1.3 - Treat Wounds - Stamina is still better


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

19 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally on board for the Medicine skill having a Treat Wounds ability. I'm all for extending the adventuring day and the other benefits of including additional healing in the game.

Unfortunately, 1.3's Treat Wounds, as written, solves one problem but creates another. Unless I've overlooked it somewhere, there is no limit on the number of Treat Wounds a character can receive. No resources are consumed, and somehow the caregiver can simultaneously treat 6 people in the same 10-minute period. For all the difficulty this represents, you might as well say "you auto-heal after combat" - which, in case it needs to be said, would suck and completely ruin any chance of immersion for myself and almost every player I've ever played a RPG with.

Also, 10-minutes is not "a significant time expenditure". Not by a long shot.

Starfinder's stamina mechanic is still superior by a country mile.
1. You have the 10-minute rest to get stamina points back.
2. PCs have to expend a resolve point so they can't spam rests indefinitely.
3. Hit Point healing is handled differently and more slowly, so there is a tactical decision and element of risk to pressing on as resolve points get low. This can help create narrative tension, ESPECIALLY during time-constrained parts of adventures.

So, instead, we're getting a Treat Wounds mechanic that swings the pendulum too far the other way instead of using a proven mechanic from PF2's sister RPG because (paraphrasing Jason's comment on the stamina system from memory) "Starfinder is emulating a different genre"?

Starfinder's stamina system does a far better job of emulating heroic fantasy than 1.3's Treat Wounds does.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BPorter wrote:


Also, 10-minutes is not "a significant time expenditure". Not by a long shot.

I disagree with this. When I play I tend to pay careful attention to the in-game clock, because it aids roleplay significantly.

A couple of games I've played had a literally ticking clock, a count down in minutes until something bad happened. My character was adamant about rushing and getting the primary things done and getting out with many minutes to spare, despite there being other side-objectives, because the ticking clock is that much of a psychological pressure.

If you're infiltrating a dungeon or castle, or pushing through a horrible undead infested swamp, 10 minutes is going to feel like an absolute eternity. Anything could happen in 1 minute, but 10?

I am hugely in favor of the 10 minute rest as opposed to the hour rest.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
BPorter wrote:


Also, 10-minutes is not "a significant time expenditure". Not by a long shot.

I disagree with this. When I play I tend to pay careful attention to the in-game clock, because it aids roleplay significantly.

A couple of games I've played had a literally ticking clock, a count down in minutes until something bad happened. My character was adamant about rushing and getting the primary things done and getting out with many minutes to spare, despite there being other side-objectives, because the ticking clock is that much of a psychological pressure.

If you're infiltrating a dungeon or castle, or pushing through a horrible undead infested swamp, 10 minutes is going to feel like an absolute eternity. Anything could happen in 1 minute, but 10?

I am hugely in favor of the 10 minute rest as opposed to the hour rest.

The Stamina system also uses a 10-minute rest.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I'm much more in favor of the new Wounds system as opposed to the Stamina system in Starfinder. If anything the only thing that I feel should be 'tracked' as a resource would be Healer's Kit resources. As of right now there are no resources to track there.

If they do start tracking resources for a Healer's Kit then it should be trivial to restock, since you're basically getting fresh bandages, clean water, healing salves, etc. Doing this for a simple time investment during downtime or possibly even using a craft or medicine check out in the wilderness to restock it.

I do feel that going the way of Stamina/Resolve ala Starfinder would be a mistake though. While it does feel like a more polished and smoother system to use it is very generous to players it doesn't quite fit the campaign setting with the way it feels. It's designed for a very low magic environment where you do not have any time to rest. It would be way too generous in a Pathfinder game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gloom wrote:

I'm much more in favor of the new Wounds system as opposed to the Stamina system in Starfinder. If anything the only thing that I feel should be 'tracked' as a resource would be Healer's Kit resources. As of right now there are no resources to track there.

If they do start tracking resources for a Healer's Kit then it should be trivial to restock, since you're basically getting fresh bandages, clean water, healing salves, etc. Doing this for a simple time investment during downtime or possibly even using a craft or medicine check out in the wilderness to restock it.

I do feel that going the way of Stamina/Resolve ala Starfinder would be a mistake though. While it does feel like a more polished and smoother system to use it is very generous to players it doesn't quite fit the campaign setting with the way it feels. It's designed for a very low magic environment where you do not have any time to rest. It would be way too generous in a Pathfinder game.

More generous than unlimited resource-free rests?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Plus, not only does it cost nothing, but a healer can triage 6 people simultaneously?!? WTF?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, and while I will probably end up house ruling Stamina into my games anyway, Treat Wounds is super time consuming. A level 1 party having to bring, let's say, a character from 1 HP to his max of 14 HP could take up to 140+ minutes if they have 10 or 12 Con. So the Wizard is at 3 HP and they don't want to waste any healing potions. Better be ready to wait 2 hours to Heal him up.

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

The funny thing is that actually having a +1 Con is detrimental to healing you with Treat wounds because while it gives you more HP you don't actually heal any more then a +0 Con. So at 3rd level our character has 26 HP with 10 Con or 29 HP with +1 but still only heals 3 HP per success. So it would take 10 more minutes to heal him to full, roughly.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of my issue is the ability to fully heal hp via Treat Wounds up to full hit points without magic. A problem multiplied by the fact that no resources are managed or consumed in doing so. We went from "depletion of most/all healing resources" or 15-min adventuring day to "virtually guaranteeing full HP before each combat". For FREE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rameth wrote:

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

Also, you may have figured this in, but to call it out, it's not automatic, even someone hyperspecialized will fail 1 out of 3 attempts, which makes it a bit longer.

Personally, I'm fine with it, because it's cheap healing, but still has a cost: Time. If you're not in a time crunch, just figure an average healing rate given percentage of success, and say, "after x Hours, the group is patched up."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ENHenry wrote:
Rameth wrote:

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

Also, you may have figured this in, but to call it out, it's not automatic, even someone hyperspecialized will fail 1 out of 3 attempts, which makes it a bit longer.

To add on to this, I'm not sure it's possible to hit the "hit the DC on a nat 1" point that it would take to never critical fail (since a nat 1 that would fail otherwise is always a critical fail) so there's always that 5% chance that you crit fail and can't use it at all for 24 hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe 1.3 Treat Wounds is too powerful as-is. I fully support non magical healing being part of the game. But I do not like the idea of spamming Treat Wounds in 10 minute bursts, being able to use mundane methods only to fully heal someone so quickly. I'd consider two restrictions to it:

1. Targets are bolstered against Treat Wounds until receiving another wound.

This at least stops Treat Wounds spamming.

2. Treat Wounds cannot heal more HP than the target has taken since the last time they benefited from Treat Wounds.

I get it, people will hate #2 because of book-keep reasons. But that type of detail has not bothered me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.

If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Treat wounds allows a more diverse party without a cleric. A Bard, a Druid or even the Fighter can take the role of a healer now, just need to invest some WIS and take the skill as at least trained. Which is way better than having someone to play the Cleric just for having more than 15min adventure time.

Like ENHenry said, Time is the resource here. If you're in a dungeon and would like to spend two hours to be full HP, well, a patrol will find you eventually. The BBEG won't let the group patch up for two hours straight. Maybe the GM will roll random encounter chance once or twice per hour while the party is resting. Or maybe you won't even be able to rest, because there are loads and loads of zombies nearby.

Said that, I feel like treat wounds now totally outshines the resting 8 hours HP recovery.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.

If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

I agree. I also get that's a play style choice and ultimately there is going to be a group of people who "lose out" on this debate.

So, what I am about to say isn't a condemnation of one playing style over another (to each their own), just an honest inquiry...

I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Leafar Cathal wrote:

Treat wounds allows a more diverse party without a cleric. A Bard, a Druid or even the Fighter can take the role of a healer now, just need to invest some WIS and take the skill as at least trained. Which is way better than having someone to play the Cleric just for having more than 15min adventure time.

Like ENHenry said, Time is the resource here. If you're in a dungeon and would like to spend two hours to be full HP, well, a patrol will find you eventually. The BBEG won't let the group patch up for two hours straight. Maybe the GM will roll random encounter chance once or twice per hour while the party is resting. Or maybe you won't even be able to rest, because there are loads and loads of zombies nearby.

Said that, I feel like treat wounds now totally outshines the resting 8 hours HP recovery.

Pathfinder, as evidenced by its APs, has evolved far beyond just dungeon delving. Few adventures offer the time constraints that those arguing as the "cost" imply. If time-pressured adventures and plots were so prevalent, the 15-min adventuring day would never have existed in the 1st place.

The new Treat Wounds mechanic effectively negates the idea of having to adventure while injured.

As I stated previously, I'm all for mundane means of healing. I believe there should be a Treat Wounds mechanic. However, the pendulum has swung waaaay too far in the other direction. It effectively breaks immersion on any level, even allowing for hit point abstraction. I accept it, grudgingly, in a video game but not in my tabletop RPGs.

As written, Treat Wounds is closing off narrative areas and stories as much as it is enabling PCs to "press on". And as you state, the 8-hour rest is effectively rendered useless.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Leafar Cathal wrote:

Treat wounds allows a more diverse party without a cleric. A Bard, a Druid or even the Fighter can take the role of a healer now, just need to invest some WIS and take the skill as at least trained. Which is way better than having someone to play the Cleric just for having more than 15min adventure time.

Like ENHenry said, Time is the resource here. If you're in a dungeon and would like to spend two hours to be full HP, well, a patrol will find you eventually. The BBEG won't let the group patch up for two hours straight. Maybe the GM will roll random encounter chance once or twice per hour while the party is resting. Or maybe you won't even be able to rest, because there are loads and loads of zombies nearby.

Said that, I feel like treat wounds now totally outshines the resting 8 hours HP recovery.

Pathfinder, as evidenced by its APs, has evolved far beyond just dungeon delving. Few adventures offer the time constraints that those arguing as the "cost" imply. If time-pressured adventures and plots were so prevalent, the 15-min adventuring day would never have existed in the 1st place.

The new Treat Wounds mechanic effectively negates the idea of having to adventure while injured.

As I stated previously, I'm all for mundane means of healing. I believe there should be a Treat Wounds mechanic. However, the pendulum has swung waaaay too far in the other direction. It effectively breaks immersion on any level, even allowing for hit point abstraction. I accept it, grudgingly, in a video game but not in my tabletop RPGs.

As written, Treat Wounds is closing off narrative areas and stories as much as it is enabling PCs to "press on". And as you state, the 8-hour rest is effectively rendered useless.
[/QUOTE

If you want time sensitive games play some Society, real and narrative time constraints abound.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
If you want time sensitive games play some Society, real and narrative time constraints abound.

As a GM, I appreciate time constraints in adventures. However, I also enjoy overland journeys, urban adventures, and sandbox play that don't view spending 10 minutes as costing anything from a resource perspective.

I also find a striking dissonance between the disease and poison rules, which I like very much, and the ability to fully recover hit points just by spending time which the healer looks at you*.

*Please explain to me how a single healer can simultaneously "treat wounds" for six individuals at the same time. Is every Treat Wounds check a class where the healer demonstrates how to clean wounds, apply bandages, etc. and the patients are performing the actions on themselves or others? Why six? Why not four, or ten, or 20?

For example -- "Dammit, Jim! I've only got 2 hands and one medical tricorder. Take that 7th redshirt over to Chapel." Wait -- that would equate to magical healing. I'll try again:

McKoy: "Dammit, Jim! I've only got 2 hands. That 7th redshirt is going to have to wait 10 minutes!"

Spock: "So, it takes you 1.67 minutes to treat an injury?"

McKoy: "Or injuries!"

Spock: "Fascinating. So why did you group six patients together to indicate your treatment time?"

McKoy: "Because any more than six and I'd have to make a 2nd Medicine check, you pointy-eared walking computer!"

Spock: "Why don't you simply make a separate check every 1.67 minutes, doctor?"

McKoy: "Because players hate making d20 rolls, you green-blooded bastard!"


8 people marked this as a favorite.
wizardmark wrote:
BPorter wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.

If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

I agree. I also get that's a play style choice and ultimately there is going to be a group of people who "lose out" on this debate.

So, what I am about to say isn't a condemnation of one playing style over another (to each their own), just an honest inquiry...

I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?


Zorae wrote:
Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I think the difference here is that unlimited healing has a bigger impact than those things individually do.

So I like medicine being able to treat a large amount of hit points. But I think there doesn't need to be a mechanic to limit the number of times per day. I think they intend to add a resource pool just for consumables which they will decouple from Resonance. I think making this mechanic work off it like Starfinder's Rest/Stamina/Resolve mechanics work together.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:


I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I get that, but I never felt that way about Pathfinder. With Clerics getting Channels, and the proliferation of magic items via item creation feats (wands/potions/scrolls), I feel there is plenty of available out of combat healing. It just might cost you more. You cant choose not to have a type of character in the group and then complain about the gaps, imo. I definitely do not subscribe to the philosophy group make-up shouldnt matter.

Detect Magic wasnt a cantrip, back in the day (there was no such thing!). Buy/Create a wand of it via group loot if that was the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I like Treat Wounds much better than Stamina. I agree with the developers that Stamina isn't thematic while patching up during short breaks is. That said, I would have preferred that they had taken the Ritual route instead as it has more control mechanics built-in and, in my opinion, is more thematic. But I can definitely live with Treat Wounds. It has a lot going for it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

I mean, I could apply this logic to anything that has any fluff. Why use the term longsword when you could just say 1d8 points of damage?

Furthermore, because of the critical failure effect, treat wounds cannot extend an adventuring day indefinitely. Given the difficulty of pf2e monsters and the fact that most AP encounters are still very challenging even when PCs start at max hit points, I don't really have a problem with the current system.

Also from a DM perspective, balancing all my encounters under the assumption that players begin each encounter with almost full hp is so much easier than assuming they don't.

Under the previous 2e rules set, PCs already have infinite out of combat healing in the form of the 15 min adventuring day, which has an opportunity cost of lost time. Lost time is only an issue if the DM makes it an issue, and that remains the case even with Treat Wounds.

In my personal experience when the players exhausted all their healing resources, that was the end of the adventuring day. In lost star, my players would constantly retreat for a day and then return to the sewers as soon as the alchemist ran out of resonance and return to full hp anyway. To this end, I would significantly have preferred treat wounds.

I actually really like the idea of stamina. However, at this point in time, treat wounds solves most of my biggest concerns and so I find myself satisfied.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Subscriber

I mainly just don't want to have to track Stamina/Wounds like in Starfinder. The less math we have to deal with, the better.

That said, I'm not a fan of the current incarnation of Treat Wounds. It requires entirely too many rolls to heal someone up. Watching someone repeatedly roll the same skill check is just not fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zecrin wrote:

Also from a DM perspective, balancing all my encounters under the assumption that players begin each encounter with almost full hp is so much easier than assuming they don't.

For some of us, the tactical assessment of can we/can't we is a feature. Every encounter doesn't need to be, nor should it be, balanced against the PCs. That would be boring as hell.

As I've stated, I'm in favor of a Treat Wounds mechanic. I'm just not in favor of the overpowered version we've been presented with, and compared to Starfinder's Stamina Point system, it's inferior as it creates new problems instead of just solving the original complaint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wizardmark wrote:
Zorae wrote:


I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I get that, but I never felt that way about Pathfinder. With Clerics getting Channels, and the proliferation of magic items via item creation feats (wands/potions/scrolls), I feel there is plenty of available out of combat healing. It just might cost you more. You cant choose not to have a type of character in the group and then complain about the gaps, imo. I definitely do not subscribe to the philosophy group make-up shouldnt matter.

Detect Magic wasnt a cantrip, back in the day (there was no such thing!). Buy/Create a wand of it via group loot if that was the case.

In PF1 it wasn't really an issue. Because out of combat Healing was so prevalent and eventually became as negligible as arrows are for archers. I played a 11+ game where our only healing was my summoner summoning things with healing abilities+umd wanding people. It was incredibly difficult/stressful - but still doable.

In PF2 out of combat healing has become vastly limited by resonance (which is still a thing until it gets changed) and the nerfing of wands to only 10 charges; and in combat damage has spiked due to the extreme nerfing of control spells, multiple actions available from low levels, and the new crit mechanic. The lack of out of combat healing before treat wounds made a healbot character necessary to avoid single encounter days.

Maybe treat wounds swings too far the other way, but some sort of out of combat healing that isn't heavily tied to class resources is definitely needed to make the game more fun. And I think it's a step in the right direction.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

Perception matters. That simple.

It isnt the same to fully heal everyone instantly after each fight and to give them the "option" and ask for something to get fully healed after each fight.

Ultimately this skill, just like the wand isnt costless, there is plenty of cost to go around with this skill if nothing else.

Time isnt a problem until it is and then you have a huge issue. Again, i still think this is too weak due to the time constraints, but lets see how it goes.

Also yes, anything but fully healed is a huge issue. Anything but fully healed means most of the time parties will quite literally just leave the dungeon over fighting on.

Why the hell would anyone risk their PCs unless there was something more relevant than their lives AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE QUEST from lvl 1. This is why people talk about 15 mins adventure day and how they keep existing dungeons over and over. There is no reason to risk their necks unless the stakes are THAT high.

wizardmark wrote:
I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

More along the lines of, being someone who is used to PF1, i would rather not take steps back.

PF1 didnt require a healer, granted it isnt by far a game where everyone can play anything and it just works out either if the GM doesnt put a lot of effort into it, so i would rather PF2 didnt either.

I have yet to see a single player pick in PF1 the job of healer. I mean, sure, there was the occasional PC with channel, but that wasnt ever the focus, just an extra that he had and used outside combat. The only time i have seem "PCs" focused on healing was when me or other GMs literally made them to fill the party. That is it. No human being ever went to this job in a PF1 table i have played.

Being perfectly honest, i would rather not play than be someones healbot, since i also dont believe in forcing others into things i wouldnt do myself, i wont be asking other players to do this for obvious reasons.

Im not against the healer being there and having their thing, but i sure dont expect them to be a must.

Ofc, like you said, ultimately, this is a matter of preference, so i dont expect every to feel the same either. To each their own i guess.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe bring Resolve into PF2, but not stamina. When someone uses Treat Wounds on you, you have to spend one of your Resolve points to receive the benefit of it; or at least for each time after the first in a given day. Meanwhile, also scrap hero points and make those functions of spending Resolve, and make Resolve the thing you spend to buff a consumable item as they are talking about doing, so you have other things competing for the resource beyond just using it as "healing surges."


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ENHenry wrote:
Rameth wrote:

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

Also, you may have figured this in, but to call it out, it's not automatic, even someone hyperspecialized will fail 1 out of 3 attempts, which makes it a bit longer.

Personally, I'm fine with it, because it's cheap healing, but still has a cost: Time. If you're not in a time crunch, just figure an average healing rate given percentage of success, and say, "after x Hours, the group is patched up."

Hyperspecialized would also include 'Assurance', so you don't have to roll. Once you get skill to master, you are effectively auto-rolling a 20 + skill each time.


Just make it require the healers toolkit like every other medicine check.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shain Edge wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Rameth wrote:

While Critical Successes will shorten that time even healing a 10 Con Character to max will still take 30 minutes if you get 3 Critical Successes in a row.

Also, you may have figured this in, but to call it out, it's not automatic, even someone hyperspecialized will fail 1 out of 3 attempts, which makes it a bit longer.

Personally, I'm fine with it, because it's cheap healing, but still has a cost: Time. If you're not in a time crunch, just figure an average healing rate given percentage of success, and say, "after x Hours, the group is patched up."

Hyperspecialized would also include 'Assurance', so you don't have to roll. Once you get skill to master, you are effectively auto-rolling a 20 + skill each time.

Incorrect. Assurance at matter level gives you a flat 20 to your check. Your skill bonuses do not apply, which by the time you are high enough to have matter in a skill, the DC is probably too high for a 20 to pass. Maybe a few levels at best...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Also yes, anything but fully healed is a huge issue. Anything but fully healed means most of the time parties will quite literally just leave the dungeon over fighting on.

Why the hell would anyone risk their PCs unless there was something more relevant than their lives AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE QUEST from lvl 1. This is why people talk about 15 mins adventure day and how they keep existing dungeons over and over. There is no reason to risk their necks unless the stakes are THAT high.

Ah. So we're talking less about heroes and just cowardly mercenaries. "Unless I'm assured victory, I'm out."

Brave crew right there. The minstrels will sing songs of their glory for decades to come.

I presume that by that mindset "balanced" also means well below the PCs APL. Wouldn't want them to have to burn up too many resources, now, would we?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Dead Phoenix wrote:


Hyperspecialized would also include 'Assurance', so you don't have to roll. Once you get skill to master, you are effectively auto-rolling a 20 + skill each time.
Incorrect. Assurance at matter level gives you a flat 20 to your check. Your skill bonuses do not apply, which by the time you are high enough to have matter in a skill, the DC is probably too high for a 20 to pass. Maybe a few levels at best...

Gah.. OK.. need to rebuild my character.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm at a loss at how people think a stamina system is somehow 'non-thematic' for Fantasy. When you look at Fantasy fiction, unless it is specific to D&D/Pathfinder game to novel, you never.. NEVER.. see clerics healing up the adventuring party. It is more true to say that using mechanical, heal skills or spells and wands is actually the non-thematic chain of events to get the party going between one action set to the next.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Nox Aeterna wrote:

Also yes, anything but fully healed is a huge issue. Anything but fully healed means most of the time parties will quite literally just leave the dungeon over fighting on.

Why the hell would anyone risk their PCs unless there was something more relevant than their lives AT THE END OF EVERY SINGLE QUEST from lvl 1. This is why people talk about 15 mins adventure day and how they keep existing dungeons over and over. There is no reason to risk their necks unless the stakes are THAT high.

Ah. So we're talking less about heroes and just cowardly mercenaries. "Unless I'm assured victory, I'm out."

Brave crew right there. The minstrels will sing songs of their glory for decades to come.

I presume that by that mindset "balanced" also means well below the PCs APL. Wouldn't want them to have to burn up too many resources, now, would we?

1. Heroes are rare in this game. That is one kind of PC and honestly not even one I see often. Even when there is a hero, exploring a random dungeon often doesn't seem emergencial or something that will save lives, so it literally doesn't demand the risk for this PC either.

2. The game demand items. PF2 certanly expects you to have certain items at certain lvls.

So yes, it must be cheap enough that it doesn't get in the way, otherwise it becomes just a slow bleed as you end up with less and less items the game expected you to have.

This would just be a "have a healer or die due to the lack of saves/AC...".

Hell lack of AC alome this time actually makes you a Crit target.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swordchucks wrote:
I mainly just don't want to have to track Stamina/Wounds like in Starfinder. The less math we have to deal with, the better.

It could be done slightly simpler:

* You have a pool of hero points (gotta find a better acronym than HP though...)
* You can spend a hero point to heal HP equal to 50% of your max.

So, if you have 80HP and took 50 damage, spending one hero point would heal you 40HP and bring you back up to 70. At that point you could spend another hero point to heal up the last 10HP, but that doesn't seem very efficient, so maybe you decide to do another encounter first.

The thing is, you don't need a separate Stamina and HP pool to make this work. The math can be simple. One number that you only have to compute once per level: 50% of your full HP.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:


* You have a pool of hero points (gotta find a better acronym than HP though...)

Fortune Points?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm still under the impression that the Stamina system is more thematic, and better for the game, then adding different ways of healing HP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that it'd be a more balanced feature if they limited the amount of people that you can treat in an instance, and if they included a diminishing return feature. You can only bandage a wound so many times before it's not doing anything to help the healing process. Maybe keep the removal of the wounded condition but have a cap on the amount of health regained from the feature. It remains relevant to keep the players from dying, but it doesn't encourage taking large amounts of time to just heal to full. Limiting the amount of players just kind of makes sense too, since it's ridiculous to think that mundane healing can cover 6 patients in 10 minutes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shain Edge wrote:
When you look at Fantasy fiction, unless it is specific to D&D/Pathfinder game to novel, you never.. NEVER.. see clerics healing up the adventuring party. It is more true to say that using mechanical, heal skills or spells and wands is actually the non-thematic chain of events to get the party going between one action set to the next.

There's that word...NEVER. Nope. So no healing spells, items, or rituals used by any of the party members in Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of the Kencyrath, Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, Discworld, Eragon, etc, etc.

Folks would do better at making a point if instead of absolutely denying the "opposition" they focused on the positives of their own position. There's a strong narrative argument for healing being rare or uncommon, but instead of talking about that...let's claim that there's NEVER a supernatural healer in an adventuring party in non-D&D inspired literature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Once and Future Kai wrote:

There's that word...NEVER. Nope. So no healing spells, items, or rituals used by any of the party members in Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of the Kencyrath, Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, Discworld, Eragon, etc, etc.

Folks would do better at making a point if instead of absolutely denying the "opposition" they focused on the positives of their own position. There's a strong narrative argument for healing being rare or uncommon, but instead of talking about that...let's claim that there's NEVER a supernatural healer in an adventuring party in non-D&D inspired literature.

Ah! but those are not the same things as D&D/Pathfinder HP. You don't see the party healing up nicks and bruises with supernatural means, do you? Instead the healing is based on "near death" or "critical injuries", which are nearly a part of "near death", or things like ineffective limbs, where the healing did something remarkable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The healing is NOT unlimited. If you crit fail, you can't use it for 24 hours.

I have a healer-less playtest group and I'm eager to test this out.


Jason S wrote:

The healing is NOT unlimited. If you crit fail, you can't use it for 24 hours.

I have a healer-less playtest group and I'm eager to test this out.

Im running a 3 person party in module 2 with no healing which will be an interesting test too.. might see how they go with adding +1 to the DC each time they make a treat wounds test.

given the number of days it takes me (the real person) to heal up when I injure or accidentally cut myself - even with first aid, I reckon my players can take a bit longer to get from near death to full health without the aid of magical healing


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zorae wrote:
I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

It comes from Pathfinder.

Especially PFS, where groups are rarely co-ordinated.

People who played AD&D got used to the idea that you had to make a balanced party in order to survive. You needed a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin frontliner, a Wizard/Sorcerer, a Thief, and a Cleric. If there was a fifth player, maybe they could play a Druid or Bard or something like that, assuming they rolled high enough stats.

People who played later editions found you could play whatever character you wanted and probably do just fine (at least, if you had the system mastery to buy scrolls/wands to cover the gaps). Being told "No, you can't play your Bard character concept because we need X," seems like bad game design when it's taking away a freedom you took for granted.


tim hyde 706 wrote:
Jason S wrote:

The healing is NOT unlimited. If you crit fail, you can't use it for 24 hours.

I have a healer-less playtest group and I'm eager to test this out.

Im running a 3 person party in module 2 with no healing which will be an interesting test too.. might see how they go with adding +1 to the DC each time they make a treat wounds test.

given the number of days it takes me (the real person) to heal up when I injure or accidentally cut myself - even with first aid, I reckon my players can take a bit longer to get from near death to full health without the aid of magical healing

Adding +1 for more uses in a row could work, please let us know about your test!

Anyway, when calling realism, that's not always a good think in a game; expecially in a game with magic and dragons. I made the same observation some time ago, and someone made me note that such a magical world could easily have herbs of incredible healing properties, cheap magically-enhanced bandages, and many other things like those.


I would go with something like:

Treat Wounds

Out of combat, you may take 10 minutes to clean and bind one or more characters(including the healer) wounds, healing up to the healers WIS+character level in HP, no DC check is required and the HP are distributed as specofied by the healer.
Treat Wounds may be used to treat over the healers level in HP with a DC check of 'Total HP being healed'. A fail does not restore HP. A critical success will heal an extra Level/2 HP. On a critical fail no HP are restored, and no further Treat Wounds may be attempted for the remainder of the day.
Any character that receives the benefit of 'Treat Wounds' may not benefit again till they have taken further damage from combat or adventuring.

Up to one extra character who also has the medicine skill may 'aid' the main healer, adding up to half their WIS+character level to the pool of HP available for healing before a DC check is needed.

In combat, Treat wounds can be used to restore a character with less than 1 HP back to 1 HP. The healer must spend 2 actions.

Added some edits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
Anyway, when calling realism, that's not always a good think in a game; expecially in a game with magic and dragons. I made the same observation some time ago, and someone made me note that such a magical world could easily have herbs of incredible healing properties, cheap magically-enhanced bandages, and many other things like those.

A magical world absolutely could have those things. And I would fully expect those to be a consumable resource instead of a hand-waved freebie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Time has been a constraint in some of the sessions I was in, so healing for hours on in every fight wasn't something you could feasibly do. Plus, I like not having to rely on magic for effective healing. It helps give martials some more individuality. Yes, I like stamina better, but I like that the medicine skill is actually made effective right out the gate as opposed to most systems I played where it was either inefficient as a healing source, or straight up useless. I say give it a few tries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It just seems massively overpowered as it is written. It is meant be be a quick patchup, not a replacement for other more costly forms of healing.

If it completely negates the need for any form of supplementary healing it just seems boring to me.

I think it needs to be reduced to treating something like 1 hitdice and a bit of hp per character or medicine skill level. And maybe add some skill feats that could then really crank up the efficacy...but ot should be at an investment of skills and feats....not free.

Yes, it would make things more difficult for a party consisting of martials only...but. that is sort of the point. Effective healing takes time(lots of it)....not a couple of bandages...or alternatively expensive magic based healing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I'm unfamiliar with Starfinder and there has been plenty of other stuff on this forum to read, I am late to the stamina conversation. Now that our group has played a session with Treat Wounds, I can say that I don't care for the Treat Wounds mechanic. It seems jarringly unrealistic and extraordinarily powerful for a mundane healing ability.

Our group never had ANY problems with the way things were prior to Treat Wounds. Now that Treat Wounds is here none of us like it, but especially the DMs. That said I understand that many other players don't feel the same way and feel a need to have a non-resource dependent hitpoint recovery system between fights.

I started musing about alternative solutions to the current healing problems and starting skimming the stamina threads.

Wow, stamina looks good! I wouldn't want it to be as strong as Starfinder, but it seems like it could be integrated into Pathfinder so easily.

Some people don't like stamina because it involves two types of hit points, but Pathfinder already has 2 types of hit points: regular hit points and temporary hit points. So we could just make stamina into temporary hit points.

My proposal is that regular hitpoints for all classes would be 6 points per level.

Temporary hit points could be your constitution modifier per level plus hit points per level that each class has currently over 6. So,

Barbarians: temp hp = (6+con) per level
Fighters, monks, rangers, paladins: temp hp = (4+con) per level
Alchemists, bards, clerics, druids,and rogues: temp hp = (2+con) per level.
Wizards and Sorcerers: temp hp = con per level

Obviously some adjustments to temporary hit points as they are currently used needs to be made so that barbarian rage hp, false life, etc are still additive. And interactions with healing need to be worked out. I prefer healing temp hp first and then actual damage.

Some short time (1min, 10 mins) of non-fatigued rest gives full recovery of temporary hit points.

One of the things that I really like about this mechanic that I haven't seen mentioned before is that it strongly supports the first blood duel as a narrative. Two fighters challenge each other to a duel to first blood. Now instead of rocket tag, there can be an actual fight with an agreed upon ending of the first combatant to actually sustain an injury.

Finally this would be another mechanic that could be used to balance martial classes with casters and could help wizards and sorcerers regain some of their spell casting prowess without unbalancing the game.

1 to 50 of 180 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / 1.3 - Treat Wounds - Stamina is still better All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.