like hands being occupied wielding weapons just to make a feat work just because we want it to.

A necromancy staff from the CRB mentions a spell from a book not released yet (APG). Players with a CRB but not APG would have a dead spell. Surely, the item wasn't just a screw up and is merely goading people to purchase more PF2 products that weren't released yet. Poorly written stuff is poorly written. It's not the first time this crap has happened. It won't be the last, either.

EXACTLY. It seems clear to me that some folks are relying on an assumption which is demonstrably false (the rules are perfect and consistent) solely to support their preferred interpretation...no matter how manifestly illogical that interpretation (or its clear corollaries!) may be.

But worse, they are then accusing those who refuse to accept their interpretations of acting in bad faith. FFS, people...this is a game.

So yeah, time to exit this discussion. If I have any sense for good this time.

No we know the rules aren't perfect, or consistant. If they were consistant and perfect these questions wouldn't exist. But I will consider someone arguing an interpertation that they know would never be supported by the devs even if people made the arguement to be in bad faith. Because people will always have memebers in the group that try to abuse the system. That doesn't mean that anything that isn't itself abuse but could potentially lead to attempts at abuse are inherently wrong.

Draco18s wrote:

Interact is its own action. The Battle Medicine feat is a separate action that bypasses whatever Interact does.

It very much does not bypass it. The reason the feat has the manipulate trait is because you're interacting with your healer's tools. The rules are self consistent, and the APG Medic feats are making the way worn items function explicit. You must have a free hand, as per the rules with how to use items that are worn.

As it stands, the Battle Medicine feat doesn't go this far, and you can still be obstinate about it until the errata brings it into line with the Medic feats; but it's going to happen eventually. I expect they'll do the same with Pick a Lock and other actions that mention "held or worn" items.

Just to clarify are you saying that any [manipulate] action is also the Interact action?

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.

No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.

Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.

Maybe don't claim to speak for "everyone else"? Or resort to name-calling?

Because I don't see a strawman; I see someone pointing out the inevitable (and yes, utterly absurd) endpoint of the "no free hands" argument. People are arguing that healer's tools can be used with both hands occupied (despite the fact that their use explicitly requires 2 hands). I really don't see how that materially differs from being entirely hand-less in this context (though I'm all ears).

The suitable appendage rule. A hand holding something can still grip or move or hold something in place. Your shoulder really can't so yeah I would sy the rules do prevent handless usage of said feats.

So then the new Feats that state 1 Free hand are they unusable? Since we need 2 hands for the kit? Or does them stating 1 Free hand cover that and we are assuming that anything that doesn't always requires maximum listed hands?

And Darksol No it doesn't being able to use a hand to do something even while it has something in it is not the same thing as not needing said limb. Hell even if someone tried to make that illogical leap the rules say you need a suitable appendage. So that rules out armless folks.

Draco18s wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1.

That is disingenuous, due to the "all the other actions" involved generating free hands.

Which, again, are not listed in the feat's action block.

This is like me saying it takes 3 actions to strike an enemy because I have to move to them and draw my weapon because it's not drawn. It's one action to strike. Just like how it's one action to Battle Medicine as long as you meet the requirements of having a Healer's Tools and being able to use them (because otherwise them being a requirement makes no sense).

Stop using crap situations that you don't plan for as a reason to munchkin your Armless Medic/Burglar/Artisan Fallacy into RAW.

Seriously could you quite with the armless claims. Thats not what anyone is saying and you know it. You're either trying to make other people jump on your bandwagon by presenting a strawman, or you know you can't actually argue with the no "Free" hands argument so you drop the free to make it look like your fighting this absurd munchkining.

Striking a rope, however, is not inherently hostile. Because it is not "of or related to an enemy", at least not unless your character for some reason thinks rope is the enemy. It would be just fine to cut a rope to drop a bridge and delay enemies from reaching your party. But if you cut the rope with enemies on it, your actions are immediately going to result in enemies taking fall damage and that's hostile.

But no setting the bridge up to fail later of course. So no invisible sabotage of things either break them outright or leave them alone.

But also what if in cutting the empty bridge your character knows the enemy now has to take a route sure to injury at least one of them? Can I now invisibly cut the rope? What about if I know I'm stranding someone in a area likely to cause them to suffer a detriment like kicking a ladder back into a tomb that i know the enemy is in and is full of awakening undead?

I agree with SuperBidi.

But I will point out that "I am not aware that those enemies are undead and I use 3-action Heal on my allies" still falls into a weird spot. Those enemies DO take damage, directly, even if you were unaware.

And that should probably break invis.

Same could be true for other AOE effects that don't normally trigger a harmful effect. E.g. a specific creature type that suffers damage when it witnesses an enemy receive a buff (for sake of argument, just some effect that does not normally break invis). The player expects their buff to not break invis, they do it, the enemy takes damage, and then...

Either invis fails (direct harm clause -> unexpected behavior)
or it doesn't ("hey I can just keep doing this forever!" -> exploit)

Which now of course leads to invisible enemies in range of said abilities causing you to lose invisibility over harm you couldn't ever possibly of intended.

Claxon wrote:

To be honest I'm not sure why that spell is uncommon.

It came out in an AP. IMO, that's pretty much the ONLY reason that I can see.

Yep its [Uncommon(rare)] not [Uncommon(powerful)] which again is why I find that such an odd way of doing it instead of actually just creating a catagory for the second.

I would assume 1 action to reload it. You don't get 10 uses of the potion as far as I can tell just that every 10 sprays you have to swap the internal reagents.

So basiclly you have 10 sprays but each spray needs a new sprayable component.

Talonhawke wrote:

Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.

And as I've said previously, "I can open doors with my hands full, I don't see the problem."

I should have quoted the point I was replying to sorry for that. I was talking about Sol's "Mundane options not only have to explain the why, but the how, too, because their reasoning isn't as handwaveable as magic, and that's where everything falls apart."

Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.

Schreckstoff wrote:

I'm finding the Aldori Duelist dedication quite lacklustre compared to the duelist from the APG which has almost everything and then some in addition.

You're missing out on 2 feats from Aldori Duelist and something like half a dozen from the APG Duelist.

Could also merge them and add text saying if you're trained in the Aldori Dueling Sword you gain scaling proficiency and access to these additional feats.

The APG Duelist certainly takes a lot of the shine off of Aldori Duelist. I don’t necessarily think there isn’t room for both, but because the concept of additional feats for archetypes seems to have post dated the Aldori Duelist, it suffers.

All the pre-APG archetypes could probably benefit from a second look with additional feats in mind.

Doubt we will see anything prior to either a book dedicated to it or at least a revisit to the archetypes in varying books like soft-covers.

I mean...we could have the same argument for the umpteenth time...but why?

Anyone who thinks they have some great new insight is simply mistaken. I promise that, whatever it is, it is already in this thread...and didn't settle it. For real.

Say it with me: We. aren't. going. to. settle. this.

No but maybe if the thread gets big enough it might cause the server repair goblins to demand an answer so they can get it to stop popping back up.

Unicore wrote:

SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.

I appreciate where you're coming from. However, I don't share your confidence. It doesn't help that the errata isn't really errata, per se -- it is a FAQ entry. If you go to the product page and download the errata, this isn't there.

So I would appreciate an explicit "battle medicine requires _ hands to use." I do understand that expecting an explicit statement about every possible rule would be unreasonable and undesirable, but I believe that, given the history, it is warranted in this case.

And for the record, if the answer is "it require no hands," then great! It requires no hands. Case closed. This is a game, and therefore necessarily involves abstractions. But that's not quite the same thing as being comfortable drawing the inference that the intention is the maximum level of abstraction, every time. If that were the case, then why add a requirement around the healer's kit?

Overall, I think we could all stand to remember that people with different opinions can disagree in good faith (which I believe is the case here). And I definitely include myself in "all," as I have obviously resorted to hyperbole in this thread (albeit out of sheer frustration, but still).

I think we all would like a X hands ruling for good or bad.

I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.

While I agree with what your saying here, the feat itself blatantly leads to having to assume some kind of fantasy handwaving. Regardless of how many hands, tools, or the state of said hands this feat is almost accomplishing in 2 seconds what treat injury does in 10 minutes. The only thing it won't do is fix the damage that needs some time off to heal. I mean there is no plausible "realistic" explanation for how this feat actually work as long as HP is a mix of actual health, wherewithal, and heroic drive.

And about fine motor skills etc.

For all of this there are feats. Want a shield and board and perform battle medicine?

NIMBLE SHIELD HAND FEAT 6
ARCHETYPE
Prerequisites Bastion Dedication
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.

I mean it does let me hold the kit instead of wearing it but sadly, Battle Medicine is not the Interact action

So that particular feat doesn't help. I would help you open a door with your shield hand.

Why does then the Free Hand Weapon Trait exist?

Free-Hand: This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free‑hand weapon on it.

Why does it explicitly spell out that with a free hand weapon you can make manipulate actions if you can do them with a sword and shield in hand as well.

For one reason there are a myriad of options that do specify a free-hand is needed. I can wear one and still use material components, Treat conditions, Grapple, use certain feats. It's more than just i can use manipulate traits. And likely it's 1. so that questions didn't pop up about gauntlets taking up your free hand. And 2. an easy future proofing to make sure that if they made a weapon they wanted to work that way they can just slap that trait on it.

The main criticism at the time I wrote it was:

The CRB doesn't tell it needs Healers Tools - therefore it could be somatic. The errata does specify that this isn't the case.

My main issue with your long post is that it stills seems to be conflating "No free hand needed" into "Magiclly wave arms and thing happens." I can do a lot of things without "free" hands in real life while still using my hand and fingers. I'm not sure anyone, and I know I'm not, on the no free hands side is arguing that you don't use your hands. I've seen it strawmanned plenty of times though. No sure using lock picks with stuff in hand is recommended but it might be doable.

Much like you can gesture when pointing something out.

I can kill you by staring at you. I can literally live in a volcano or Antarctica butt naked. I can do a full medical assessment of a person at a literal glance, telling your entire medical history by how your hair moves. I can FALL FROM SPACE and not only not die, but not even scratch my knee. I can become Spider-Man, and stand on a vertical surface without concern. I can read a letter, sealed in an envelope, by touch alone.

And yet, Battle Medicine is the thing on this list that directly requires magic to be remotely possible?

"Realistic" is in the eye of the beholder sadly. And the less magical an ability is the more people rage against it. I mean I've seen threads about shooting arrows in 1E needing to be capped because no-one should be shooting 6+ arrows in 6 seconds.

Talonhawke wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.

Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.

Stretching realism and outright breaking realism are two different things,one of which mundane stuff can't do.

I'm sorry that apparently patching up multiple wounds in 2-3 seconds only stretches you realism but doing it with something in hand doesn't.

Speaking in areas of silence is something being argued that Battle Medicine can do, and yet I don't see anyone saying that's a problem or that it's permitted in the feat's capabilities, when nothing of the sort is mentioned. So making stuff up to make it work is fine, but utilizing congruent rules to demonstrate how it shouldn't work is not?

Not my argument but as you have said lets assume a "handless"(Different from Free hand not needed) use of the feat exist what ever is being done would clearly be something that would have to work in silence unless we are going to change the tags based on usage. Not my argument on the feat so talk to those people about that.

As another example, fighters can have ridiculous amounts of strength and athletics to wrestle with rhinos. That's fine. I don't have a problem with this.

So RAMVORD (rules as my views of reality dictate) then? If you find it acceptable then its all good but if it breaks your bubble of reality it is silly and not acceptable?

Said Fighter having hands full or no Grapple weapon with which to wrestle said rhino to the ground, or wrestling an incredibly larger creature without feats, is still physically impossible, something that no sane GM would allow. This very concept is the same thing that I am applying to Battle Medicine.

Well yeah the rule for grapple clearly spell that out. What does this have to do with a section of rules that don't clearly spell out a hands requirement? The only correlation I can see is that if you have the proper tools handy (grapple weapon) your hand doesn't actually need to be free. So its possible that because of how quick the action going on is you don't need a completely empty hand to "battle Medicine"

As long as it doesn't get stuck under the nebulous "gm interpretation" theme this edition has going I'm fine with any set ruling. It may be that the feat is only good if I'm gonna have a free hand(s) or it might be that anyone could make some use of it. But for the love of all pick one and give a ruling.

No you don't access Major Curse until 11th level.

You've learned to better balance the conflicting powers wreaking havoc on your body. Immediately after completing the casting of a revelation spell while you are affected by your moderate curse, your curse progresses to its major effect, rather than overwhelming you. This effect lasts until you Refocus, which reduces your curse to its minor effect. If you cast a revelation spell while under the effects of your major curse, you are overwhelmed by your curse.

In addition, increase the number of Focus Points in your focus pool from 2 to 3. If you spend at least 2 Focus Points before you again Refocus, you recover 2 Focus Points when you Refocus instead of 1.

They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.

Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.

bugleyman wrote:

Treat wounds not only doesn't explicitly require a free hand, but it doesn't even specify that you have to be holding or using the healer's kit...merely that you "have" one.

Because it's a downtime activity and it doesn't matter.

As such, nobody on either side is referencing it as supporting material.

Quote:

Since a gesture certainly doesn't require a free hand, per the RAW a character can treat wounds without using his hands in any capacity whatsoever.

I like how you jumped from "doesn't require a free hand" to "does not require hands at all" which is absurd.

Not to mention the whole having a capable limb thing. I mean needing nothing in hand and having no hands are 2 completely different things.

I like Claxon's idea of a 3-action reload. It would also prevent the "familiar reloads for me for 1 action" type of shenanigans that every single gunslinger will be opting for if it were only two actions.

At the same time we only have that type of cheese because the time to reward variable in 1e was so low if you didn't cheese out the faster reload possible. If you want guns to use a whole turn to reload then at least have the decency to make having on average 1 shot a round worth it. I think 2e can do this better than 1e honestly.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Your argument is that the text for the Requirements for Battle Medicine and Treat Condition is identical.

No, it's not. Not even close, in fact.

My argument is that cleaving to RAW without any regard for logic whatsoever results in people who are completely bereft of hands being able to treat wounds. Which it does.

KrispyXIV wrote:

Reality and reasonableness for the description of the actions is essentially irrelevant - this is a game, not a simulation.

The rules don't say that characters need an atmosphere to survive, either. If you want to run a game with vacuum-dwelling, bilateral-amputee healthcare providers, you're certainly free to do so. But pretending that's the default, or that those who don't follow suite are "imposing extra restrictions"? Yeah...not so much.

I can't speak for Krispy but in my case on the free hand argument its not that hands aren't needed. It's that a free hand isn't needed. I would think for this type of quick patch up that needs the kit worn (assuming they mean bandoleer) or in hand you could still be pulling some bandages off a roll while gripping a sword in your hand or smearing some salve on or what ever is needed. I think needing suitable appendages and having those appendages free are 2 completely different things. My stance on this has been about free hands and people sticking with the argument that [Manipulate] means you have to have a hand free.

Talonhawke wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Yeah, I don't really want anything realistic from them either. I'd much rather they be like any other weapon, maybe with a couple unique traits.

Sadly the "you got firearms in my fantasy" crowd will still be upset about it and want to keep them still relegated to only one class being able to use them really and the world being unable to make use of them even though they have been around for close to a decade in world now.

I like them in the game world, and want them to be usable by everyone, but I want them to have sizable drawbacks.

I imagine a high damage (d12) weapon with 3 action reload time that is best used as an opening volley, and not continually in combat (unless you're a gunslinger). Probably some other traits on the weapon as well.

While I'm not saying that's a bad route my biggest complaint about 1E guns was that they were only really usable by certain classes/archetypes. On top of the stupid cost further pushing you into those set builds because gunsmithing. I don't necessarily want every one and their brother pulling out guns but I would like it to be something I could have a character use as weapon consistantly without having to be a gunslinger or take Gunslinger Dedication to do.

Yeah, I don't really want anything realistic from them either. I'd much rather they be like any other weapon, maybe with a couple unique traits.

Sadly the "you got firearms in my fantasy" crowd will still be upset about it and want to keep them still relegated to only one class being able to use them really and the world being unable to make use of them even though they have been around for close to a decade in world now.

I think we are likely done with a FAQ system sadly, it'll be check the latest Errata and see if it updated.

But I find it disingenuous to work under the assumption that since they haven't said it's correct we should assume that it might get changed sometime years down the road. I mean it's stood and been known about for a year now. Even after updating the text we don't have a specific hands requirement.

Sure we could get another situation where the rule gets "clarified" down the way in a few years. But at that point a lot of people will be shocked and surprised that "it's always been that way" since its been a known issue for a while. I agree that nipping it in the bud sooner is better and even coming out and saying that we are working on potential errata for it would let people know something will change.

But if the last years have told us anything those type of answers are fewer and farther between coming and a lot of times it's just printed in the next run or fixed in the next book without even a post saying hey look here.