Battle Medicine - How Many Hands?


Rules Discussion

201 to 250 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It makes no sense to not likewise be avid about the amount of healing Battle Medicine does since it's, again, not clearly defined or ambiguous in what it grants.

It says "use this DC and heal a corresponding amount."

To suggest that the 'corresponding amount' is, in fact, meant to refer to something entirely unrelated and not the thing that's literally mentioned in the same sentence seems beyond nonsensical.

This isn't ambiguous RAW, it's chopping the sentence up into bits and ignoring half of it.


Nefreet wrote:

I read the section you bolded as an exception only for somatic casting.

Indeed, if you read it any other way, manipulate means nothing.

So then what about the Grab an Edge reaction? Do you consider it also an exception? Or do you require at least one hand empty to attempt?

How about the Point Out action, which also has the manipulate trait? Doesn't say anything about your hands being full or not. It just says you gesture.

Core Rule Book, page 472 wrote:

Requirements A creature is undetected by one or more of your allies but isn’t undetected by you.

You indicate a creature that you can see to one or more allies, gesturing in a direction and describing the distance verbally. That creature is hidden to your allies, rather than undetected (page 466). This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially detect the target. If your allies can’t hear or understand you, they must succeed at a Perception check against the creature’s Stealth DC or they misunderstand and believe the target is in a different location.

Do you require an empty hand to use the Point Out action or is it also an exception?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

With the obvious caveat that I am also still new to this Edition, like everyone here, and that I am unaware of whether there is another discussion about that particular ability, I read it as only an Exploration Mode activity, which is a different and unrelated activity compared to Battle Medicine, which is only an Encounter Mode activity.

Sovereign Court

Hiruma Kai wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I read the section you bolded as an exception only for somatic casting.

Indeed, if you read it any other way, manipulate means nothing.

So then what about the Grab an Edge reaction? Do you consider it also an exception? Or do you require at least one hand empty to attempt?

How about the Point Out action, which also has the manipulate trait? Doesn't say anything about your hands being full or not. It just says you gesture.

Core Rule Book, page 472 wrote:

Requirements A creature is undetected by one or more of your allies but isn’t undetected by you.

You indicate a creature that you can see to one or more allies, gesturing in a direction and describing the distance verbally. That creature is hidden to your allies, rather than undetected (page 466). This works only for allies who can see you and are in a position where they could potentially detect the target. If your allies can’t hear or understand you, they must succeed at a Perception check against the creature’s Stealth DC or they misunderstand and believe the target is in a different location.

Do you require an empty hand to use the Point Out action or is it also an exception?

Needing a free hand to grab an edge makes sense to me.

Since you can make (somatic) gestures with a sword in your hand, I'm fine with pointing out things by pointing my sword at them.

The clause about somatic components having Manipulate but also being possible while holding something is written specifically in the section on somatic components (p. 303), so I don't think it extends to every other action with the Manipulate trait automatically.

Although that does make Point Out a bit problematic, if you want to split hairs.


So I decided to look at Manipulate Traits and how they would work assuming you need a free hand to use them.

1. Cast a spell. We know somatic components are good but if you need material you do now have to get your hand free.

2. Activate an item only applies to interact so this one might be reasonable. As long as you don't have to hold it in one hand and still have a free hand to activate it.

3. Release If your hands are full then you can't drop anything to make a hand free.

4. Create a Diversion Not two bad since you can still do it verbally but no gesturing with full hands that just rude.

5. Interact Not to bad I think needing to have a hand free to grab something is reasonable but no opening a door or pushing buttons with full hands.

Those are the basic ones everyone might hit that have some issues.
So one of the main questions I see come up over all is do you need a free hand + a hand for each item you would have to hold or do you just need a free hand and it can hold the item(s) you are using with the check. That's really gonna make some rules get screwy with the first.

Also


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:


Needing a free hand to grab an edge makes sense to me.

Grab an Edge is a particular check.

You could even use the skill without having a free hand, believing in a critical success.

Not sure if you can release an hand for free in response to a Normal success ( in order to have a free hand to grab an edge ) or not.

If you are skilled, most of the time you will grab an edge with both hands occupi ed ( the DC doesn't scale with lvl, though particular environement effects could give you harder time ).


Talonhawke wrote:
5. Interact Not to bad I think needing to have a hand free to grab something is reasonable but no opening a door or pushing buttons with full hands.

Having recently moved from one apartment to another, I can contest that you're wrong here. You can absolutely pull open a door with your hands full.

What did I have in my hands?
Well, in my left I was carrying a keyboard, mouse, headphones, two ethernet cables, and my box of laundry detergent. In my right I was carrying a 21" monitor and cables.

The door I wanted to open was in an entry area that was square and only about as wide as the door itself (wedged in between two closets) and the door opened towards me. The door was also on an hydraulic system that keeps it closed.

You're damn right I hooked one finger over the lever-knob, depressed it, and pulled it just enough to hook my foot around the edge and get it the rest of the way open before I dropped the monitor.


I'm not saying you can't I'm saying if that these are the effects of Manipulate traits requiring you to have a free hand availble to use. I open doors with full hands all the time. I drop stuff from my full hands all the time but if I need a free hand to manipulate I can do neither.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Couldn't somebody grabbing an edge while falling potentially do so with their elbows, or perhaps stab down and hook themselves with the weapons in their hands?


Ravingdork wrote:
Couldn't somebody grabbing an edge while falling potentially do so with their elbows, or perhaps stab down and hook themselves with the weapons in their hands?

Quite, which is why you can do so with a critical success.

(A regular success indicates that you tried to, but ended up dropping the item, oops)

Which is why you're allowed to make the check with full hands as opposed to requiring a free hand.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Couldn't somebody grabbing an edge while falling potentially do so with their elbows, or perhaps stab down and hook themselves with the weapons in their hands?

I guess that's why it's possible to do without a free hand, but harder (need a crit).

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:

So I decided to look at Manipulate Traits and how they would work assuming you need a free hand to use them.

1. Cast a spell. We know somatic components are good but if you need material you do now have to get your hand free.

2. Activate an item only applies to interact so this one might be reasonable. As long as you don't have to hold it in one hand and still have a free hand to activate it.

3. Release If your hands are full then you can't drop anything to make a hand free.

4. Create a Diversion Not two bad since you can still do it verbally but no gesturing with full hands that just rude.

5. Interact Not to bad I think needing to have a hand free to grab something is reasonable but no opening a door or pushing buttons with full hands.

Those are the basic ones everyone might hit that have some issues.
So one of the main questions I see come up over all is do you need a free hand + a hand for each item you would have to hold or do you just need a free hand and it can hold the item(s) you are using with the check. That's really gonna make some rules get screwy with the first.

Also

The gist I'm getting from this is that for the Manipulate trait you need to actually have hands or something like it, and those hands must not be restrained. Whether the hand actually needs to be entirely free varies from activity to activity.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Gah. There's still no FAQ button.


Nefreet wrote:
Gah. There's still no FAQ button.

It's okay even if we had it it would probably be pretty far down the queue. And then another book would come out and 5 more manipulate hands threads but none would get enough clicks over investigator questions.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

The ironic thing is that PF2 focuses so heavily on handedness compared to PF1, and yet there's still the same amount of questions surrounding it.


Nefreet wrote:
The ironic thing is that PF2 focuses so heavily on handedness compared to PF1, and yet there's still the same amount of questions surrounding it.

That's always going to be the case when you purposefully design rules with GM oversight in mind. Paizo left room for GMs to make decisions based on what makes sense at their table. Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not.

No matter what, there will be room to argue about some mechanics though. Largely there is no one "correct" answer, only what makes sense at each of our tables.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It makes no sense to not likewise be avid about the amount of healing Battle Medicine does since it's, again, not clearly defined or ambiguous in what it grants.

It says "use this DC and heal a corresponding amount."

To suggest that the 'corresponding amount' is, in fact, meant to refer to something entirely unrelated and not the thing that's literally mentioned in the same sentence seems beyond nonsensical.

This isn't ambiguous RAW, it's chopping the sentence up into bits and ignoring half of it.

I don't think so as a correlation for what everyone else is saying, but it's still beyond-ambiguous RAI. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief in that it's done so fast by someone skilled in emergency medical treatment. It's fantasy after all, right?

I'm not fine with said person doing said healing without appropriate materials and while eating a bag of chip rations and drinking from a waterskin of bubbling soda, especially when one situation that mirrors it directly calls for it and another does not. After all, how are you healing someone with Battle Medicine with no healer's kit or free hands? I want an honest and serious answer here. Are you shouting at the wound and telling it to go away? Are you spitting on it? Smacking someone in the face with your wielded weapon and making the wound all of a sudden not matter by suffering a concussion? None of those work in my book, and usually make things worse based on modern medicinal treatments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
It makes no sense to not likewise be avid about the amount of healing Battle Medicine does since it's, again, not clearly defined or ambiguous in what it grants.

It says "use this DC and heal a corresponding amount."

To suggest that the 'corresponding amount' is, in fact, meant to refer to something entirely unrelated and not the thing that's literally mentioned in the same sentence seems beyond nonsensical.

This isn't ambiguous RAW, it's chopping the sentence up into bits and ignoring half of it.

I don't think so as a correlation for what everyone else is saying, but it's still beyond-ambiguous RAI. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief in that it's done so fast by someone skilled in emergency medical treatment. It's fantasy after all, right?

I'm not fine with said person doing said healing without appropriate materials and while eating a bag of chip rations and drinking from a waterskin of bubbling soda, especially when one situation that mirrors it directly calls for it and another does not. After all, how are you healing someone with Battle Medicine with no healer's kit or free hands? I want an honest and serious answer here. Are you shouting at the wound and telling it to go away? Are you spitting on it? Smacking someone in the face with your wielded weapon and making the wound all of a sudden not matter by suffering a concussion? None of those work in my book, and usually make things worse based on modern medicinal treatments.

As has been discussed previously in this thread, HP are an abstraction. Characters dont take damage to specific body parts, so why try to make a rule meant to treat an abstraction address specific wounds?

Battle medicine could be a quick application of pain meds, thrown directly down the receiving characters gullet. It could be a shout to get back in the action that gives the receiving character the will to soldier on. It could be steadying someone on their feet or a firm hand on their shoulder.

Perhaps you as the battle medicine trained character are so good at wrapping bandages you can do so without dropping an item. Perhaps because you stow it under your armpit and retrieve it all in one smooth motion.

You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want that makes sense to you. At the end of the day, it's an ability that let's a non-caster do rapid in combat healing so not every party needs a dedicated healer, and I think it's good for the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems simply to me.

Short answer

There is a skill feat which gives players the ability to expend 1 action, which also has the manipulate trait, to perform a treat wound on a target, even during combat. Daily cd.

The skill is meant to give an extra heal per day, and since it

- happens in 2 sec.
- Has the manipulate trait ( no item involved, since the skill doesn't even specify the healing kit ), so you could even wave your hand.

Between the two, the free hand or gesture would be the last of problems.

P2e is a 3 action system, and that is a feat which needs full investment in a skill and even a stat, to perform in the proper way ( and you are never 100% sure about the outcome ).

And remember it is

- 1 Heal per day per character.

- Melee reach.

- requires high proficiency in medicine, and also high wisdom to work in a proper way ( so 1 out of 3 skills you could increase will be necessarily medicine ).

- a trigger for AOO

To be honest, I can't even understand those who would like more realistic stuff in this specific circumstance.

- Medicine patches you up every 10 minutes and can refull any dying man as new in few hours.

- Magic is everywhere, and it is against any Law ( like jumping, falling from impossible heights, and so o ).

- Creatures, different world and planes, and whatever else could come in mind.

... but patching with a occupied hand is way too much ( while the fact it is in 2 seconds is perfectly Normal ).

Again, to me everything seems to point at something meant in terms of balance, even if it could have no sense in many ways.

...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I don't think so as a correlation for what everyone else is saying, but it's still beyond-ambiguous RAI. I'm fine with the suspension of disbelief in that it's done so fast by someone skilled in emergency medical treatment. It's fantasy after all, right?

I'm not fine with said person doing said healing without appropriate materials and while eating a bag of chip rations and drinking from a waterskin of bubbling soda, especially when one situation that mirrors it directly calls for it and another does not. After all, how are you healing someone with Battle Medicine with no healer's kit or free hands? I want an honest and serious answer here. Are you shouting at the wound and telling it to go away? Are you spitting on it? Smacking someone in the face with your wielded weapon and making the wound all of a sudden not matter by suffering a concussion? None of those work in my book, and usually make things worse based on modern medicinal treatments.

And that seems to be the heart of the matter. What meets the threshold of willing suspension of disbelief for one person does not meet a different person's threshold.

I'm perfectly willing to believe its an encouraging gesture. An up close, "come on" gesture, swinging your sword arm towards the enemies, implying you need to fight harder. The game already acknowledges grit and determination as a component of hit points. So that is my answer. You are of course free to disagree with that answer.

To turn it around though, could you describe an action under your interpretation of the rules (i.e. free hand, need healing kit), with a similarly specific case for me?

Say your fighter friend covered head to toe in steel full plate with helmet down, who just took mental damage from phantom pain. What is the action you're taking? Can't be bandages since you can't actually apply them through the armor. Besides, bandages seem in apporiate for mental damage. Can't be medicines since those take more time to act when taken orally. It also begs the question why can't you hand out medicine ahead of time, like potions. Can't give them an injection because full plate is again in the way.

In that kind of case, appealing to the target's grit and determination seems far more believable to me than some physical object that can't even contact the skin of your target without removing armor.


I think HumbleGamer nailed it there. We can (and have!) bicker and argue about just exactly WHERE the line between immersive and unrealistic is in this ridiculous fantasy game where people fly around and turn into dragons, but the actual point is:

Just play it however you want. The actual debate that matters is the one that happens at each table, if it even happens at all. Maybe at some point in the future Paizo will straighten this out, but until then, just call it like you see it and save a few keystrokes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

I think HumbleGamer nailed it there. We can (and have!) bicker and argue about just exactly WHERE the line between immersive and unrealistic is in this ridiculous fantasy game where people fly around and turn into dragons, but the actual point is:

Just play it however you want. The actual debate that matters is the one that happens at each table, if it even happens at all. Maybe at some point in the future Paizo will straighten this out, but until then, just call it like you see it and save a few keystrokes.

While I mostly agree that it is important to resolve this at each table, it is pretty important to understand the developers intention for the feat because game balance and preserving the fiction are two separate issues.

If I want to make battle medicine require two hands and healers tools, to match my vision of the fiction, it is important to know if the feat was balanced around that or not. If not, then I probably need to adjust some other aspect of the feat to account for spending 3 times as many actions to perform it.

Which is why some of us continue to argue that the rules as written support the intention that it not require tools or free hands. Because the ability quickly loses utility, to the point of uselessness for many characters, if it requires you to have two free hands and a tool kit to use.
Arguments that it should only require one free hand are very clearly already in the wheel house of homebrew fixes to create a balance between game balance and fiction, but to me, if the ability is supposed to work with no free hands, than even requiring one needs to be accompanied by some kind of boost to the feats usefulness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which is something that you will discuss with your GM and party members to find a consensus. 200+ posts of circular debates aren't going to help that much.

One-hand requirement seems to be middle ground, with the two-hand and no-hand extremists on each side. Figuring out where your table stands is up to you.

Personally, I think no hands or tools is how it is written, but I have a field medic ranger with a healing kit bandolier who uses a bow, so needing one free hand and tools isn't that big a deal. Two hands would be worse, but battle medicine isn't a main heal, it's an oh heck button, so it also wouldn't be the end of the world. But I and my gm are also reasonable, and 1 hand works for both of us (until potential clarification).


However, point was explained in the first sentence ( Shortly, follow the rules in terms of action management even if it could look somethibg strange to see )

Though I pointed put also what theservantsllceanup mentioned.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

Which is something that you will discuss with your GM and party members to find a consensus. 200+ posts of circular debates aren't going to help that much.

One-hand requirement seems to be middle ground, with the two-hand and no-hand extremists on each side. Figuring out where your table stands is up to you.

Grin, so I generally agree with you, but honestly, the only interpretation I don't see as valid given RAW is that it takes one hand... If you require a healer's kit, it's 2 hands, if you don't, it's 0 hands. Manipulate explicitly doesn't require hands. Shrug, honestly, as a GM, I'm going to not require any hands and be as permissive as I can, as a player, I'm just going to avoid this for now...


Quote:
Grin, so I generally agree with you, but honestly, the only interpretation I don't see as valid given RAW is that it takes one hand... If you require a healer's kit, it's 2 hands, if you don't, it's 0 hands.

I completely agree, but as we've seen this is a hotly debated topic and either RAW interpretation leaves plenty of people sour. Thus I think the logical thing is to hew to the middle ground.

There's a phenomenon called the "wisdom of the crowd", which shows that a large group of people attempting to answer a question will often converge towards the correct answer, on average.

In this case, if you average all the opinions in this thread, I would be surprised if requiring one hand wasn't very close to the average.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:
Quote:
Grin, so I generally agree with you, but honestly, the only interpretation I don't see as valid given RAW is that it takes one hand... If you require a healer's kit, it's 2 hands, if you don't, it's 0 hands.

I completely agree, but as we've seen this is a hotly debated topic and either RAW interpretation leaves plenty of people sour. Thus I think the logical thing is to hew to the middle ground.

There's a phenomenon called the "wisdom of the crowd", which shows that a large group of people attempting to answer a question will often converge towards the correct answer, on average.

In this case, if you average all the opinions in this thread, I would be surprised if requiring one hand wasn't very close to the average.

That's not how that phenomenon works though. It says that if you put a bunch of people in a room and ask them if the car they saw was blue or yellow, the most prevalent answer from the group will be the right one. It *does not* say that if you ask them and half say blue and the other half say yellow, that the correct answer is green...

Still, I understand the value in going with a solution that will make everyone a little bit unhappy (one of the definitions of compromise I believe). I like the one-handed solution, I just don't find any backing for it in the rules.


If we were dealing with a question that had a straightforward, objective answer, then yes. In a situation that requires interpretation, however, that's when the effect occurs.

Of course, I'm not saying it's a perfect example of the effect, I'm just invoking it to make the point that often, people converge on a consensus for a good reason.


This is not a thread for creating a house rule for how feats should work. It is for discussing how the feats presented in the book do work.

A request for Battle medicine to work with access to healer's tools and one free hand would require a fairly hefty errata, and beg the question about whether other tool requiring feats are going to be able to make use of "access to the tools" and what that means. It is very important that rules language remain consistent and simple.

On page 246 of the CRB, Identify Alchemy presents a possible language for requiring access to tools without requiring them taking up a hand. If the intention of Battle Medicine is to require access to healer's tools, this would be language I expect to see in the description of the action.
Or something more like quick alchemy on page 72.
In fact the exact wording of quick alchemy on page 72:

"You have alchemist’s tools (page 287), the formula for the alchemical item you’re creating, and a free hand."

Is exactly what I would have expected to see in Battle Medicine, if the intention of the feat were for it to work that way. An ability that also has the manipulate trait.

However, the exclusion of those terms: "Requirements: you have x tool and x free hands," is why it is so preposterous to me for anyone to assume that the feat has those requirements.

As far as I can see the issue, it seems like every other feat that allows you to take an action very similar to another action uses wording that tells you that your character is doing that action with the specified difference of the feat. However, Battle Medicine is very unique it how it does not do that. It only has two things in common with the treat wounds action: DC and healing amount.

In the long run, I am not sure if the game benefits from the level of detail that has gone into explicitly defining actions so closely with the number of hands required to use them, but that is definitely the route PF2 went, and because of that, it must be assumed that the abilities presented in the book are balanced around exactly what is stated in each ability.

If a change to Battle Medicine is made, then I hope it does so in a way that neither destroys the utility of the ability, nor opens up a can of confusion and doubt about how other skills and feats that utilize tools operate.

We played it with requiring no hands and no tools on our play through of Plague stone. The rogue battle medic was able to be our primary healer, and the wild shape druid was able to get by only memorizing one heal spell per day and feeling free to transform in combat without worry that it would result in the party's demise. We all had fun nd no one felt their game play was ruined because the rogue was dual wielding a rapier and a short sword and still keeping us on our feet.


I would like to point out that there may be many who do not state their opinion on here due to how devolved this conversation tends to get. I doubt you get the majority, just the loudest.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I added that much, I might as well tell how I run it. I require the healers tools. I also encouraged the bandolier. 1 action and 1 hand, but with the tools in a bandolier.


Kennethray wrote:

Since I added that much, I might as well tell how I run it. I require the healers tools. I also encouraged the bandolier. 1 action and 1 hand, but with the tools in a bandolier.

Since you require the healer's tools, would you give the battle medicine user the benefit of expanded healer's tools on the check? Despite Healer's tools not providing that bonus specifically?


@Kennethray

with your house rule, who uses Battle medicine in your party?
I ask because I wonder if some table discrepancy isn't happening because characters who were already going to be needing one hand free were the ones taking the feat.

Any requirement of hands or tools is especially punishing on shield using characters. Especially champions and non-good clerics who might have thought of battle medicine as a means of being a primary healer. It also would have killed my Fall of Plaguestone party because the druid was the only character who had a wisdom higher than 12 and she wanted to be in animal shape most of the time we were in combat. The rogue already spent far too many actions during comat drawing and sheathing weapons, or else gaining exhaustion from walking around with weapons drawn, and using stealth.

Personally, I don't think an Errata that just makes it require one hand and access to the tools will be enough to keep close enough magical healing to make it a reasonable option for more than 50% of characters. Why is it fine for clerics (especially heal clerics) to be able to hold a shield and heal all day, but then have this feat that makes you think you will be able to act as party healer, except that you will have to remain pretty much adjacent to your front line, but not have a shield, and only be able to use your healing ability once per character?


Unicore wrote:
The rogue already spent far too many actions during comat drawing and sheathing weapons, or else gaining exhaustion from walking around with weapons drawn, and using stealth.

I realize this is a side comment, but why does having weapons and shields being in hand and at the ready cause exhaustion during exploration? Having them in hand doesn't require an action every round.

For example, the Defend exploration activity by definition must have the shield equipped as well as use an action every turn to raise the shield, but doesn't result in exhaustion. And that is specifically to get the effects of Raising a Shield before your first turn in combat. Its not for simply having the shield equipped.

If the defend activity (shield equipped, Raise Shield every turn), having your weapons equipped while Avoiding notice shouldn't either (weapons equipped, Stealth every turn).

Unless this is a house rule?


Now that I think about it, that could have been from trying to treat wounds in various dungeons when we were set upon by dungeon monsters. He'd have to drop the healer's tools, and then pick up each weapon. If he had to have the tools to do battle medicine, it would have taken an extra action to put them away first or else be unable to move away from them.

EDIT: I just remember him having a lot of actions spent per combat having to drop and pick things up already and that was without battle medicine requiring a free hand.


To answer the questions, the party rogue who uses a buckler and the cleric uses the feat. Yes the expanded healers kit would add. They have had to free a hand to use it at times. There has not been any issue with it so far. The rogue has even gotten the godless healing to improve the healing.


So long as it's working, sounds like there's no problem. This is still yet another rule I'd like to see some clarity on however. It would be trivial to specify the number if hands required in an errata, or at least clarify the need/use of a healers kit.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:


While I mostly agree that it is important to resolve this at each table, it is pretty important to understand the developers intention for the feat because game balance and preserving the fiction are two separate issues.

You correctly state that it is pretty important to understand the developers intention. So what is your reply to the two bits of developers intention that we have:

a) the podcast - here a developer seems to hint 1 free hand, healers kit necessary, no extra action needed

b) the woring in the CRB for the description of the bandolier. Last sentence - I repeat it here: [A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.

I'm the first to agree that a podcast is not RAW and can be ignored.

The description of an item can also be regarded as fluff.

But in absence of an errata both are the closest we get to the developers intention. Mentioning actions during the exploration phase makes no sense. There is no benefit whatsoever to store healers tools in a bandolier, a sack or a backpack.

So here is my interpretation:

RAW: It is unclear if a Healers Tools is needed. The rules neither mentions explicitly you need one nor does it explicitly say it works without one.
RAW: The number of free hands needed is unclear. The feat does have the manipulate treat. But without knowing if a Healer's Tools is needed the answer of 0 or 2 depends on answering if the Healer's Tools are needed or not.
RAW: Owning a bandolier dedicated to Healer's Tools states that you can retrieve necessary items as part of your action using them but it doesn't specify the number of hands needed.

Developer Intentions: The pod cast seems to use 1 hand and Healer's Tools. The description of the bandolier in the CRB seems to imply that dedicating a bandolier to Healer's Tools gives you a benefit over other options (like storing it in you backpack). It also seems to imply that Healer's Tools can be used during the combat phase. The only sensible use of Healer's Tools in combat in the CRB I'm aware off is battle healing.

Using the podcast, the discussions here about the balance in game, balance of believability vs disbelief and listening to different arguments I personally think that the developers intentions are

a) Healer's Tools are needed for Battle Medicine
b) A bandoleer makes the otherwise useless feat (2 free hands needed, action economy dismal) feasible - as long as you have 1 hand free

So please let me know if there is any wording in the CRB, podcast, forums etc. that hints to developers intention that Healer's Tools are not needed. Such information could bring the whole discussion forward or change someone's mind.

The absence of some words in a rulebook hopefully but don't necessarily show intent. They might be intentionally but instead might be due to error, missed attention to detail or space saving.

Writing something without error, use of the wrong words etc. can be difficult. I reread my own text here a few times. I corrected numerous spellings and the use of Healer's Kit instead of Tools. But I'm sure it still is far away from the rigor needed for a rulebook or wish.


Quote:
it is pretty important to understand the developers intention

Not sure I agree with that. Since they haven't told us their intention, we can just go with whatever seems most fun.


Thod wrote:
Unicore wrote:


While I mostly agree that it is important to resolve this at each table, it is pretty important to understand the developers intention for the feat because game balance and preserving the fiction are two separate issues.

You correctly state that it is pretty important to understand the developers intention. So what is your reply to the two bits of developers intention that we have:

a) the podcast - here a developer seems to hint 1 free hand, healers kit necessary, no extra action needed

...

Actually... no. People have repeatedly said this, but the podcast said absolutely nothing about the number of hands required. It indicated a healer's kit was required and that you needed to use an interact action to retrieve that kit from the bandolier (which requires a hand or hands...) but could use the same action to use Battle Medicine. Using a healer's kit still requires 2 hands... just like if you were treating poison and had a healer's kit in a bandolier, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't need 2 hands for that action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Thod wrote:
Unicore wrote:


While I mostly agree that it is important to resolve this at each table, it is pretty important to understand the developers intention for the feat because game balance and preserving the fiction are two separate issues.

You correctly state that it is pretty important to understand the developers intention. So what is your reply to the two bits of developers intention that we have:

a) the podcast - here a developer seems to hint 1 free hand, healers kit necessary, no extra action needed

...

Actually... no. People have repeatedly said this, but the podcast said absolutely nothing about the number of hands required. It indicated a healer's kit was required and that you needed to use an interact action to retrieve that kit from the bandolier (which requires a hand or hands...) but could use the same action to use Battle Medicine. Using a healer's kit still requires 2 hands... just like if you were treating poison and had a healer's kit in a bandolier, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't need 2 hands for that action.

And said podcast is not official errata. Its little more than hearsay. It should be treated with the same level of "developer intent" as Paizo's own streamed games: a ruling made in the heat of the moment without regards to what the printed rules actually say, so that the table is not looking up rules mid-stream and arguing about it.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Thod wrote:
Unicore wrote:


While I mostly agree that it is important to resolve this at each table, it is pretty important to understand the developers intention for the feat because game balance and preserving the fiction are two separate issues.

You correctly state that it is pretty important to understand the developers intention. So what is your reply to the two bits of developers intention that we have:

a) the podcast - here a developer seems to hint 1 free hand, healers kit necessary, no extra action needed

...

Actually... no. People have repeatedly said this, but the podcast said absolutely nothing about the number of hands required. It indicated a healer's kit was required and that you needed to use an interact action to retrieve that kit from the bandolier (which requires a hand or hands...) but could use the same action to use Battle Medicine. Using a healer's kit still requires 2 hands... just like if you were treating poison and had a healer's kit in a bandolier, there's nothing to say that you wouldn't need 2 hands for that action.

There is, if you interpret that the Bandolier is the one holding your tools.

You would then just need one appropriate appendage to fulfill the Manipulate Trait of Battle Medicine.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Now that I think about it, that could have been from trying to treat wounds in various dungeons when we were set upon by dungeon monsters. He'd have to drop the healer's tools, and then pick up each weapon. If he had to have the tools to do battle medicine, it would have taken an extra action to put them away first or else be unable to move away from them.

This is how I ran my Rogue until the relevantly recent idea came around that you just needed one hand, rather than two.

If a clarification comes out that you do indeed need two hands, then people just go back to the way it used to be.

Some people argue here that it's "either 0 or 2". I'm of the opinion that it's "either 1 or 2".

Shadow Lodge

Kennethray wrote:
To answer the questions, the party rogue who uses a buckler and the cleric uses the feat. Yes the expanded healers kit would add. They have had to free a hand to use it at times. There has not been any issue with it so far. The rogue has even gotten the godless healing to improve the healing.

It's not clear how the feat is being used from your post, but I feel the need to point out that Godless Healing only improves the healing you receive, not the healing you might 'give' to other characters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thod wrote:


So please let me know if there is any wording in the CRB, podcast, forums etc. that hints to developers intention that Healer's Tools are not needed. Such information could bring the whole discussion forward or change someone's mind.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions. Taking the time to call out specific actions under the equipment description, in addition to specifying that those actions have a requirement: You have healer's tools , right under their names, while deliberately excluding Battle Medicine from either group, would indicate strong intention within the Rules as Written, that they cannot benefit from, nor possibly require healer's tools.


Unicore wrote:
Thod wrote:


So please let me know if there is any wording in the CRB, podcast, forums etc. that hints to developers intention that Healer's Tools are not needed. Such information could bring the whole discussion forward or change someone's mind.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions. Taking the time to call out specific actions under the equipment description, in addition to specifying that those actions have a requirement: You have healer's tools , right under their names, while deliberately excluding Battle Medicine from either group, would indicate strong intention within the Rules as Written, that they cannot benefit from, nor possibly require healer's tools.

Yep and even though people keep bringing up Healer's tools and 1hand as an option that doesn't work out since nothing I can see actually lets you use less hands just because you have a bandoleer. Less actions sure but not less hands.


Unicore wrote:
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions.

And a lot of people think they left this out by accident. Mistakes happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Unicore wrote:
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions.
And a lot of people think they left this out by accident. Mistakes happen.

Except that until errata comes out, the text is not there, and other text tells us that requirements (such as hands or tools) are always spelled out, so the lack of such a requirement means that there are in fact, no requirements.

That is, you're inserting requirements where none exist.

The only way you (the reader) can convince me that those requirements do exist is either:

a) I am a player and you are a GM at your table. This is called a "house rule."
b) You show me an errata document indicating that the text has changed

In the absence of both A and B, you can't convince me that hands or tools are required.


And it would be a mistake made in two separate places.


Draco18s wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Unicore wrote:
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, the rules themselves are extremely explicit about what actions a healer's tools is used for and Battle Medicine is not one of those actions.
And a lot of people think they left this out by accident. Mistakes happen.

Except that until errata comes out, the text is not there, and other text tells us that requirements (such as hands or tools) are always spelled out, so the lack of such a requirement means that there are in fact, no requirements.

That is, you're inserting requirements where none exist.

The only way you (the reader) can convince me that those requirements do exist is either:

a) I am a player and you are a GM at your table. This is called a "house rule."
b) You show me an errata document indicating that the text has changed

In the absence of both A and B, you can't convince me that hands or tools are required.

Traits are always spelled out. # of Hands and Tools are not Traits.

201 to 250 of 407 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Battle Medicine - How Many Hands? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.