#5, then?
Oh! A red herring!
I hear they make great sushi.
#5, then?
The lack of addressing something in an errata or FAQ does not mean it's okay as is
Anyone who's worked with developing an FAQ or errata knows this to be true. Same goes for Playtest options that missed editing before the final publication.
True but again like random rulings from podcast we can't know the official stance until it's published/clarified and in the meantime games will still be running.
They are closed tomorrow for New Year's, per RAW.
I think that just means closed during business hours. So they'll probably be there after 6pm. :)
Then they have failed.
I think the biggest problem is that it's an approach that only takes you so far.
This thread is a good example. We have people on the first page passionately arguing that it's "only common sense" that the feat requires two hands to use, because from their perspective it's the most realistic and therefore reasonable interpretation.
And then you have other users (like me) who find nothing sensical at all about that ruling, because it makes the feat ridiculously clunky to use and isn't consistent with the text of the rules at all.
That's the problem with trying to craft rules around that principle, because 'common sense' isn't a hard concept and is going to vary from person to person. That can be fine if you only play with one group of people and settle on common rules, but if you're playing a format like Society or play with multiple GMs it can be exhausting to essentially re-litigate the same idea over and over in the name of 'common sense.'
... Doesn't really help that on the internet the phrase 'common sense' is used more often as a way to throw shade at people who disagree with you than anything else (as page 1 of this thread shows pretty well).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Impressive thread. It seems we have reached the limits of language itself. Unfortunately philosophers haven't managed to agree on where that is.
“The limits of my language means the limits of my world” said Wittgenstein.
But Nietzsche would not have agreed, saying: "The various languages placed side by side show that with words it is never a question of truth, never a question of adequate expression; otherwise, there would not be so many languages. The 'thing in itself' (which is precisely what the pure truth, apart from any of its consequences, would be) is likewise something quite incomprehensible to the creator of language and something not in the least worth striving for."
Freud get's the last laugh however, with "Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity"
nothing sensical at all about that ruling
If it requires hands, that's a terrible ruling that ignores the text and makes the feat a complete waste of space.
If it requires no hands, that's a terrible ruling that makes no sense. How can you perform a medical procedure without using your hands?
Therefore any opinion I have on this subject demonstrates that I have a complete lack of common sense.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The CRB is surprisingly concise in regard to the use of hands and manipulate. The question hands or no hands boils down to a) does battle medicine involve physical interaction (free hand needed) or b) is battle medicine a gesture (no free hands needed).
I find it interesting how often I heard by now - no hands mentioned - no hands needed. It was mentioned several times that Battle Medicine has the manipulate trait. So the question therefore becomes – how does manipulate and hands (free hands) work. I took some time and looked up manipulate in the CRB.
When I said I took some time then I mean I looked at the 124 mentions of the word manipulate to form an opinion what the CRB truly means when using manipulate.
First: all over the book manipulate is connected to hands. At least 5 spells mention explicit: You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions. while one mentions the opposite It can’t cast spells, activate items, or use actions that have the attack or manipulate trait.
There are other mentions that relate to hands as in Manacles, the grappled and restrained condition.
So I hope this establishes that for the manipulate trait you need hands. I ignore at this stage some other suitable appendixes. as this is mainly left to the GM to decide. Manual dexterity explicitly deals with this if you are a familiar, dragon form, elemental form explicitly deal with this in the spell description to ensure the GM isn’t deciding against you when you are supposed to be able to use manipulate.
Now that we have established hands are needed we need to attack the next question”: when is a free hand needed?
Spells are straight-forward. If it involves something physical, then it needs a free hand. The material trait or a focus both needs a free hand (well - in case of the focus it is ok if you already hold the focus). Somatic aka gestures can be done without a free hand. Verbal has no manipulate trait and therefore can be done without hands.
This leads to actions chapter 9. Interact explicitly names a free hand. Release that you already hold the item in your hand. Grab an edge was pointed out as special. You also need a free hand for a success, but critical success allows you to do it without a free hand. Affixing a talisman even needs 2 hands.
There is one exemption - Point out doesn't mention a hand. Well - if you are as old as I'm then you might remember that a pointer at school looked more or less like a spear. Having something long in you hand might actually improve the point out action. We also could argue if pointing out is a gesture. Either way – no free hand needed.
So far it looks pretty solid how the rules deal with manipulate, hands and free hands.
This leads to actions described in chapter 5 under skills and feats. There are 17 !! skills and feats listed in this chapter. Only a single of these mentions hands. This is repair which needs a stable surface, a repair kit and 2 hands. Good luck to do this during battle.
Administer first aid, treat disease, treat poison and treat wounds do not mention hands. Some argue that the requirement You have healer’s tools is enough - and I'm not arguing this. But I wanted to point out – not adding explicit text for hands is the default in how skill actions and feats are described.
So how far did we get:
a) manipulate means hands
b) gestures can be done with hand occupied
c) otherwise if there is physical interaction you need a free hand or the item in that hand in chapter 9.
This leads to 2 options – can all skills/feats in chapter 5 with manipulate be done without free hands by RAW – or did Paizo think it being unnecessary to specify hands?
Let us investigate the argument – no hands mentioned – no hands needed. This leads to interesting outcomes for actions under thievery. Disable device says Some devices require you to use thieves’ tools. So RAW - do I need hands when I don't need thieves tools?
Pick a lock is another beauty. It says You have thieves’ tools but it allows you to use improvised thieves tools. Improvised thieves tools have no listed stats. Can I open a lock without hands at a -2 - claiming improvised thieves tools which don't need hands?
And the final beauty: Pick Pocket does neither list hands nor tools and not even that you have to be adjacent. Just steal an item that is worn / doesn't indicate hand usage and you do it from distance with a stern glance (insert /s tag here).
My interpretation – if you rule that not explicitly mentioning hands means it is like a gesture and no free hands needed for battle medicine, then you can pick pocket from a distance without hands free as no hands are mentioned either and to top it off – pick pocket doesn’t mention being adjacent either – which battle medicine does.
On the other hand – if all of these actions need a free hand then battle medicine needs one as well. Keep in mind – the only exemption so far was spells (gesture), pointing out and grab and edge (where a free hand is mentioned but critical success overrules it).
Are there any other exemptions out of the 124 mentions of manipulate? We have the Quaking Stomp feat that has the manipulate trait. I would argue that the suitable appendix in this case is a free feet and not a free hand. I guess Paizo trusts us GMs enough that we can make this ruling without explicitly writing down that a free foot is needed.
There are 2 or 3 other instances where it is left up to the GM to decide.
Let me know if I missed anything? Here is my spreadsheet that I generated. I didn't annotate every occurrence and I deleted duplication.
In my view the manipulate trait is surprisingly concise in the CRB in RAI as well as RAW. If I have a criticism – you need to start reading chapter 7 (spells) and 9 (playing the game) before interpreting the lack of explicitly mentioning hands in chapter 3-5. And yes - it seems deliberate that they don't mention hands in chapters 3-5 as it seems to generate unnecessary clutter and more difficulty to read the text. Alas this leads to discussions like this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I said I took some time then I mean I looked at the 124 mentions of the word manipulate to form an opinion what the CRB truly means when using manipulate.
Yeah, we covered this. You apparently missed (or more likely, have chosen to ignore) all the places where something is tagged with Manipulate and does not actually require a free hand (like dropping an item). Or that spell casting Manipulate actions can be done with hands full (it is only Focus and Material components that require a free hand: if and only if the component is not already in your hand).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I said I took some time then I mean I looked at the 124 mentions of the word manipulate to form an opinion what the CRB truly means when using manipulate.Yeah, we covered this. You apparently missed (or more likely, have chosen to ignore) all the places where something is tagged with Manipulate and does not actually require a free hand (like dropping an item). Or that spell casting Manipulate actions can be done with hands full (it is only Focus and Material components that require a free hand: if and only if the component is not already in your hand).
I did not ignore these - my text was long enough as it is. Yes in general if you interact with something and you already have it in your hand then you no longer have a free hand - but I felt I don't need to point that out.
You can do Treat Wounds (2 hands) without free hands if you already have healing tools in your hands. You don't need to put them down, get free hands - and take them up again. RAW it doesn't actually tell you that this is possible - but any other interpretation is ludicrous.
And I deal with spell casting in detail. The question is glass half empty or half full.
Do you describe it as - you can always cast with hands full unless it has the manipulate trait and material/focus trait.
or
You can never cast with full hands if it has the manipulate trait - unless it is somatic only.
Adding verbal or other bits into it that have no manipulate is just adding red herrings.
The real question though is whether it is clean design to require analyzing hundreds of examples of how the trait is used to understand its intent. My answer is no, and if the manipulate tag inherently is supposed to require a free hand unless the specific ability says so, that needs to be clearly stated in the trait, which it currently is not.
I still maintain that as currently written, the trait eludes to the assumption that you have hands and arms and are capable of moving them, but any further stipulation of how they are used needs to be defined by the action itself. That leaves battle medicine looking like a no free hands (not no hands) action. If this is not the case, then the errata change should be made to the manipulate trait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Thod did mention those two exact scenarios.
"This leads to actions chapter 9. Interact explicitly names a free hand. Release (requires) that you already hold the item in your hand. Grab an edge was pointed out as special. You also need a free hand for a success, but critical success allows you to do it without a free hand. Affixing a talisman even needs 2 hands."
"Spells are straight-forward. If it involves something physical, then it needs a free hand. The material trait or a focus both needs a free hand (well - in case of the focus it is ok if you already hold the focus). Somatic aka gestures can be done without a free hand. Verbal has no manipulate trait and therefore can be done without hands."
Edit: Thod beat me a response, apologies.
I'm sorry you're right, you did touch on those.
But I'm still not sure how you got from there to "obviously battle medicine requires free hand(s)."
Oh also:
This leads to actions described in chapter 5 under skills and feats. There are 17 !! skills and feats listed in this chapter. Only a single of these mentions hands. This is repair which needs a stable surface, a repair kit and 2 hands. Good luck to do this during battle.
And now you know why Legendary Quick Repair is useless. How would you like Battle Medicine to be this useless?
The real question though is whether it is clean design to require analyzing hundreds of examples of how the trait is used to understand its intent. My answer is no, and if the manipulate tag inherently is supposed to require a free hand unless the specific ability says so, that needs to be clearly stated in the trait, which it currently is not.
I still maintain that as currently written, the trait eludes to the assumption that you have hands and arms and are capable of moving them, but any further stipulation of how they are used needs to be defined by the action itself. That leaves battle medicine looking like a no free hands (not no hands) action. If this is not the case, then the errata change should be made to the manipulate trait.
Exactly this is the issue that arises if its a case by case basis. Table variation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that you have to analyse 100 of pages and instances first.
The rules - in the most basic form - have the interact action.
INTERACT [one-action]
MANIPULATE
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the
terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a
door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt
a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
Battle medicine in it's most basic is an interact. You (the player using battle medicine) interacts with a player who is wounded. There is a skill check involved. You have to be adjacent.
Why does the above not say 'free hand'. Because a hand becomes no longer free once you use the hand. Be it that it grabs a door handle - be it that it patches up a wound.
Here again the manipulate trait as in the rules:
manipulate (trait) You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.
It has to leave leeway for interpretation as sometimes other appendices might be suitable. Drop a dagger you have between your teeth? I don't see a problem with that. But you might need a hand to put it back between your teeth.
Maybe the problem arises from 'free' and Paizo should have used 'dedicated'. But maybe that would just cause different problems. What they clearly tried to do is to prevent double dipping. Apart of gestures they don't allow a double dip to use a hand twice for different purposes.
Back to my long post - if battle medicine is a gesture - go ahead and I agree it doesn't need a free hand. If it is physical then all other examples use the hand for that purpose only which means it is either free or holds items that are beneficial (like bandages).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real question though is whether it is clean design to require analyzing hundreds of examples of how the trait is used to understand its intent. My answer is no, and if the manipulate tag inherently is supposed to require a free hand unless the specific ability says so, that needs to be clearly stated in the trait, which it currently is not.
I still maintain that as currently written, the trait eludes to the assumption that you have hands and arms and are capable of moving them, but any further stipulation of how they are used needs to be defined by the action itself. That leaves battle medicine looking like a no free hands (not no hands) action. If this is not the case, then the errata change should be made to the manipulate trait.
Correct - no free hands if you have bandages / medicine tools in them :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct - no free hands if you have bandages / medicine tools in them :)The real question though is whether it is clean design to require analyzing hundreds of examples of how the trait is used to understand its intent. My answer is no, and if the manipulate tag inherently is supposed to require a free hand unless the specific ability says so, that needs to be clearly stated in the trait, which it currently is not.
I still maintain that as currently written, the trait eludes to the assumption that you have hands and arms and are capable of moving them, but any further stipulation of how they are used needs to be defined by the action itself. That leaves battle medicine looking like a no free hands (not no hands) action. If this is not the case, then the errata change should be made to the manipulate trait.
Except the action explicitly cannot benefit from using healer's tools, so having those items in your hand would prevent you from being able to complete the action, IF a free hand was required to complete the action.
It is a logical fallacy to compare the action for Battle Medicine to the Interact action, the only thing these two actions have in common is the manipulate trait and no where is there any indication that Battle Medicine would be a subset of the interact action, because that kind of hierarchy does not exist in the PF2 system.
All of this boils down to the question of what is the purpose of the Manipulate trait?
If, at its core, that trait is meant to mean "requires a free hand unless the specific action says otherwise," then that text (or something very close to it) needs to be added as errata.
Without that addition, the trait states that actions that have it require hands, but not that the hands be empty at the start of the action. This is unintuitive for many people because there are other actions in the game that feel absurd to require an action, and that confusion is reasonable. Why could I temporarily balance my sword against my leg, or under my arm, to complete the battle medicine action, but have to spend an action to regrip a two-handed weapon after freeing a hand to interact with a door?
A. Because the actions are balanced around game play effectiveness, not the logic of real life applications. (Can anyone dress a wound in two seconds regardless of what is in their hands?)
B. It is possible that most of the text for Battle Medicine was written when the Manipulate trait did require a free hand.
However, if the case is B, it is important to remember that spell casting required a free hand at that time as well, and thus all the balance issues around Battle Medicine as an in combat healing ability comparable to spell casting are immensely complicated by leaving the feat the same, but adding a requirement of hand usage removed from spell casting.
So the real, real question at this point, is why has there been such an extended silence from the developers on this issue?
They might be waiting to see how most table interpret the rule as it is written, and how much it interferes with players imagining how they are using the ability (if they are doing it without requiring a free hand), or if it is interfering with the ability from being used, because, if it requires healer's tools and two free hands, it is pretty much a feat that should have been moved to the monk class list, since they are the only ones reasonably able to use it in combat situations.
But speculating about a lack of clarification is probably not what most people come to these
boards to do. Right now, the rules are written in specific ways.
Some people read them and think the name of the ability itself should make it clear that the action involves using bandages to set peoples wounds. Any further interpretation of the rules needs to explain how that is happening.
Some people look at the ability as "Non-magical in combat healing" and assume that gameplay and balance are the primary concerns, while the descriptive text is mostly there for narrative flavor.
Ideally, it would be nice if the way the rules are written could see the two sides fit together, however, a compromised position is not necessarily the way to accomplish that, and could instead push both sides away.
Narratively, why does it make sense for the action to be possible at all?
Mechanically, how do you add requirements that include using a two-handed tool (essentially defining the character as a heal-bot, or monk that can effectively kick foes), that doesn't result in the ability massively overpowering magical healing?
Edited: I broke the discussion of the manipulate trait out into its own thread so that maybe that specific aspect of the conversation can catch new eyes, receive consideration outside of just how it relates to one specific feat, since it is a larger issue affecting the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not be upset with a dev commentary.
But I don't let people battle medicine with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. What are they doing, if their hands are full?
well, according to the manipulate trait, you are doing something with your hands, whether they have to be free or not, and Battle medicine doesn't have the auditory trait, so it doesn't seem like you are communicating anything to another person. But what are you doing in 2 seconds with any "right thing" in your hand that is not magic is uncertain to me.
It seems like if it was going to be "stern glance" it should probably have the gaze trait or otherwise specify that the target can see you when it happens.
Maybe it should be renamed "nudge of restoration" and the descriptive text can specify that with a gentle shove you are reinvigorated and ready for combat again?
Using their knowledge to give you a morale boost, or reminding you of the importance of the task at hand, or even just leading by example are some possible options. Hit points are not just meat, but also a collection of spirit and luck and skill.I would not be upset with a dev commentary.
But I don't let people battle medicine with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. What are they doing, if their hands are full?
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit? I can just imagine the resting conversations now...
"Okay folks, we're resting for the night, we're out of healing spells and potions, and the fighter got yelled at so hard that he's crying so he can't fight anymore."
But I don't let people battle medicine with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. What are they doing, if their hands are full?
Perhaps your shoulder has been dislodged by an enemy hit but a friendly shield bash using just the right angle will set that straight again? ;)
Jokes aside: Once hit points are seen as an abstraction and not as the overall life force of any single being then "restoring combat capability in combat without using magic" could literally be anything.
From yelling at your friend to help him overcome his dizzyness after a stunning blow to an actual pommel strike to make a bend and locked armour joint pivoting again or cutting some dislodged armour parts lose.
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit?
Other games have a concept called "grit" rather than hit points, and while gets described as a measure of one's ability to keep fighting and encapsulates nebulous things like like ("lucky that was a glancing blow!") to actual injuries to moral.
|
|
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit?Other games have a concept called "grit" rather than hit points, and while gets described as a measure of one's ability to keep fighting and encapsulates nebulous things like like ("lucky that was a glancing blow!") to actual injuries to moral.
My question then is - can you do battle medicine while under the effect of silence (while still having no free hands)?
Can you do battle medicine in darkness (without darkvision but also without free hands)?
|
|
well, according to the manipulate trait, you are doing something with your hands, whether they have to be free or not, and Battle medicine doesn't have the auditory trait, so it doesn't seem like you are communicating anything to another person. But what are you doing in 2 seconds with any "right thing" in your hand that is not magic is uncertain to me.
It seems like if it was going to be "stern glance" it should probably have the gaze trait or otherwise specify that the target can see you when it happens.
Maybe it should be renamed "nudge of restoration" and the descriptive text can specify that with a gentle shove you are reinvigorated and ready for combat again?
As mentioned above - both interpretation would also mean you suddenly can't do battle medicine while under the effect of silence or in darkness.
The stern glance would mean a dwarf can't do battle medicine on a human while in darkness as the human won't notice the battle medicine.
What if the recipient of the battle medicine is blinded or deafened. What happens now with the free hands. This is just a rabbit hole I wouldn't want to investigate.
Your nudge of restoration might be a good idea for some feat at some stage - but it then should replace the manipulate with somatic and verbal. So it would free up your hands - but there might be other (less common) circumstances when it won't work.
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit?Other games have a concept called "grit" rather than hit points, and while gets described as a measure of one's ability to keep fighting and encapsulates nebulous things like like ("lucky that was a glancing blow!") to actual injuries to moral.My question then is - can you do battle medicine while under the effect of silence (while still having no free hands)?
Can you do battle medicine in darkness (without darkvision but also without free hands)?
To 1: Sure, why not?
To 2: Depends on what state their ally is in at the time. If undetected for whatever reason, then perhaps not since it is difficult to interact with something you are unaware of.
Can I justify any of that with out of the book rules? Nope. Battle Medicine is just vague enough to allow for any of the interpretations present in this thread to be valid for varied reasons.
The crowd that wants to require 2 hands and a Healer's Kit are perfectly allowed to do so.
I prefer a more "gamey" version that addresses game flow better. But I also tend to run more frenetic combats where my players may not have the actions to drop/sheath weapons to perform battle medicine. It is more or less a concession to game logic over common sense. I have no problem accepting that since it is happening in a world that allows a human being to leap 75 feat in a go (in reference to the Cloud Jump thread) without any magical assistance.
My advice is to discuss the issue with your players and run it the way you all agree it should be run until such a time as Errata addresses the issue. Even then, you are well within your rights to ignore any given errata and run the rule however you wish, or omit it entirely.
But I do not believe that there is one "correct" way of interpreting this rule as it stands. Instead it needs to be addressed on a per table basis.
If battle medicine explicitly required healer’s tools and 2 hands and was clearly defined as applying bandages to an open wound with lightning speed, it would still probably be fair to apply a circumstance penalty to attempt the action in the dark or the radius of a silence spell, and especially in the presence of both, at least if the character was accustom to using their senses of sight and hearing to accomplish tasks.
This is certainly getting over legislative beyond the realm of common sense, but my main take away from this conversation is that the manipulate trait essentially serves no clear mechanical purpose when it is attached to actions as diverse as battle medicine, point out, release and interact. But I’ll focus that discussion into the manipulate thread.
For the purpose of assigning number of hands to battle medicine, the manipulate trait itself is not a clear or definitive measure.
My question then is - can you do battle medicine while under the effect of silence (while still having no free hands)?
It doesn't have the auditory trait, so yes.
Can you do battle medicine in darkness (without darkvision but also without free hands)?
It doesn't have the visual trait, so yes (assuming you know where your ally is).
Again, I've never said that my interpretation does not lack verisimilitude. I've simply stated that "it does not say 'requires: at least one free hand' or 'requires: healer's kit.' Therefore it does not require those things."
(So yes, I would also say that pick pocketting also does not require a free hand, nor being adjacent to the target, and I'm mostly OK with this, as Sethra Lavode once did a dagger swap on a target while both holding a glass of wine and not getting within more than ten feet of the guy, and oh yeah, the dagger she put on the guy was one that if it comes unsheathed, everyone within 100 yards would know it because it wants to EAT YOUR SOUL. Maybe magic was involved, who knows, she's a 10,000 year old vampire).
Pick a lock is another beauty. It says You have thieves’ tools but it allows you to use improvised thieves tools. Improvised thieves tools have no listed stats. Can I open a lock without hands at a -2 - claiming improvised thieves tools which don't need hands?
I'm pretty sure improvised thieves' tools are thieves' tools with the shoddy modifier or type, and thus have well defined statistics. That is the reason you're applying a -2 penalty, no? If they have no listed stats, why are you applying a -2 penalty?
If you lack the proper tools, the GM might let you used improvised picks, which are treated as shoddy tools, depending on the specifics of the lock.
Improvised or of dubious make, shoddy items are never available for purchase except for in the most desperate of communities. When available, a shoddy item usually costs half the Price of a standard item, though you can never sell one in any case. Attacks and checks involving a shoddy item take a –2 item penalty. This penalty also applies to any DCs that a shoddy item applies to (such as AC, for shoddy armor). A shoddy suit of armor also worsens the armor’s check penalty by 2. A shoddy item’s Hit Points and Broken Threshold are each half that of a normal item of its type.
To me, a shoddy item must take on the statistics of the base item, modified by the shoddy rules. And thus shoddy thieves' tools take 2 hands.
Let us investigate the argument – no hands mentioned – no hands needed. This leads to interesting outcomes for actions under thievery. Disable device says Some devices require you to use thieves’ tools. So RAW - do I need hands when I don't need thieves tools?
If the GM is ruling you don't need thieves' tools in the first place, then perhaps you don't. Can you give us examples of what kind of devices don't need thieves tools to disable and then we can give you an answer under the assumption we were the GM running that situation. I mean, devices which don't need thieves tools are already in the realm of GM call. Is there a list somewhere I missed?
To give an example, lets say the party is trying to disable a trebuchet. Its a huge wooden thing with probably hundreds of hit points. You wouldn't use thieves' tools to disable it. But using a two-handed sword to cut the rope used to reset it would work. Or potentially even taking a whack the end of the pivot joint with a heavy two handed mace to knock it out of place, falling. The wood is still good or replacement rope can fix it, but its temporarily disabled without totally destroying it. In both of those cases, your hands are full with weapons.
And the final beauty: Pick Pocket does neither list hands nor tools and not even that you have to be adjacent. Just steal an item that is worn / doesn't indicate hand usage and you do it from distance with a stern glance (insert /s tag here).
Isn't the term "cutpurse" literally come from cutting the purse holding the valuables, catching them, and then walking off? Seems like something you would do with a dagger in one hand and a bag (perhaps a nondescript shopping bag) to catch the purse in the other, which would mean no free hands.
As for the adjacent, that is GM's call as usual. I'd generally allow it within your natural reach personally. For example, a large giant could pick pocket a huge giant 10 feet away for example.
I vaguely remember seeing a movie or show where someone lowered a rope or string down from above with a loop and hooked it onto keys at the waist of a sleeping guard, and then pulled the keys back up. Again, totally up to GM if that works, but I could certainly see a thievery check being used there. Certainly would be a non-adjacent pick pocket attempt outside of your natural reach.
Anyways, those are some counter examples I'd probably allow as a GM of characters with their hands full performing those actions.
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit?Other games have a concept called "grit" rather than hit points, and while gets described as a measure of one's ability to keep fighting and encapsulates nebulous things like like ("lucky that was a glancing blow!") to actual injuries to moral.My question then is - can you do battle medicine while under the effect of silence (while still having no free hands)?
Can you do battle medicine in darkness (without darkvision but also without free hands)?
Per the RAW, yes to 1 without question. It doesn't have an Auditory trait, so it can be done (and its effects taking place) in an area of silence. As for the second question, it depends on if you can still perceive your target. If you couldn't normally see the target, I'd probably permit a Seek action (if within range) followed by maybe a miss chance if you're trying to Battle Medic a target you can't see.
Then how can we call it "hit points" if it's not a representation of being hit?Other games have a concept called "grit" rather than hit points, and while gets described as a measure of one's ability to keep fighting and encapsulates nebulous things like like ("lucky that was a glancing blow!") to actual injuries to moral.
Last I checked, we're not playing a system with "Grit Points," and even back in the previous edition, "Grit Points" had a whole different meaning and application (lolzgunslinger). So unless we're talking PF1 Gunslingers, this is as relevant as Credits or Gil.
Last I checked, we're not playing a system with "Grit Points," and even back in the previous edition, "Grit Points" had a whole different meaning and application (lolzgunslinger). So unless we're talking PF1 Gunslingers, this is as relevant as Credits or Gil.
Perhaps they should have been called heroic drive points instead of hit points.
All creatures and objects have Hit Points (HP). Your maximum Hit Point value represents your health, wherewithal, and heroic drive when you are in good health and rested.
Although I suppose the term hero points was already taken and probably would have been too much of a change in nomenclature.
I'd be very interested in your view on temporary hit points, given your statement on hit points. What is the opposite of damage when your character is already at full health?
Is a barbarian who takes damage, absorbs it all with temporary hit points, and then comes out of rage, with all their hit points intact, injured in your view? No medical attention is required, they don't need to rest and heal. So what does the loss of those temporary hit points represent on a successful sword strike?
Last I checked, we're not playing a system with "Grit Points," and even back in the previous edition, "Grit Points" had a whole different meaning and application (lolzgunslinger). So unless we're talking PF1 Gunslingers, this is as relevant as Credits or Gil.Perhaps they should have been called heroic drive points instead of hit points.
All creatures and objects have Hit Points (HP). Your maximum Hit Point value represents your health, wherewithal, and heroic drive when you are in good health and rested.Although I suppose the term hero points was already taken and probably would have been too much of a change in nomenclature.
I'd be very interested in your view on temporary hit points, given your statement on hit points. What is the opposite of damage when your character is already at full health?
Is a barbarian who takes damage, absorbs it all with temporary hit points, and then comes out of rage, with all their hit points intact, injured in your view? No medical attention is required, they don't need to rest and heal. So what does the loss of those temporary hit points represent on a successful sword strike?
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.
As for the opposition, I'd refer to it as over-exceptional fortitude. A raging barbarian can probably take a stab or two more than usual, either due to his bulked-up brutality or increased mental state, a wizard with false life can have infused energy spill out instead of blood.
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.
I don't really get what purpose this deliberately obtuse thing you're doing serves.
I don't really get what purpose this deliberately obtuse thing you're doing serves.
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.
This implies everything has to serve a purpose. Sometimes people do things for no reason or purpose at all, just to do it. Welcome to Chaotic alignment.
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.
I always wondered what the main ingredient was in healing potions. No wonder they are so expensive. You are literally drinking gold pieces. :)
As for the opposition, I'd refer to it as over-exceptional fortitude. A raging barbarian can probably take a stab or two more than usual, either due to his bulked-up brutality or increased mental state, a wizard with false life can have infused energy spill out instead of blood.
So you're OK with describing temporary hit points as sometimes being related to state of mind (i.e. extra brutal mood) or mental state in general, but not normal hit points?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.I always wondered what the main ingredient was in healing potions. No wonder they are so expensive. You are literally drinking gold pieces. :)
As for the opposition, I'd refer to it as over-exceptional fortitude. A raging barbarian can probably take a stab or two more than usual, either due to his bulked-up brutality or increased mental state, a wizard with false life can have infused energy spill out instead of blood.So you're OK with describing temporary hit points as sometimes being related to state of mind (i.e. extra brutal mood) or mental state in general, but not normal hit points?
I mean, it worked for Magic Johnson in South Park right? (I'll see myself out)
I saw that description. It also refers to wherewithal, which is usually a monetary thing. Who says money can't heal? Your fighter injured? Throw him a $20, he'll be fine.I always wondered what the main ingredient was in healing potions. No wonder they are so expensive. You are literally drinking gold pieces. :)
As for the opposition, I'd refer to it as over-exceptional fortitude. A raging barbarian can probably take a stab or two more than usual, either due to his bulked-up brutality or increased mental state, a wizard with false life can have infused energy spill out instead of blood.So you're OK with describing temporary hit points as sometimes being related to state of mind (i.e. extra brutal mood) or mental state in general, but not normal hit points?
To be fair, that's basically exactly what healing potions and elixirs are, liquid money that is pretty worthless unless you don't have a healing spellcaster in your party, but even then they're too clunky and risky for in-combat usage.
For starters, running out of temporary hit points doesn't put you at dying unless you're already at 0 (in which case, you can't actually give yourself temporary hit points and it's a fringe case that can't actually come up in actual play), so the manner of which you lose all your temporary hit points doesn't come into play.
Secondly, as I described above, it depends on how you're acquiring those temporary hit points. From an elixir or a spell, it's basically free energy spilling out from your wounds instead of the increased fortitude and mentality from just being super pissed off (AKA adrenaline/rage). While False Life and Rage might provide the same mechanical thing (temporary HP), they do so in different ways and should be treated as such. For example, in an Anti-Magic Field (are those still a thing?), False Life evaporates, whereas being super angry still persists. Conversely, a Barbarian failing a Calm Emotions spell would disrupt his mood swing compared to somebody whose blood is currently supplemented with magical energy. There are mechanics in place that differentiate the way these temporary hit points function and come from.
There are no such mechanics in place for Battle Medicine, and people are inventing them to support their claim without understanding what that entails. And unfortunately, because the feat itself doesn't even come with examples to support their claims, I call horsepuckey.
The most classic example of "Yell them into shape" that everyone likes to use would (and should) fail in an area of Silence if I took their interpretation to heart. They would said "But it's not auditory, so it should work." But how can you shout at them when the only means you have to do so won't function in the area? To which I am referencing Speaking, which is what is required in order for them to do so. It's a free action, no problem there. But it has the auditory trait, so it wouldn't work in an area of Silence. I mean, maybe Message would work, if you're outside of the area, but you'd have to be adjacent to them to utilize Battle Medicine per the rules, meaning unless you cast Message adjacent to them, you can't technically Battle Medicine them that way, and if they are 10 feet or more inside the Silence area, it's not possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That really does seem to be the issue with this feat and why it remains contentious: Because no one can really describe what a character could possibly be doing with one 2 second action that explains how the effect (recovering hit points) matches the included requirements of the action, which at this point is that it is solely a manipulate action with no required items.
Which again pushes, to me, the "nudge of encouragement," which really doesn't match the descriptive text that spectacularly, AND sounds pretty corny, but does fit 2 second action requiring only a manipulate trait.