Battle Medicine - How Many Hands?

[PoohPuss]

1.Does Battle Medicine require no hands to use, since none are specified for the feat's action?

2.Does Battle Medicine require 1 hand to use, since none are specified for the feat's action?

3.Does Battle Medicine require 2 hands to use, since the Treat Wounds for the Medicine skill require that?

[Kromkore]

Treat wounds use healer kit

[PoohPuss]

The Healer's Tool does require 2 hands to use.

[PoohPuss]

The Battle Medicine feat doesn't specify that it requires the Healer's Tool tho.

[RexAliquid]

It has the manipulate trait, so at least one hand free.

[shroudb]

RexAliquid wrote:

It has the manipulate trait, so at least one hand free.

manipulate doesn't require "free hand", just being able to do gestures is enough.

You can hold and even swing weapons, shields, whatever really, just not being "restrained" is enough.

as an example, Somatic materials:

"The spell gains the
manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You
can use this component while holding something in
your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise
unable to gesture freely."

[Arachnofiend]

I suspect the requirements of Battle Medicine are left vague and loose because trying to prescribe any sort of realism to how it works would make the feat really, really suck. Like, "this is only remotely viable for unarmed strike users who don't use their hands to fight" suck.

Personally I'm just gonna flavor it as telling the patient to rub some dirt on it.

[shroudb]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I suspect the requirements of Battle Medicine are left vague and loose because trying to prescribe any sort of realism to how it works would make the feat really, really suck. Like, "this is only remotely viable for unarmed strike users who don't use their hands to fight" suck.

Personally I'm just gonna flavor it as telling the patient to rub some dirt on it.

for me it may actually be:

*sharp kick on the butt* "Stop whining, get moving"

[Ashanderai]

PoohPuss wrote:

The Battle Medicine feat doesn't specify that it requires the Healer's Tool tho.

Battle Medicine requires the Treat Wounds Action. The Treat Wounds Action requires the Healer's Tools. The Healer's Tools require 2 hands to use. Therefore, Battle Medicine requires 2 hands.

[shroudb]

Ashanderai wrote:

PoohPuss wrote:

The Battle Medicine feat doesn't specify that it requires the Healer's Tool tho.

Battle Medicine requires the Treat Wounds Action. The Treat Wounds Action requires the Healer's Tools. The Healer's Tools require 2 hands to use. Therefore, Battle Medicine requires 2 hands.

only... it does not.

it specifically DOESN'T use the "treat wounds action"

"You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat.
Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat
Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing.
As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against
higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The
target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine
for 1 day."

it uses a Medicine check with the same DC as treat wounds that provides the corresponding amount of healing. That's worlds apart.

If it DID use the treat wounds, it would have nonsense like treating the whole party with 1 action that you can get as riders for the treat wounds.

[Arachnofiend]

Ashanderai wrote:

PoohPuss wrote:

The Battle Medicine feat doesn't specify that it requires the Healer's Tool tho.

Battle Medicine requires the Treat Wounds Action. The Treat Wounds Action requires the Healer's Tools. The Healer's Tools require 2 hands to use. Therefore, Battle Medicine requires 2 hands.

This falls apart when you notice that Battle Medicine does not require you to Treat Wounds. The only references to Treat Wounds in the feat are to tell you what the DC is and to note that Battle Medicine scales up with proficiency in an identical way, Battle Medicine itself is its own type of action that lacks the restrictions of Treat Wounds.

Ninja'd, and with a better explanation since the implications of Treat Wounds feats working on Battle Medicine makes it pretty clear it's not supposed to work that way.

[Zwordsman]

*Zwordsman sliced to bits by multiple ninja*
Battle Med doesn't actually interact with Treat Wounds. It is purely a medicine check. Same DC yes and same healing yes. But it makes the distinction that it is NOT treat wounds. It would have taken less words to simple have them do a Treat Wounds as a 1 action special use. but they wpecifically call out that it is not Treat Wounds.
Battle Med's prereqs do not even require the healer's kit. How it works is left up to interpretation. But it works and does not require a healing kit. Nor does it specify hands other than manipulate.

I have to believe it was left vague so it can be suitably used in any given situation. and with just about any fluff.

You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day.

=================
As a sidenote on the topic of Healing Kits. You may be able to use a Bandolier to help with the hands issue--depending on your GM. Bandolier specifically state it works with Tool sets (complete ones) and that they will always count as being on hand and available. Half the reason tool kits are often two handed is because one has to hold the kit while they use it.

So a GM might let cha get away with it. But nothing directly removes the hands req, just makes it always accessible. (which as a sub-sidenote. Can make repair kits + shields + fast repair an in combat ability)

[The ShadowShackleton]

This is something that desperately needs some developer commentary. I built a whole character concept on a sword and shield battle medic. If I have to use two hands to heal he will be dead in the water. Dropping or sheathing my sword I can buy but surely it is not intended to need two hands.

Seems like there are two valid ways to interpret it which isn’t great.

[Unicore]

Battle medicine is definitely not a treat wounds check, and healer's tools do not even mention Battle medicine in the list of things they are useful for, so I'd assume that they wouldn't help with a battle medicine check, even if you had some magical healing tools that gave you some kind of bonus to treat wounds checks. Treat wounds =/= battle medicine. It also seems like getting battle medicine would have no effect on your ability to be have someone make a treat wounds check on you immediately after the battle. If it was a treat wounds check, then that wouldn't work.

[Data Lore]

As a GM, I personally don't care what kinda rules lawyery nonsense a player tries to cook up here. You want to patch up your buddy, you need two hands and a kit.

You can access it a bit easier by putting it in a bandolier. But thats about it.

Common sense, folks.

[The ShadowShackleton]

You have a lot of experience with applying healing to an injured friend and having them fully recover from near death to fully healed within an hour or two?

Common sense has nothing to do with it. Depends how it is supposed to work.

You may be right, you may not be

[Data Lore]

Ya, man, channel those bandages through your glaive. What nonsense.

Right or no, any table where that crap happens isnt worth playing at. Frankly, Im curious what kinda DM would bend to such rules abuse.

[The ShadowShackleton]

Well personally I could see it declared a manipulate action and require a hand free. That was my base assumption but I was surprised to see it doesn’t appear to require a healers kit. They may change that.

Just saying that no one knows for sure.

[Arachnofiend]

Battle Medicine still doesn't make any sense even if you use two hands to do it - a two second patch job isn't going to be as much healing as Battle Medicine provides if you apply real world logic to it. You can hate it all you want, this isn't "bending the rules" it's using them as they are written and intended because the feat is completely unusable if you don't.

The ShadowShackleton wrote:

Well personally I could see it declared a manipulate action and require a hand free. That was my base assumption but I was surprised to see it doesn’t appear to require a healers kit. They may change that.

Just saying that no one knows for sure.

Battle Medicine is a manipulate action, but manipulate actions specifically do not require a free hand to perform - likely the game is short cutting "the take your hand off your weapon to do the thing and put it back on when you're done" nonsense we used to do in PF1 to do exactly this.

[Data Lore]

It takes an action to adjust your fricken grip or to raise your shield. Think about that.

Anywho, common sense ruling:
You drop what you are holding to apply medical aid or you cant do it. Whether thats to stabilize or to do battle medicine. If you have a bandolier, its not an action to take the kit out as part of the action to use it. If you dont, it is.

Then, afterwards, you have to take an action to put it away (maybe not if you have a bandolier) unless you decide to drop it. And, clearly, action(s) are needed to pick up whatever weapon(s) you dropped.

[prototype00]

Data Lore wrote:

As a GM, I personally don't care what kinda rules lawyery nonsense a player tries to cook up here. You want to patch up your buddy, you need two hands and a kit.

You can access it a bit easier by putting it in a bandolier. But thats about it.

Common sense, folks.

The Rules as Written (aka Rules Lawyery Nonsense to all surprised/bushwacked DMs).

If you play in Pathfinder Society, (I'm not saying you have to or are, just that its the place where the Rules take precedent) thats how it works.

As a player, my base expectation is that the game follows the rules. If the DM wants to change that, then obviously I need to evaluate the situation at the table.

[Data Lore]

Everything Ive read from Paizo on this is they view folks using RAW against GMs as a thing they actively wanted to avoid in this edition. Ultimately, the GM has the final say and he shouldnt have to read 5 billion of pages of ever shifting rules in advance to lay out every bit of nonsense he disagrees with prior to play.

All I know, is I tell all my players that I play with Fictional Positioning at my table. The rules lay out a broad guideline of the possible but ultimately, the reality of the moment wins out. I think this is one of those moments where it rests on plain common sense.

Trying to bandage a party member that is bleeding out while trying to hold on to your greatsword is just plain dumb.

As to PFS, honestly, I think that expecting any GM, even a PFS one, to be little more than a rules conveyor is just crap.

[prototype00]

Data Lore wrote:

Everything Ive read from Paizo on this is they view folks using RAW against GMs as a thing they actively wanted to avoid in this edition. Ultimately, the GM has the final say and he shouldnt have to read 5 billion of pages of ever shifting rules in advance to lay out every bit of nonsense he disagrees with prior to play.

All I know, is I tell all my players that I play with Fictional Positioning at my table. The rules lay out a broad guideline of the possible but ultimately, the reality of the moment wins out. I think this is one of those moments where it rests on plain common sense.

Trying to bandage a party member that is bleeding out while trying to hold on to your greatsword is just plain dumb.

As to PFS, honestly, I think that expecting any GM, even a PFS one, to be little more than a rules conveyor is just crap.

You play your table, man.

In my experience as a player, theres usually enough games going out there that if you have the questionable fortune of DMs that have their hackles up about the "common sense" of the Rules as Written (how "common" is it if you are the only person in this thread that believes it?) you can find another table that suits you better.

prototype00

[Data Lore]

Sure, in my experience, I find that my campaigns run much smoother and are much more fun when players that can't accept common sense rulings move on.

So, yeah, win win.

[Arachnofiend]

In this case a "common sense ruling" means "no one at your table will ever use Battlefield Medicine" so if that's the kind of game you want to play, sure.

[Data Lore]

Sure thing, better than "the fighter waves his spear at the injured guy and the injured dude regains hit points as bandages appear".

[Unicore]

I am sympathetic to GMs who want all uses of the medicine to require healers tools and would tell any group to play with the rule that makes sense at their table...but the specificity of the item, the healer’s tools, the medicine skill, and the battle medicine feat in making sure it is not a treat wounds check makes this a pretty clear RAW and RAI case. You cannot use healer’s nor expanded healer’s tools when utilizing the battlefield medicine feat.

Again house rule it to work best at your table, but there are too many different places in the book with consistent word choice for this to be a typo or a mistake.

[Castilliano]

For the record, like Data Lore, I agree that common sense matters.
That's how we best interpret the books IMO.

In fact, for PF2, Paizo stressed repeatedly in the playtest that one should read the rules as a conversation, not a law book or philosophy paper. They know they can neither close every loophole nor account for every incident, but they want us to approach the issues as adults with agency, not as slaves to wording.
They'd struggled against legalism in PF1, partly due to the baggage of 3.X. Now they've had a chance to start afresh. Paizo has put much effort into making PF2's language consistent, thank goodness, but devs have flat out stated there are some things so basic it'd be ridiculous to address (as well as waste space), or so basic Paizo could hardly imagine somebody misconstruing their intent. Yet that happens.

IMO Paizo shouldn't have to say that you need a usable hand to patch up yourself (or an adjacent ally). How would one do that without hands???
Or one hand at least. I wouldn't say you need both since the Healer's Kit isn't tied to the feat.

And I still think Battle Medicine is an awesome feat, and have a disproportionate amount of my fledgling PCs with Field Medic as a background since I know BM is useful to begin a campaign with.

Anyway...as long as what we all do works for those we play with.
In my PFS games, you will need a hand. Or animated hair. Or something.

[shroudb]

Castilliano wrote:

For the record, like Data Lore, I agree that common sense matters.

That's how we best interpret the books IMO.

In fact, for PF2, Paizo stressed repeatedly in the playtest that one should read the rules as a conversation, not a law book or philosophy paper. They know they can neither close every loophole nor account for every incident, but they want us to approach the issues as adults with agency, not as slaves to wording.
They'd struggled against legalism in PF1, partly due to the baggage of 3.X. Now they've had a chance to start afresh. Paizo has put much effort into making PF2's language consistent, thank goodness, but devs have flat out stated there are some things so basic it'd be ridiculous to address (as well as waste space), or so basic Paizo could hardly imagine somebody misconstruing their intent. Yet that happens.

IMO Paizo shouldn't have to say that you need a usable hand to patch up yourself (or an adjacent ally). How would one do that without hands???
Or one hand at least. I wouldn't say you need both since the Healer's Kit isn't tied to the feat.

And I still think Battle Medicine is an awesome feat, and have a disproportionate amount of my fledgling PCs with Field Medic as a background since I know BM is useful to begin a campaign with.

Anyway...as long as what we all do works for those we play with.
In my PFS games, you will need a hand. Or animated hair. Or something.

It's clear that the rules make a very clear distinction that Battle medicine is NOT treat wounds.

It's also clear that no use of kit is required/mentioned.

How will your common sense "change" if someone from paizo just reaffirms this?

Just asking, because to me the sentence "my common sense is different than the RAW so I need a RAW ruling" doesn't make sense at all.

If for your table "it doesn't make sense" just houserule Battle Medicine to work differently than it does, it's simple.

[Ascalaphus]

Bring too much common sense to the table and you have to wonder how you can fix someone bleeding to death in six seconds.

Or why you can do it only once per person per day, even if they get injured again in exactly the same way on the other side of their face an hour later.

---

This desperately needs FAQ because it's a "life and death" rule and those should be crystal clear. Nobody wants rules fights as a player desperately argues rules to save his PC.

My personal preference would be to require one hand. That would require you to drop your sword (free action to release), but not necessarily to unstrap a shield (which takes an action).

The feat should also be clear on whether it requires a medkit.

---

Right now, my impression is that they may have intended that you don't need a medkit and don't need two free hands, and thought "well if we don't write in that requirement, people will know that it's not required". Instead, people go "huh, that's odd, maybe the text is missing but surely they intended some requirements".

Sometimes we need reassurance that something is deliberately not required.

[Wheldrake]

shroudb wrote:

It's clear that the rules make a very clear distinction that Battle medicine is NOT treat wounds.

It's also clear that no use of kit is required/mentioned

Clear? How do you figure?

Battle Medicine wrote:

You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat

Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing.

Treat wounds is specifically mentioned, even if it is left unclear whether Battle Medicine is intended to rely on the same prerequisites as a Medicine (Treat Wounds) check.

None of this is "clear".

The words "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally" strongly suggest that you're using your hands, and some materials to "patch up". The only such materials we've seen in the CRB are in healer's tools. Where else are you going to get a "patch"???

Anyone claiming that you can "patch up" your wounds or your buddy's wounds while you're carrying a shield and wielding a weapon (or have your hands occupied in whatever way) is simply being disingenuous.

A DM asserting that you need two free hands and healer's tools in a bandolier in order to attempt using the Battle Medicine feat is just as much holding to the RAW as those claiming, against all logic and verisimilitude, that you can use the Battle Medicine without any materials and with your hands full.

How can they both be right? Because the RAW are not clear.

Personally, I'm with the folks who don't think you can non-magically cure wounds with a stern frown.

YMMV

[prototype00]

Rather than waste further time arguing it with you lot here, I have done the useful thing and asked it in the Faq thread.

prototype00

[shroudb]

Wheldrake wrote:

shroudb wrote:

It's clear that the rules make a very clear distinction that Battle medicine is NOT treat wounds.

It's also clear that no use of kit is required/mentioned

Clear? How do you figure?

Battle Medicine wrote:

You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat

Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing.

Treat wounds is specifically mentioned, even if it is left unclear whether Battle Medicine is intended to rely on the same prerequisites as a Medicine (Treat Wounds) check.

None of this is "clear".

The words "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally" strongly suggest that you're using your hands, and some materials to "patch up". The only such materials we've seen in the CRB are in healer's tools. Where else are you going to get a "patch"???

Anyone claiming that you can "patch up" your wounds or your buddy's wounds while you're carrying a shield and wielding a weapon (or have your hands occupied in whatever way) is simply being disingenuous.

A DM asserting that you need two free hands and healer's tools in a bandolier in order to attempt using the Battle Medicine feat is just as much holding to the RAW as those claiming, against all logic and verisimilitude, that you can use the Battle Medicine without any materials and with your hands full.

How can they both be right? Because the RAW are not clear.

Personally, I'm with the folks who don't think you can non-magically cure wounds with a stern frown.

YMMV

I still don't see where you are confused:

It clearly states that you do:
A) a Medicine check (not a treat wounds check)
B) using a DC equal to a treat wounds DC.

How is that unclear?

How do you infer from "do a Specific Skill Check Y with a DC equal to X" that you do X and not Y?

As you said exactly:
Treat wounds is SPECIFICALLY mentioned for ONLY 2 things:
A) DC
B) Healing amount.

So it SPECIFICALLY affects the roll in no other way.

Unless you think you should also get Ward Medic and 10 minute cooldowns instead of 1 day, that Treat wounds has.

It is either:
Not a treat wounds. So you don't need a medikit.
Or
It is a treat wounds. So you get to do it AoE with 10 min cooldown.

[Wheldrake]

I would suggest that I'm not the one who is confused.

Some folks here seem to be of the opinion that the battle medicine feat allows you to non-magically cure wounds with a stern frown, rather than "patch up yourself or an adjacent ally" using hands and something to "patch" with.

The feat is already very, very powerful, since it allows you to do in one action the same healing as you would normally require ten minutes to do.

Anyway, there is little point in arguing about it. The CRB text is ambiguous.

Healing without using your hands and without any medical materials sounds like a magical effect to me, which it is "clearly" not intended to be.

YMMV.

[shroudb]

Wheldrake wrote:

I would suggest that I'm not the one who is confused.

Some folks here seem to be of the opinion that the battle medicine feat allows you to non-magically cure wounds with a stern frown, rather than "patch up yourself or an adjacent ally" using hands and something to "patch" with.

The feat is already very, very powerful, since it allows you to do in one action the same healing as you would normally require ten minutes to do.

Anyway, there is little point in arguing about it. The CRB text is ambiguous.

Healing without using your hands and without any medical materials sounds like a magical effect to me, which it is "clearly" not intended to be.

YMMV.

It already has the Manipulate trait.

Manipulate means you need to have SOME freedom of use for your hands, just not it being completely empty.

You can't, as an example, use it if restrained.

It's not "magical" despite us joking about using it "with a kick in the butt" (my own previous attempt to joke, sue me)

Being forced in touch range and requiring some form of hand actions, as given RAW already by the traits and range, already shows physical interaction imo.

No need to make a feat clearly designed for in combat use to become obsolete due to restrictions like needing to drop your shield to use it.

If you feel you need less mundane healing in your setting, feel free to houserule, but the RAW is clear so far.

It clearly states what action, with what traits, what DC and effect, and what requirements it has.

Now, if you're arguing if that's what intended or not, is another thing, but the rules, as rules, are pretty clear (imo).

[Unicore]

I think the most reasonable assumption to make is that the text for battlefield medic was written before the manipulate tag lost the stipulation of requiring an open hand. By RAW, this clearly, means that battlefield medicine does not require a free hand, especially with how consistently the rules do tell you what does require x number of hands.
But is equally reasonable to believe that RAI was for the feat to require a hand, and that got lost when the trait changed. It doesn’t make it more likely, but it makes it something tables will have to sort on their own.

There is no suggestion anywhere in the rules that the feat would or could use a healing kit to affect its result.

EDIT: IF the goal had been to make it clear that all uses of the medicine skill required healer's tools, then there would have been much clearer ways to specify that than deliberately identifying which specific actions from the medicine skill do require it. The intention here is clearly to future proof against forcing all uses of the medicine skill from requiring the healer's tools, not the other way around.

[Megistone]

Possible interpretation: Battle Medicine is an injection of a very strong extract that makes the body react to injuries, if you do it right.
It's quick and effective, but using that again too soon won't work because the receiver won't react well, or at all.

[Data Lore]

Megistone wrote:

Possible interpretation: Battle Medicine is an injection of a very strong extract that makes the body react to injuries, if you do it right.

It's quick and effective, but using that again too soon won't work because the receiver won't react well, or at all.

The question is: Is this located in a med kit (thus needing to be handled and used to be applied) or is this hypospray allowed to materialize within the body of the patient with a casual glance?

[shroudb]

Data Lore wrote:

Megistone wrote:

Possible interpretation: Battle Medicine is an injection of a very strong extract that makes the body react to injuries, if you do it right.

It's quick and effective, but using that again too soon won't work because the receiver won't react well, or at all.

The question is: Is this located in a med kit (thus needing to be handled and used to be applied) or is this hypospray allowed to materialize within the body of the patient with a casual glance?

please don't casually handwave the restrictions already applied to the skill check because it doesn't fit your narrative.

again:
you need to touch the target and you need to use your hands to apply Battle Medicine (touch range, Manipulate trait).

So yeah, what he said is actually a very valid interpretation of "manipulate+touch" effect that could apply a bandaid fix on an injury.

as for the "Draw" action, if you don't need an action to "draw" compoennts out of a pouch, i don't see why you need an action to draw an equivalent size item from a pouch somewhere on you.

[Data Lore]

That interpretation is only valid if you feel that you can patch someone up by looking at them and maybe waving a sword at them or something.

[shroudb]

Data Lore wrote:

That interpretation is only valid if you feel that you can patch someone up by looking at them and maybe waving a sword at them or something.

what you say is completely off since there are clear traits that clearly define that nothing of the sort happens.

it is "touch" which requires at least touching, and "maipulate" that requires the use of your hands.

you can keep ignoring those facts, but they are facts, they are traits that the action has.

[Unicore]

Even if you want to house rule that Battlefield Medicine requires healer's tools, the description of healer's tools stipulates that you keep the parts in pockets and bandoliers not stowed in a pack. Using tools (there is no medkit) from bandoliers does not require a draw action.

[Data Lore]

Ya, its a manipulate action that clearly uses the tools. To use the tools you need two hands free since it lists as much on the table. You can draw them as part of the action to use them since you have them readied in the bandolier (the exact example listed in the CRB, btw). The bandolier does not remove the hands requirement for item use.

[shroudb]

Data Lore wrote:

Ya, its a manipulate action that clearly uses the tools. To use the tools you need two hands free since it lists as much on the table. You can draw them as part of the action to use them since you have them readied in the bandolier (the exact example listed in the CRB, btw). The bandolier does not remove the hands requirement for item use.

oh, hey, just letting you know, you just invented a part that does not exist.

but nice try.

again, you can houserule whatever you want in your games, but please, don't try to insert rules that do not exist in the rules forum.

It EXPLICITLY doesn't need tools.

you know there's a nice little place in the action that reads: "requirements"

please try to adhere to those if you're going by the rules.

[Unicore]

Data Lore wrote:

Ya, its a manipulate action that clearly uses the tools. To use the tools you need two hands free since it lists as much on the table. You can draw them as part of the action to use them since you have them readied in the bandolier (the exact example listed in the CRB, btw). The bandolier does not remove the hands requirement for item use.

There is no rules support for the idea that battlefield medicine requires the healer’s tools. In fact the rules are explicit that you don’t use the tools for the battlefield medicine action. But if that bothers you, then you can house rule it to work however makes sense to you.

[Castilliano]

shroudb wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

For the record, like Data Lore, I agree that common sense matters.

That's how we best interpret the books IMO.

In fact, for PF2, Paizo stressed repeatedly in the playtest that one should read the rules as a conversation, not a law book or philosophy paper. They know they can neither close every loophole nor account for every incident, but they want us to approach the issues as adults with agency, not as slaves to wording.
They'd struggled against legalism in PF1, partly due to the baggage of 3.X. Now they've had a chance to start afresh. Paizo has put much effort into making PF2's language consistent, thank goodness, but devs have flat out stated there are some things so basic it'd be ridiculous to address (as well as waste space), or so basic Paizo could hardly imagine somebody misconstruing their intent. Yet that happens.

IMO Paizo shouldn't have to say that you need a usable hand to patch up yourself (or an adjacent ally). How would one do that without hands???
Or one hand at least. I wouldn't say you need both since the Healer's Kit isn't tied to the feat.

And I still think Battle Medicine is an awesome feat, and have a disproportionate amount of my fledgling PCs with Field Medic as a background since I know BM is useful to begin a campaign with.

Anyway...as long as what we all do works for those we play with.
In my PFS games, you will need a hand. Or animated hair. Or something.

It's clear that the rules make a very clear distinction that Battle medicine is NOT treat wounds.

It's also clear that no use of kit is required/mentioned.

How will your common sense "change" if someone from paizo just reaffirms this?

Just asking, because to me the sentence "my common sense is different than the RAW so I need a RAW ruling" doesn't make sense at all.

If for your table "it doesn't make sense" just houserule Battle Medicine to work differently than it does, it's simple.

Did you read my post?

I didn't reference Treat Wounds, so why write as if I did?
I acknowledged the kit wasn't mentioned in the feat, therefore wasn't a reason to think two hands were necessary.
So if Paizo reaffirms either of those it makes no difference.
And I didn't ask for a RAW ruling, so maybe you pressed the wrong Reply button? (I hope so.)

My RAW is actually different from your RAW, believe it or not. Others have stated it's ambiguous, but I'm not sure I agree even with that.
The feat says you can patch a wound. Patching, in English, is an action that takes a hand. Paizo had no reason to parse a basic English word, so they didn't. Battle Medicine needing a hand is the clearest interpretation.
I think it's mental gymnastics to think otherwise. And I find the feat astounding. Complaining about how needing to free up your hand makes the feat useless isn't persuasive.

In your interpretation (or at least that of people you've sided with), a guy could be carrying a teetering stack of boxes while sitting in a wagon, yet ready an action to patch a wound on a wounded fellow sprinting past him. That's absurd.

Ultimately, we're both taking different approaches, with others and I thinking Paizo communicates in prose while you (seem to) think they operate in rigorous formulae. Given what the devs have stated about their modus operandi, I think I'm in the right. Though if Paizo did correct me I'd be disappointed, but accept it in PFS.

Cheers

[Data Lore]

Clearly, they think wounds can be patched by patting someone gently with a greataxe.

[shroudb]

Castilliano wrote:

Did you read my post?
I didn't reference...

i did, you inserted rules that don't exist in a rule text.

In fact, Paizo, that you have faith that is on the same page as you, have very very specific and strict rules about "hands" and how many you need for each action.

Especially since you're saying it's for PFS, so strict RAW, the RULES for Manipulate which is the appropriate "how many hands needed" for the action clearly references how many you need:

you need to be able to move them, but they don't need to be empty.

Them the rules.

Afaik, there can't be "my raw is different than your raw" unless you have a different text in your book. There can only be "my rai is different than your rai" because raw means as WRITTEN, not as interpreted.

As WRITTEN you need to do a Manipulate action.

The end. (as far as raw is concerned)

if it's for pfs, and you think that the rules are actually wrong, then get a pfs judge to overrule the official core rulebook if they can, i don't know if that is even possible.

p.s.

it's the exact same rules that allow a sorcerer to cast while holding stuff btw, or do you intend to also overule that and force every caster to have a free hand for somatic components?

[Unicore]

I actually think that it is reasonable to believe that the original intent of the feat battle medicine was for it to require a free hand, because the manipulate trait originally called for a free hand.

However, it seems just as reasonable to believe that the developers made an active decision to remove that requirement from the default manipulate action and only went back and added it to the actions they felt required it for balance purposes and that letting battle medicine not require an open hand would keep it more balanced with magical healing and not be the clearly inferior option. It is their game, and while they make some mistakes, this rule does not actually destroy the fiction of the game anymore than the very concept of the feat, or the abstract nature of hit points, in the first place.

Right now the rules clearly say it is the second case by RAW, but if you are the GM and you hate it, house rule it.

[Data Lore]

I love how people see using Battle Medicine as equivalent to somatic spellcasting.

Lol