The Medic archetype in the Advanced Player's Guide has a couple feats that say:
"Requirements You are holding healer’s tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free."
I had assumed the Battle Medicine errata would say the same thing, but... it doesn't?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Medic archetype in the Advanced Player's Guide has a couple feats that say:
"Requirements You are holding healer’s tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free."
I had assumed the Battle Medicine errata would say the same thing, but... it doesn't?
That is interesting. Maybe it is the case that the official Errata is still getting updated. Until then, if there are abilities that say the same thing but add a hand requirement, it seems like the ability would not have a hand requirement or they would have changed it to match.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope other than we can confirm tools needed now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Headdesk*
Nope other than we can confirm tools needed now.Oh! Yes. Thank you. That is now true.
Which could have resolved the question entirely...Except the addition was deliberately left open-ended again with the wearing the tools. I'm thinking this is probably still a work in progress.
Whelp we have an answer Sort-of
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”
I mean, it's better and confirms my suspicion that yes, a Healer's Tools was important to its function, but it's still prone to shenanigans that I'm not looking forward to potentially dealing with.
I could literally have Healer's Tools in a backpack and I'd meet the requirements of wearing a Healer's Tools in a very literal reading of the rules, which I highly doubt is the intent.
Conversely, by technicalities, Healer's Tools aren't even possible to be worn, since they aren't listed as having a slot to be worn on. There's the argument of "Well, the bandolier," but if I can have the tools in a backpack compared to in a bandolier (which is slots usable for other things) and still get the same benefit, what's the point?
I mean, there's also the argument of "items in a backpack aren't considered worn if they're in a backpack you're carrying," but the same can be said of anything in a bandolier, so now we're in a paradox.
Way to sidestep a whole entire portion of the issue when answering the question, Paizo. Better quickly make another 500 posts for this thread so they can give a more precise answer.
Whelp we have an answer Sort-of
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”
I mean, it's better and confirms my suspicion that yes, a Healer's Tools was important to its function, but it's still prone to shenanigans that I'm not looking forward to potentially dealing with.
I could literally have Healer's Tools in a backpack and I'd meet the requirements of wearing a Healer's Tools in a very literal reading of the rules, which I highly doubt is the intent.
Conversely, by technicalities, Healer's Tools aren't even possible to be worn, since they aren't listed as having a slot to be worn on. There's the argument of "Well, the bandolier," but if I can have the tools in a backpack compared to in a bandolier (which is slots usable for other things) and still get the same benefit, what's the point?
I mean, there's also the argument of "items in a backpack aren't considered worn if they're in a backpack you're carrying," but the same can be said of anything in a bandolier, so now we're in a paradox.
Way to sidestep a whole entire portion of the issue when answering the question, Paizo. Better quickly make another 500 posts for this thread so they can give a more precise answer.
Maybe it's because i read and interpret statutes all day, but this one seems pretty straight forward. when all the various rules are applies
its you need 2 hands free and using a healing kit normally
or wearing a healers kit and have at least one hand free.
Why bother? I give up, it’s a dead Feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother? I give up, it’s a dead Feat.
Huh? i don't understand , it would normally take 10 minutes to heal someone with the medicine skill. This allows you to do it for one action if you are prepared. or maybe 3 actions if your arent prepared either way it's less than 10 minutes. it's a great feat if you are a combat medic, as it would be impossible to heal someone in combat without the use of magic.
Whelp we have an answer Sort-of
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”
I mean, it's better and confirms my suspicion that yes, a Healer's Tools was important to its function, but it's still prone to shenanigans that I'm not looking forward to potentially dealing with.
I could literally have Healer's Tools in a backpack and I'd meet the requirements of wearing a Healer's Tools in a very literal reading of the rules, which I highly doubt is the intent.
Conversely, by technicalities, Healer's Tools aren't even possible to be worn, since they aren't listed as having a slot to be worn on. There's the argument of "Well, the bandolier," but if I can have the tools in a backpack compared to in a bandolier (which is slots usable for other things) and still get the same benefit, what's the point?
I mean, there's also the argument of "items in a backpack aren't considered worn if they're in a backpack you're carrying," but the same can be said of anything in a bandolier, so now we're in a paradox.
Way to sidestep a whole entire portion of the issue when answering the question, Paizo. Better quickly make another 500 posts for this thread so they can give a more precise answer.
Maybe it's because i read and interpret statutes all day, but this one seems pretty straight forward. when all the various rules are applies
its you need 2 hands free and using a healing kit normally
or wearing a healers kit and have at least one hand free.
You do realize that none of those words you've stated is ever mentioned in any of the changes listed in the errata, right?
Here's what it actually says for the requirements to use the feat.
1. You are holding healer's tools.
This has no mention of being able to utilize the healer's tools, merely that you are holding them. This means by the rules of simply merely holding the item, that only one hand is ever required. You may put two hands on the item if you wish, but unless it's a two-handed weapon or you are specifically using Treat Wounds, it's functionally no different than if you put one hand on said item.
2. You are wearing healer's tools.
By itself, this is physically impossible, as healer's tools, as an item, cannot be "worn," like clothing or armor can. But if we introduce backpacks, bandoliers, and heaven forbid, Bags of Holding, we are now getting into shenanigans of simply having them in the backpacks/bandoliers/Bags of Holding constitutes wearing them. A pedantic argument would be that you're carrying, not wearing, and that it's the backpacks/bandoliers/Bags of Holding, not the healer's tools. Another argument then becomes hands aren't ever required as long as its "worn."
Anything else besides those two points is injecting more than what is actually written, which is problematic when you're comparing it to, say, writing code for an AI program. If you wrote this for a program to parse, it would fall on itself because you're trying to apply codes to content that's just not there. AKA, a syntax error.
Why bother? I give up, it’s a dead Feat.Huh? i don't understand , it would normally take 10 minutes to heal someone with the medicine skill. This allows you to do it for one action if you are prepared. or maybe 3 actions if your arent prepared either way it's less than 10 minutes. it's a great feat if you are a combat medic, as it would be impossible to heal someone in combat without the use of magic.
If you are prepared for Battle Medicine, that means that you are either A: a Monk that doesn’t need their hands for anything anyways, and happen to be right next to the person at the beginning of your turn, with the Healer’s Kit in hand, a very very niche category of possibility, or B: someone who has decided that it’s more efficient to drop all of their weapons and pull this out ‘just in case’.
Neither of those conditions are reasonable. It’s more likely that you’re at least one move action away from the person who needs help, are wielding some form of weapon/shield, and don’t normally wear a kit on your bandolier for emergencies.
Even if you do wear that bandolier, it’s drop both items, pull the Kit, Battle Medicine, stow the Kit or drop it, retrieve your weapon, retrieve your shield. That’s not even including having to move at all.
That is a S~~~LOAD of actions to have to take to use a once a day minor heal on someone in combat.
It's not hard to use it as a spellcaster.
Does knowing that tools are required eliminate one of the three answers?
I'm thinking that "Two Hands" is not an option anymore, when worn in a Bandolier.
Someone in another thread was insisting that the mention of tools guarantees that it's two hands in another thread.
So no to the first question I guess.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
It's not a matter of sensibility, but of mechanics.
If I don't have to use hands to hold something (such as holding it between my knees, underneath my armpit, etc.), and I can argue that I can certainly do that sort of thing, then I won't, and people will cheese and finagle to their GM to game the system in this same way. It's silly, it's ridiculous (it's also kind of genius depending on the item being stowed that way), and it's going to be done just because, based on standard laws of probability.
Same concept here. People are going to argue that, because it's stashed in the bandolier, I don't need hands to use it because the rules don't say I need it, and the bandolier makes it easily accessible to me. Sensibly, you should need an appropriate appendage or two of some sort (feet surgeons?), but mechanically it's not called out for that any more in the Manipulate trait than it is in the ability, meaning default rules which are also nebulous apply instead.
Then again, I don't know what's more infuriating, this, or the jumping/leaping rules.
Battle medicine only uses one action the errata on the website requires you to hold or wear it. Having them in your bandolier definitely qualifies as wear them, so I don't think it will add an action to use them if you're using a bandolier. I do think you need one hand but that comes from the manipulation trait that battle medicine has always had.
If you are prepared for Battle Medicine, that means that you are either A: a Monk that doesn’t need their hands for anything anyways, and happen to be right next to the person at the beginning of your turn, with the Healer’s Kit in hand, a very very niche category of possibility, or B: someone who has decided that it’s more efficient to drop all of their weapons and pull this out ‘just in case’.
You explicitly don't need a Healer's Kit in hand. 'Wearing one' (which I presume mean keeping it in your bandolier) is enough.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just really, really, REALLY wish Paizo would get more in the habit of using examples to describe what their rules mean.
And have those examples be consistent, as evidenced in every discussion around Splash weapons.
Like, I keep defending their lengthy timelines because I believe them when they say they have to sit down and discuss these questions, but then the brief answers end up causing more problems that should have been first on their list to solve.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
I find it completely plausible that the Healer's Tools emit positive vibes which, enhanced through the omni-channelling connection with the universe the person with the Battle Medicine feat channels, leads to the "carry but don't hold" effect. It's a fantasy game, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I imagine it's intended to work something like a component pouch or quiver of arrows. You have to have it on you and you need a free hand. Any transfer from the item's normal location to your hand and back again is taken care of as part of the basic action; manipulating the material component or firing the arrow or using battle medicine.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as "have the tools in a bandolier and one hand free" remains amongst the plausibly legal interpretations I'm happy. That is obviously (to me) what the intent is, it's what every PFS game I've been in seems to assume, and it's both workable and reasonably limiting in practice. Makes battle medicine very useful but means not everybody can do it completely trivially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After sleeping on it, and rereading the errata, it has become clear to me: either this errata is unfinished and everyone should calm down and wait, OR the devs deliberately want this feat to fall into the per prevue of GM arbitration and the added text that makes multiple interpretations possible, so you have to sort it out at you table.
The errata that has currently been added seems pretty explicit in not providing clarity to the issues of number of hands. This could be because it is only one component of a future change, hence not finished, or it could be the devs washing their hands of responsibility for telling you exactly how to make the feat work at your table. Honestly either seems possible, including the possibility that something got updated prematurely by accident, which is why we haven’t heard anything about a change to the game that is supposed to be an official update. Nothing about Paizo’s business practices in the past suggest they would just sneak changes into a pre-existing document without telling anyone, and that would be the official word on the matter.
I mean... You just have to be trained in Medicine. It doesn't say you need healers' tools or anything like that. I honestly just imagined it being someone tearing a strip of cloth from their clothes, using it as a kind of makeshift bandage or turniquet(or however you spell it).
It doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
I mean... You just have to be trained in Medicine. It doesn't say you need healers' tools or anything like that. I honestly just imagined it being someone tearing a strip of cloth from their clothes, using it as a kind of makeshift bandage or turniquet(or however you spell it).
It doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
That's an interesting take after this many posts arguing in circles over an errata entry that specifically says otherwise.
Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
This. I can be a persnikety bastard when reading rules overly literally for some (special section and feats that can be taken more than once for instance, and identifying magical items as evidence of this on the forums.) But there are degrees where it becomes someone being wilfully difficult for the sake of being contrarian or snarky.
The rules need clarification to some degree but wearing is OBVIOUSLY not in a backpack or as a hat. And is almost certainly a bandolier.
Given that this was silently released before an errata document was. I am just going to wait and see before blowing my lid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's an interesting take after this many posts arguing in circles over an errata entry that specifically says otherwise.I mean... You just have to be trained in Medicine. It doesn't say you need healers' tools or anything like that. I honestly just imagined it being someone tearing a strip of cloth from their clothes, using it as a kind of makeshift bandage or turniquet(or however you spell it).
It doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
Yup. I suffer from something many people suffer from, as well. Laziness. I've read up on it now. It requires you to wear healing tools. It doesn't, however, require you to wield the tools. So I don't quite think it require 2 hands either, as some people seem to think.
I guess we'll have to see what Paizo says on the matter. This clearly needs to be cleared up, just look at this thread.
|
Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
This. I can be a persnikety bastard when reading rules overly literally for some (special section and feats that can be taken more than once for instance, and identifying magical items as evidence of this on the forums.) But there are degrees where it becomes someone being wilfully difficult for the sake of being contrarian or snarky.
The rules need clarification to some degree but wearing is OBVIOUSLY not in a backpack or as a hat. And is almost certainly a bandolier.
Given that this was silently released before an errata document was. I am just going to wait and see before blowing my lid.
What, do you have an issue with Medicine Hat, Alberta???
Seriously, though, I agree with the 'wait a bit' advice: This 'change' (which technically doesn't change much since most people with medicine training will probably have the appropriate kit on them) either needs some elaboration or a 'whoops, that wasn't supposed to be posted' statement from the developers...
|
|
What, do you have an issue with Medicine Hat, Alberta???
In fairness, there are quite a few issues that one can have with Medicine Hat :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
I find it completely plausible that the Healer's Tools emit positive vibes which, enhanced through the omni-channelling connection with the universe the person with the Battle Medicine feat channels, leads to the "carry but don't hold" effect. It's a fantasy game, after all.Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
After some consideration, this feels like the most reasonable way to run it, yeah.
I mean... You just have to be trained in Medicine. It doesn't say you need healers' tools or anything like that. I honestly just imagined it being someone tearing a strip of cloth from their clothes, using it as a kind of makeshift bandage or turniquet(or however you spell it).
It doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
I see you missed the other thread that's been a brewin' lately.
In here we find the following:Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”
The Medic archetype in the Advanced Player's Guide has a couple feats that say:
"Requirements You are holding healer’s tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free."
I had assumed the Battle Medicine errata would say the same thing, but... it doesn't?
I saw that too and I suspect that is how they always intended it to work. So for most people this will mean load the kit into a bandoleer and a free hand to use it which seems not unreasonable.
Why bother? I give up, it’s a dead Feat.Huh? i don't understand , it would normally take 10 minutes to heal someone with the medicine skill. This allows you to do it for one action if you are prepared. or maybe 3 actions if your arent prepared either way it's less than 10 minutes. it's a great feat if you are a combat medic, as it would be impossible to heal someone in combat without the use of magic.If you are prepared for Battle Medicine, that means that you are either A: a Monk that doesn’t need their hands for anything anyways, and happen to be right next to the person at the beginning of your turn, with the Healer’s Kit in hand, a very very niche category of possibility, or B: someone who has decided that it’s more efficient to drop all of their weapons and pull this out ‘just in case’.
Neither of those conditions are reasonable. It’s more likely that you’re at least one move action away from the person who needs help, are wielding some form of weapon/shield, and don’t normally wear a kit on your bandolier for emergencies.
Even if you do wear that bandolier, it’s drop both items, pull the Kit, Battle Medicine, stow the Kit or drop it, retrieve your weapon, retrieve your shield. That’s not even including having to move at all.
That is a S%@@LOAD of actions to have to take to use a once a day minor heal on someone in combat.
Actually it just being loaded into the bandoleer should be sufficient by the wording in the ARG. The two cases are you are holding the kit which would be needing both hands OR wearing the kit and have a hand free.
After some consideration, this feels like the most reasonable way to run it, yeah.I find it completely plausible that the Healer's Tools emit positive vibes which, enhanced through the omni-channelling connection with the universe the person with the Battle Medicine feat channels, leads to the "carry but don't hold" effect. It's a fantasy game, after all.Does anyone really believe that they would require you to have Healer's Tools but not use them? I mean, other than it not specifically saying that in excruciating detail, that's really just a silly position. The Tools don't heal the target by emitting positive vibes from within your Bandolier.
It's a wonder the Paizo team doesn't just say "We're done with this nonsense." and close up shop.
I really hope this is sarcasm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, so we've finally moved away from people thinking they could rub the pommel of their sword on an injured guy or spit from afar or something to heal someone with battle medicine.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know why this is so hard for Paizo to make simple.
Write it up as the following:
Battle Medicine: You prepare several packets daily of very strong medicine to give a target an immediate analgesic effect as well as flooding their system with adrenaline allowing them to keep fighting in the midst of battle.
1 action: Drawing the medicine packet is part of the same action to apply it. You must have one hand free and be adjacent to the target.
Feat all done. Reasonable level of verisimilitude. No more questions or arguments. Make it happen Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like at this point, it is important to remember that you are always welcome to adjust any feat to work exactly like you want it to, at your own table, with agreement amongst everyone involved.
If verisimilitude trumps function for you, you might want to consider dropping the feat entirely, because nothing about the feat makes much sense from a what can people actually do in the real world, and you can still have treat wounds for something that allows for character to heal without spending spell resources, but nothing that suggests 6 seconds is enough time to significantly restore an injured person in the blink of an eye without magic.
Or, if the end result of the Errata makes you feel like non-magical in-combat healing is way too action restrictive, you can house rule a battle medicine like feat that works at a short range and has a verbal component and it will probably be fine too, at your table.
Why this overall conversation about what the rules are specifically defining battle medicine to be and what it require matters, is to get a sense of what kind of action and character dedication the developers intended to go into the feat.
A feat which requires two free hands and a specific set of tools that must be used to complete the action has a different power balance than a feat that does not require any of those things. The initial wording of the feat did not include any requirements, so at this point, a decision to add those requirements will also have to deal with how people have been using the feat in play, and how they will react to have what is essentially a nerf to one of the feats that was a very exciting addition to the game for many players. Maybe that is fine. If the developers are seeing that, especially with expanded content, that the feat is becoming too spammable in combat, maybe some restrictions make sense. Alternatively, they might see that people playing with it requiring two free hands and the tools are eventually retraining away from the feat and that all this expanded content for the feat is not getting used as people shy away from the initial buy in for it to work. I am not a Paizo developer, so I don't know what the thought process in house is at this time.
I also hope they are taking their time to make whatever changes make the feat work best for their own vision of the game, because I am happy to change it as necessary if that vision doesn't fit at my table.
Ya, people change things all the time. I changed the strict Vancian nature of the magic system and replaced it with Arcanist casting because that worked for me and my table. The ability of any table to homebrew is not the question though. The discussion is about a feat representing mundane healing in battle and people somehow interpreting that as requiring no tools or hands.
I think its funny how the people now saying "this is my table I can do what I want" were the same folks who several hundred pages ago in this thread were saying "RAW says its this, RAI or your opinion thereof doesn't matter."
Standard forum behavior, I guess.