Battle Medicine - How Many Hands?


Rules Discussion

401 to 450 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Unicore wrote:

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.

Yep unrealistic if you do need hands, still unrealistic if you don't its a situation where adding hands doesn't seem to bring anything to its ability or use other than to make it much less useful because "Not Magic"


Unicore wrote:

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.

Yep unrealistic if you do need hands, still unrealistic if you don't its a situation where adding hands doesn't seem to bring anything to its ability or use other than to make it much less useful because "Not Magic"


The larger issue here is Paizo created an action economy that’s overly focused on hands (and free hands) for balance. In terms of Battle Medicine, is the feat meant to be governed by that balance, or was it written that way to remain viable and usable as is? I’m not sure.

If we can suspend disbelief that it’s realistic I can patch someone up in 6 seconds and heal them, is it really less realistic that I quickly place my weapon on the ground and grab it back up after, solving the hands mystery?


Isthisnametaken? wrote:
If we can suspend disbelief that it’s realistic I can patch someone up in 6 seconds and heal them, is it really less realistic that I quickly place my weapon on the ground and grab it back up after, solving the hands mystery?

Picking an item up off the ground takes an action.


Draco18s wrote:
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
If we can suspend disbelief that it’s realistic I can patch someone up in 6 seconds and heal them, is it really less realistic that I quickly place my weapon on the ground and grab it back up after, solving the hands mystery?
Picking an item up off the ground takes an action.

Yep so does freeing up a hand by shifting grips so really unless your running around with only one hand in use or have more than 2 then Battle medicine is really a 2-3 action item if you need a free hand.


Isthisnametaken? wrote:

The larger issue here is Paizo created an action economy that’s overly focused on hands (and free hands) for balance. In terms of Battle Medicine, is the feat meant to be governed by that balance, or was it written that way to remain viable and usable as is? I’m not sure.

If we can suspend disbelief that it’s realistic I can patch someone up in 6 seconds and heal them, is it really less realistic that I quickly place my weapon on the ground and grab it back up after, solving the hands mystery?

Well it's not that hands are massively more important now so much as that after the Metaphysical hands of effort situation in 1E I guess they felt spelling out hands needed would be more in their favor than being constantly asked.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to chime in to say I'd also appreciate developer commentary/errata on this. I really want to play a non-magical medic, and hope a Battle Medic build doesn't get nerf'd by errata down the road.


Adam Ashworth wrote:
Just wanted to chime in to say I'd also appreciate developer commentary/errata on this. I really want to play a non-magical medic, and hope a Battle Medic build doesn't get nerf'd by errata down the road.

I mean honestly its 50/50 right now on how they might rule (if they ever do). They might feel that 0 free hands is too good and require at least 1 to make it work. They might feel that it's happening so quick (and doesn't need a kit) that a free hand would be superfluous.


Talonhawke wrote:
Adam Ashworth wrote:
Just wanted to chime in to say I'd also appreciate developer commentary/errata on this. I really want to play a non-magical medic, and hope a Battle Medic build doesn't get nerf'd by errata down the road.
I mean honestly its 50/50 right now on how they might rule (if they ever do). They might feel that 0 free hands is too good and require at least 1 to make it work. They might feel that it's happening so quick (and doesn't need a kit) that a free hand would be superfluous.

They could also require an actual use of a Medicine Kit, which would then require 2 hands to use.

Whatever the ruling, it's not going to be extremely crippling. Even if a medicine kit is required, pulling it out of a Bandolier is free, done as part of the actions requiring the kit.

If you have a two-handed weapon (or sword and shield), you can just drop both items as a free action and do Battle Medicine as a single action. Assuming a success, you can then stow the medicine kit back into the Bandolier (free action), regrab your two-handed weapon (single action) and strike (also single action), or even do some silly things like Lunge if you're using a Reach weapon. The sword and boards get screwed over, since they need both actions to grab their items, but such is the price you pay for this stuff.

It sucks you aren't doing too terribly much, but what else are you going to do with your turn? Cast a spell? Power Attack? Stop persistent damage? Some other two-action shenanigans? All of which might not save you from getting cleaved in half by a bad guy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


If you have a two-handed weapon (or sword and shield), you can just drop both items as a free action and do Battle Medicine as a single action. Assuming a success, you can then stow the medicine kit back into the Bandolier (free action), regrab your two-handed weapon (single action) and strike (also single action), or even do some silly things like Lunge if you're using a Reach weapon. The sword and boards get screwed over, since they need both actions to grab their items, but such is the price you pay for this stuff.

It sucks you aren't doing too terribly much, but what else are you going to do with your turn? Cast a spell? Power Attack? Stop persistent damage? Some other two-action shenanigans? All of which might not save you from getting cleaved in half by a bad guy.

Where does it say that you can stow items in a bandolier for a free action? It pretty explicitly says only that you can draw the tools as a part of the action to use it. Probably the better course of action would be to drop the tools, but then you have dropped them, so you are probably not doing battle medicine again in the same combat.

Luckily, there is absolutely no support in the rules for interpreting that the feat Battle Medicine could use healer's tools, so it really is misleading to continue to argue that the RAI was for the feat to include the tools as a requirement. But, If you want a world where monks are pretty much the only non-magical healers, then it would make sense to make a house rule for your table that both the healer's tools and the battle medicine feat to work together.

I am hoping that we can get some kind of further feed back from developers about how the manipulate trait works because that is much larger than this feat specifically, and seems like it was intended to be more clear about hand usage than it has worked out in play.


I'll be honest the more I think about it having a 1/day per person ability (barring other features) take up or require a huge expenditure really seems like it would hurt it even existing at all.

Scarab Sages

Talonhawke wrote:
I'll be honest the more I think about it having a 1/day per person ability (barring other features) take up or require a huge expenditure really seems like it would hurt it even existing at all.

Totally agree, hands are fiddly already and making it a PITA to use will just kill interest and use of the feat. I don't want it to just be for people with open hands already.


Unicore wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


If you have a two-handed weapon (or sword and shield), you can just drop both items as a free action and do Battle Medicine as a single action. Assuming a success, you can then stow the medicine kit back into the Bandolier (free action), regrab your two-handed weapon (single action) and strike (also single action), or even do some silly things like Lunge if you're using a Reach weapon. The sword and boards get screwed over, since they need both actions to grab their items, but such is the price you pay for this stuff.

It sucks you aren't doing too terribly much, but what else are you going to do with your turn? Cast a spell? Power Attack? Stop persistent damage? Some other two-action shenanigans? All of which might not save you from getting cleaved in half by a bad guy.

Where does it say that you can stow items in a bandolier for a free action? It pretty explicitly says only that you can draw the tools as a part of the action to use it. Probably the better course of action would be to drop the tools, but then you have dropped them, so you are probably not doing battle medicine again in the same combat.

Luckily, there is absolutely no support in the rules for interpreting that the feat Battle Medicine could use healer's tools, so it really is misleading to continue to argue that the RAI was for the feat to include the tools as a requirement. But, If you want a world where monks are pretty much the only non-magical healers, then it would make sense to make a house rule for your table that both the healer's tools and the battle medicine feat to work together.

I am hoping that we can get some kind of further feed back from developers about how the manipulate trait works because that is much larger than this feat specifically, and seems like it was intended to be more clear about hand usage than it has worked out in play.

To compare the normal rules, it generally takes just as much time drawing something as it is stowing something in the same container. Drawing a potion takes an action. Stowing said potion takes an action. Unsheathing or sheathing a weapon takes their own separate actions to do. Drawing a kit to perform an activity requiring said kit does not require an action. So why should it require an action to stow said kit after performing said action, when drawing it out previously does not? It's not an exclusive to the general rules like feats permit, such as Quick Draw, nor is it expressly spelled out to be different such as in the case of Gloves of Storing.

The reason I brought that up was to introduce a "worst case scenario" to demonstrate that it's not the end of the world if Battle Medicine is "nerfed", but by all means keep strawmanning. There's also no support in explaining how Battle Medicine actually works other than requiring a nebulous manipulate trait and to be adjacent to your target, when all of the examples that people have used to apply the effects of Battle Medicine do not actually require those things.

I also think that Paizo developers are not ones who are above oversights. There are numerous rules in the past that they have had to completely revise because they did not follow their intended purpose as worded. Courageous Property and Sunder Rules of PF1 come to mind. This is probably another one of those cases where their lack of specificity is more detrimental than it is helpful.

Verdant Wheel

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bandolier

My interpretation is that the Medic, with their 0/1/2 hands, pulls out exactly what materials they need from the kit to expend them, thus obviating the need to "re-stow" the kit after use.

Imagine a box of crayons strapped to your chest. You need 0/1/2 free hands to use them. But you only need to pull out the exact colors you need, and destroy them upon use.

The game assumes you continually keep a lookout for stray crayons lying on the ground, thus the kit never really needs to be reloaded by spending coin.

Just crayons everywhere.

Sczarni

Nice analogy ^_^


I personally do my Battle Medicine with my toes.


If my follow players ask me how my cleric is doing battle medicine I always respond: By b*@!~slapping you hard while using band aid, what else could it be? :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It amazes me there isn't a way to ask a developer, thus ending the debate once and for all.

- "Yes, it is intentional the RAW lets you use Battle Medicine without any hands and without a Healer's Kit"
or
- "You need a free hand but no Healer's Kit; this will be included in the forthcoming FAQ"
or
- "You need a free hand and a Healer's Kit (though a bandolier obviates the need to spend any actions or hands on the Kit)"

Either would be good.

But if bringing this thread up to a thousand pages is the only reliable way to get an official response, I guess count this as a contribution...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

It amazes me there isn't a way to ask a developer, thus ending the debate once and for all.

- "Yes, it is intentional the RAW lets you use Battle Medicine without any hands and without a Healer's Kit"
or
- "You need a free hand but no Healer's Kit; this will be included in the forthcoming FAQ"
or
- "You need a free hand and a Healer's Kit (though a bandolier obviates the need to spend any actions or hands on the Kit)"

Either would be good.

But if bringing this thread up to a thousand pages is the only reliable way to get an official response, I guess count this as a contribution...

My presumption on the silence from developers:

Dev A: We want a mundane 'in combat' healing option, so here's Battle Medicine.
Dev B: Cool! Does it need a kit?
Dev A: Of Course! It's a Mundane Skill check
Dev B: So the user needs to have both hands free?
Dev A: No, that would keep most players from actually being able to use it in a practical manner.
Dev B: So, it's a supernatural ability then?
Dev A: No, it's a mundane skill check and players want mundane healing, so...
Dev B: But it somehow works without tools or a requiring a free hand, so...
Dev A: So...

Devs A&B: Everyone, here's the Battle Medicine feat: Please don't overthink it...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Devs A&B: Everyone, here's the Battle Medicine feat: Please don't overthink it...

That is a bold assumption in a game that has rules references within rules references, e.g. spellcasting traits, like an oversized Matryoshka doll...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Even a post saying:

"GMs will have to decide with their table how to make this feat fit the tone of their campaign. Here is how the feat should be interpreted in PFS for consistency in that setting."

would establish that there is not consensus in house and that, like many other aspects of the game, the important thing is to talk it through with your table to make sure no one feels like they are making character choices that don't do what they thought they would do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that Paizo could do to take a leaf from "competitive" table top games in this instance.

In specific, I used to frequent the Privateer Press forums regularly, back when I played Warmachine and Hordes at my local hobby shop. They had an entire Forum area that was strictly for asking about rules, and they had staff members (At least I believe they are staff and not volunteers, could be wrong there) who were labeled as "Infernals" who would make quick rulings that were to be applied in competitive settings in lieu of waiting for errata. Their word was as good as law in place of errata for the short term, with the understanding that the ruling could be changed later in errata by the developers.

While I understand that PFS is not exactly the same as playing a TTG competitively, it has a similar feel: there should be consistency between tables. This would also give people going to the Rules Forum a more concrete answer they can take to their table quicker than starting a 422 (and counting!) post long discussion over months about how many hands it takes to slap a bandage on someone with a feat.


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
Zapp wrote:

It amazes me there isn't a way to ask a developer, thus ending the debate once and for all.

- "Yes, it is intentional the RAW lets you use Battle Medicine without any hands and without a Healer's Kit"
or
- "You need a free hand but no Healer's Kit; this will be included in the forthcoming FAQ"
or
- "You need a free hand and a Healer's Kit (though a bandolier obviates the need to spend any actions or hands on the Kit)"

Either would be good.

But if bringing this thread up to a thousand pages is the only reliable way to get an official response, I guess count this as a contribution...

My presumption on the silence from developers:

Dev A: We want a mundane 'in combat' healing option, so here's Battle Medicine.
Dev B: Cool! Does it need a kit?
Dev A: Of Course! It's a Mundane Skill check
Dev B: So the user needs to have both hands free?
Dev A: No, that would keep most players from actually being able to use it in a practical manner.
Dev B: So, it's a supernatural ability then?
Dev A: No, it's a mundane skill check and players want mundane healing, so...
Dev B: But it somehow works without tools or a requiring a free hand, so...
Dev A: So...

Devs A&B: Everyone, here's the Battle Medicine feat: Please don't overthink it...

Because it's highly impractical to drop whatever you're using to pull out a healing kit and heal someone through mundane means with a single action?

Not only is that not true, but it is also contradictory to the anecdotal evidence of my combat tables thus far. I've had numerous combats where the "healers" of our group have:

-Moved to an ally for two actions to maintain combat position in relation to the enemy.
-Dropped everything they were holding to free their hands.
-Pulled out a Healer's Kit to perform the action.
-Utilized the Battle Medicine Action to bring a downed or weak party member back into the fight.

All in the same turn. And in those situations, the "healers" have either drawn a back-up (either a healing staff or some other weapon of their choosing), or re-picked up their weapons and went back to the fight as well in the following turn.

The argument of "It's highly impractical" doesn't really hold water here when I've seen real play demonstrating quite the opposite. If anything, it's a lot more fluid and immersive than "I yell at someone 5 feet away and it heals them, but if I yell at them 10 feet away it does nothing, but if I'm silenced and within 5 feet, it still works when it normally wouldn't because I'm cheesing trait rules."

When a rule promotes trying to cheat the system, it's bad for a gaming system whose primary objective of creating a fun environment is through fair and appropriate rules. This is why the ruling of "requiring a medicine kit" is better. Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
-Pulled out a Healer's Kit to perform the action.

You do know that that costs 3 actions if the kit is in your backpack, right? (1 to remove your pack, then 2 more fish out item, see footnote 3 on page 273)

Quote:
And in those situations, the "healers" have either drawn a back-up (either a healing staff or some other weapon of their choosing), or re-picked up their weapons and went back to the fight as well in the following turn.

Each item dropped costs 1 action to pick back up again, and this is where the "how many hands?" question comes in. How many items did they have to drop? Two? Well, there goes 2 actions.

If they then have to move away from the Big Bad again, there goes an entire turn.

Suddenly the 1-action heal-for-2d8 kind-of-ok suddenly became anywhere from 2 to 7 actions (!) depending on where you keep the healing kit and how many hands it takes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When a rule promotes trying to cheat the system, it's bad for a gaming system whose primary objective of creating a fun environment is through fair and appropriate rules. This is why the ruling of "requiring a medicine kit" is better. Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics.

I really fail to see how creating an exception to a general rule for the sake of an ability being more practical to use is "trying to cheat the system". You said yourself that the main goal of the rules is to create a fun environment. That means the rules aren't supposed to be there as a law that is obligated to be applied in 100% of situations.


Draco18s wrote:
Quote:
-Pulled out a Healer's Kit to perform the action.

You do know that that costs 3 actions if the kit is in your backpack, right? (1 to remove your pack, then 2 more fish out item, see footnote 3 on page 273)

Quote:
And in those situations, the "healers" have either drawn a back-up (either a healing staff or some other weapon of their choosing), or re-picked up their weapons and went back to the fight as well in the following turn.

Each item dropped costs 1 action to pick back up again, and this is where the "how many hands?" question comes in. How many items did they have to drop? Two? Well, there goes 2 actions.

If they then have to move away from the Big Bad again, there goes an entire turn.

Suddenly the 1-action heal-for-2d8 kind-of-ok suddenly became anywhere from 2 to 7 actions (!) depending on where you keep the healing kit and how many hands it takes.

Yes, but bandoliers are a thing, and if you are a healer, you will probably dedicate a bandolier to it. It's easier to draw out a kit and use it from a bandolier than a consumable or other light bulk item, even though kits are heavier and require more hands to hold/use them, which I find ridiculous, but that's for another thread.

If you're holding two items, that's two actions, yes. It's the same issue if a person wielding two weapons is knocked unconscious. In that case, it's not a problem of the kit, but of the playstyle and the lack of rules support for it. In PF1, there were rules and abilities that let you draw/pick up weapons in the same amount of actions as if they were a single item. Lacking that in PF2 tells me it's a deliberate design choice more than it is a failure of clarification or balance. Maybe they will come out with rules for it in the future. But as of now? Non-existent houserules at best.


dmerceless wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
When a rule promotes trying to cheat the system, it's bad for a gaming system whose primary objective of creating a fun environment is through fair and appropriate rules. This is why the ruling of "requiring a medicine kit" is better. Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics.
I really fail to see how creating an exception to a general rule for the sake of an ability being more practical to use is "trying to cheat the system". You said yourself that the main goal of the rules is to create a fun environment. That means the rules aren't supposed to be there as a law that is obligated to be applied in 100% of situations.

It's not creating an exception though. It's attempting to weasel yourself out of clear limitations on effects that would clearly affect them.

"I shout my friend back to consciousness while affected by Silence via Battle Medicine," does not work for the same reasons "I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work. But the former will very clearly try to cheat the system by saying "But it doesn't have the Auditory trait, so it works."

And then that escalates to a "Well, if shouting someone back to health works, why do you have to be adjacent to them? And why can't I just purposefully fail Battle Medicine checks to cheat Silence effects while simultaneously not wasting Battle Medicine triggers for the day?

It's like I said before. This is why the ruling of "requiring a medicine kit" is better. Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics, as I've demonstrated above.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
"I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work.

One action heal spell only has somatic components. I'm double checking the text of Silence but I'm not seeing any reason this doesn't work.

Quote:
Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics, as I've demonstrated above.

You did not.

For one, the problem you're describing appears to be something you've invented on the spot. That whole thing about auditory traits is completely nonsequitur to Battle Medicine itself.
You then use that problem to justify a certain rules interpretation or house rule, because otherwise you'd have to house rule something else to compensate for that problem.
A problem that, again, doesn't actually exist.

In summary, you're in favor of a certain a house rule because if you didn't you might need to house rule something to cover for a problem with the rules that you invented just now with another house rule.

Honestly the whole line of logic is a little convoluted and doesn't really go anywhere.

It would be a lot simpler if you just said outright that you thought Battle Medicine should be difficult and action-inefficient to use, rather than jumping through all these nonsensical hoops to try to justify it. It's okay to have an opinion.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Yes, but bandoliers are a thing, and if you are a healer, you will probably dedicate a bandolier to it. It's easier to draw out a kit and use it from a bandolier than a consumable or other light bulk item, even though kits are heavier and require more hands to hold/use them, which I find ridiculous, but that's for another thread.

I account for that.

Quote:
If you're holding two items, that's two actions, yes. It's the same issue if a person wielding two weapons is knocked unconscious. In that case, it's not a problem of the kit, but of the playstyle and the lack of rules support for it.

Its only 2 hands because you added a restriction ("requires healer's kit") to an ability that does not actually list that restriction.

Just as you added the Verbal component to the Heal spell for a usage that does not require it.

Verdant Wheel

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is precedent in the game for any interpretation.

2 hands?
It's like using a two-handed instrument, kit, or weapon

1 hand?
It's like using an Interact action or casting a spell with a Material component

0 hands?
It's like casting a spell with Somatic component

Arguing that one interpretation is "more correct" or "less silly" is a matter of opinion. I have my own opinion, for example. We'll see where it comes down eventually folks. Cheers!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
"I shout my friend back to consciousness while affected by Silence via Battle Medicine," does not work for the same reasons "I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work. But the former will very clearly try to cheat the system by saying "But it doesn't have the Auditory trait, so it works."

Okay, now I think I understand what you're trying to say, but why are you acting like "Shouting at my ally to heal them" is the only possible interpretation of Battle Medicine that doesn't require you to be wielding Healer's Tools? You could grab some quick bandages from your pocket as part of the action to use Battle Medicine, without having to grab the full kit of Tools; you could make said bandages out of a ragged part of your clothes on a pinch; you could simply pull out a Far Cry heal and interact with them a bit to ease the pain of something. It's a fantasy game after all.

There are a multitude of interpretations on how Battle Medicine could work in world without requiring a full Healer's Tools if you're creative, many of them not having anything to do with shouting, and you could interpret any of them as using one free hand or simply being a very non-restrictive motion that doesn't require a free hand like doing Somatic Components for a spell.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't remember who said it or when, but one of the Designers stated Battle Medicine is included in the next errata.

So we're basically stuck until then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems that many people have an issue with the verisimilitude of battle medicine and not using a kit or empty hand. Let’s see if we can come up with a justification for it.

Let’s say I am playing a monk with battle medicine. I want to define this as striking certain acupressure points causing the body to release its own resources to heal the injury. (It’s also why I can only do it once a day as it takes that long for the body to recharge.)

I then point out that I can do it with, say, a stick instead of my fingers. I am still hitting the point only with the stick after all.

I then teach my friend the fighter how to do it as well, using the hilt of his sword. He picks up the skill and feat so now he can do it too.

Finally, I actually did this a thousand years ago. This knowledge has spread to many healers throughout the land.

There. We now have an in-game reason why people can heal without needing a healer’s kit or an empty hand.


swoosh wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
"I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work.

One action heal spell only has somatic components. I'm double checking the text of Silence but I'm not seeing any reason this doesn't work.

Quote:
Because I don't have to reinvent the wheel which can very well invalidate other working game mechanics, as I've demonstrated above.

You did not.

For one, the problem you're describing appears to be something you've invented on the spot. That whole thing about auditory traits is completely nonsequitur to Battle Medicine itself.
You then use that problem to justify a certain rules interpretation or house rule, because otherwise you'd have to house rule something else to compensate for that problem.
A problem that, again, doesn't actually exist.

In summary, you're in favor of a certain a house rule because if you didn't you might need to house rule something to cover for a problem with the rules that you invented just now with another house rule.

Honestly the whole line of logic is a little convoluted and doesn't really go anywhere.

It would be a lot simpler if you just said outright that you thought Battle Medicine should be difficult and action-inefficient to use, rather than jumping through all these nonsensical hoops to try to justify it. It's okay to have an opinion.

It's not a problem I've invented, it's an argument someone made for Battle Medicine to work without a Healer's Kit. "I can just give a rallying cry to bring them back into the fight" has been a common statement of utilizing Battle Medicine without a Healer's Kit.

Which falls flat on its face when you realize that being adjacent is important to the Battle Medicine action (otherwise that would work at any reasonable range, adjacent not being a requirement), and comparable actions (such as verbal components) would be shut down in situations where likewise "giving a rallying cry" should not work, but apparently won't because it doesn't actually have auditory traits. In other words, giving Battle Medicine more power and versatility than what the feat actually says.

My opinion is that it doesn't work that way, and it has never been stated or implied to be able to work that way, and anyone arguing otherwise is more silly and ridiculous than my interpretation. That's it. For it being "difficult" and "action-inefficient" is really dependent upon what people would constitute as such. In my previous combats, I haven't come across that issue yet, ergo I personally don't see our group's current implementation (2 hands and healer's kit required) being incorrect, immersion-breaking, or impractical. And we're approaching 9th level (10th level in my other group).


dmerceless wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
"I shout my friend back to consciousness while affected by Silence via Battle Medicine," does not work for the same reasons "I cast a Heal spell on my friend to bring him back to consciousness while I'm affected by Silence," does not work. But the former will very clearly try to cheat the system by saying "But it doesn't have the Auditory trait, so it works."

Okay, now I think I understand what you're trying to say, but why are you acting like "Shouting at my ally to heal them" is the only possible interpretation of Battle Medicine that doesn't require you to be wielding Healer's Tools? You could grab some quick bandages from your pocket as part of the action to use Battle Medicine, without having to grab the full kit of Tools; you could make said bandages out of a ragged part of your clothes on a pinch; you could simply pull out a Far Cry heal and interact with them a bit to ease the pain of something. It's a fantasy game after all.

There are a multitude of interpretations on how Battle Medicine could work in world without requiring a full Healer's Tools if you're creative, many of them not having anything to do with shouting, and you could interpret any of them as using one free hand or simply being a very non-restrictive motion that doesn't require a free hand like doing Somatic Components for a spell.

I'm not. What I'm saying is people will use stuff like that as a means to cheese the system. "I shout at my friend for Battle Medicine and it's legal because it doesn't have the Auditory trait" is shenanigans along the lines of PF1's "Dead condition doesn't do anything to you."

What you're describing is using improvised tools at best, in which case that would incur the -2 penalty. At worst, I'd probably disallow it because it falls under the purview of "not effective in aiding the target" rules. I wouldn't have the player waste their action with that knowledge, but I would require that the player step up their game in reasonably aiding the target.

As for there being a way to do so with just a hand? Possibly. But, as with persistent damage, it depends on the injury.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, out of curiosity, how many people in your group actually use Battle Medicine on the regular? In my group, I am literally the only one who has it anymore, due to the GM going with the ‘Healer’s kit, two hands, two actions,’ interpretation. I am the only character that actually CAN use Battle Medicine under such a ruling, as I play a Monk. It still takes my whole damn turn if I want to put my Healer’s Kit away, or do ANYTHING ELSE other than keep it in my two hands after I use it. Y’know, if I was lucky enough to actually start adjacent to the poor bastard who actually needs me to Battle Medicine. Otherwise, it’s my whole turn to get to them and use it, meaning I pretty much waste my entire turn and allow the gribblies to keep gribblieing my party members. Under that set of rules interpretations Battle Medicine is worse than a trap feat, it actively encourages you to never use it because you come out worse for doing so rather than letting your party member die.

There’s the too good to be true idea, but then there’s also the idea of ‘so actively terrible you can get teammates killed using this Feat under these rules’ idea. Battle Medicine isn’t supposed to set people up to get their group Merced because it takes your whole turn to use.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that the specific example given in the Bandolier description is Healer's Tools, and the only time drawing Healer's Tools with the Action that requires them would matter is Battle Medicine, is a pretty strong indicator that Battle Medicine requires Healer's Tools.

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

So, out of curiosity, how many people in your group actually use Battle Medicine on the regular? In my group, I am literally the only one who has it anymore, due to the GM going with the ‘Healer’s kit, two hands, two actions,’ interpretation. I am the only character that actually CAN use Battle Medicine under such a ruling, as I play a Monk. It still takes my whole damn turn if I want to put my Healer’s Kit away, or do ANYTHING ELSE other than keep it in my two hands after I use it. Y’know, if I was lucky enough to actually start adjacent to the poor bastard who actually needs me to Battle Medicine. Otherwise, it’s my whole turn to get to them and use it, meaning I pretty much waste my entire turn and allow the gribblies to keep gribblieing my party members. Under that set of rules interpretations Battle Medicine is worse than a trap feat, it actively encourages you to never use it because you come out worse for doing so rather than letting your party member die.

There’s the too good to be true idea, but then there’s also the idea of ‘so actively terrible you can get teammates killed using this Feat under these rules’ idea. Battle Medicine isn’t supposed to set people up to get their group Merced because it takes your whole turn to use.

I think you're overstating the difficulty of this. Personally, I think the bandolier allows you to both draw and restow the kit, otherwise Quick Alchemy would be even more useless than it already is.

Even if your GM doesn't allow that, you can drop the kit as a Free Action and recollect it later.

Sczarni

Aratorin wrote:

The fact that the specific example given in the Bandolier description is Healer's Tools, and the only time drawing Healer's Tools with the Action that requires them would matter is Battle Medicine, is a pretty strong indicator that Battle Medicine requires Healer's Tools.

To be fair, it's not the only use. There's also Administer First Aid.

(although I do agree that Battle Medicine needs Healers Tools as well)


Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:

The fact that the specific example given in the Bandolier description is Healer's Tools, and the only time drawing Healer's Tools with the Action that requires them would matter is Battle Medicine, is a pretty strong indicator that Battle Medicine requires Healer's Tools.

To be fair, it's not the only use. There's also Administer First Aid.

(although I do agree that Battle Medicine needs Healers Tools as well)

That's true. I forgot about that Action, as that is the situation where we usually use Battle Medicine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You have also left out Treat poison, which explicitly calls out needing the healer's tools.

But Administer First Aid and Battle Medicine are definitely NOT the same action. SO the bandolier with healer's tools has value even if Battle Medicine doesn't require them, (which is very clearly the current RAW. Maybe not the RAI, but that is a subjective debate until we get developer feedback).

House ruling that Battle Medicine does require healer's tools, because you can also house rule that stowing the tools can be a free action is a fine way to create a ruling that fits your table's narrative, but it shouldn't be assumed, and without it Battle Medicine is pretty much a monk only feat in practice.

One thing that might be affecting how disruptive people think it is to have to drop weapons to use the tools, and then either drop their tools to pick up the weapons (assuming that the character are in a place where they can drop their weapons and tools and not lose them, which is not always the case), is party size.

At a table with 5 or more PCs, it probably is not that disruptive to the party for the application of Battle Medicine to basically take a whole player's turn (they have to adjacent to the character they are healing so it is likely that at least 3 total actions are going to moving into position and using the tools). But in a party of 4 or less, giving up 3 actions out of 12 to possibly heal another character a significant amount can easily contribute to a TPK, especially when the Battle Medicine healer is the only one in the party and another player is already down. Against dangerous monsters having only 2 functional PCs (6 actions) acting to restrain or kill a monster for a whole turn, while your healer moves next to the character that just fell, especially if the monster is still standing right there, is a very likely trap unless the GM takes mercy on you.

Honestly, even without requiring the healer's tools, Battle Medicine is a pretty high risk in-combat healing option for parties to rely on.
Healer's Tools on the other hand, are already a very important item for parties to have, even without being able to use them with battle medicine.

Reading heavily into the description of the bandolier to challenge the RAW of a specific feat that doesn't interact with the item that the bandolier can be used to house is a pretty weak basis for establishing a RAI.


So any answer yet?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No


5 people marked this as a favorite.

42


Ubertron_X wrote:
42

Hands? Or number of actions to put away everything in hand, draw everything needed for battle medicine, and then swap back?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leeroy Jethro Bodine wrote:
Ubertron_X wrote:
42
Hands? Or number of actions to put away everything in hand, draw everything needed for battle medicine, and then swap back?

Yes.

Sczarni

Nearly on our tenth page of discussion ^_^


Nefreet wrote:
Nearly on our tenth page of discussion ^_^

Almost 10 pages ya'll the question now is not if we will get an answer but will that answer arrive before we pass this threshold..........


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll add how I run it and flavor it. I do wish like with almost everything else, they had explained it better. Seems PF2 was pretty meticulous in explaining how things work in a way that makes sense, except with Battle Medicine. So I did some flavoring myself based on fantasy types.

I see Battle Medicine as the application of an almost poisonous mix of medicine that gives an adrenaline shot to the system. I require at least one hand free to basically apply some orc medicine or rub a patch of a toxic stimulant on a wound. I don't require an extra action for the item to be drawn. It's part of the same action to apply it. I consider it some small pre-made packet of medicine kept on hand in an easy location to keep someone going.

Hit points in PF2 are the usual combination of energy, wounds, and shock as in previous editions. So as the hit points dwindle, all those elements dwindle or build. Battle Medicine is just a way to offset the effects of battle that is poisonous to who you apply it to, thus usable only once per day.

That's my flavor and requirements.


Whelp we have an answer Sort-of

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”


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

That errata actually only throws gasoline on the debate. Why on earth would you include "or wearing healer's tools" if you were not making an explicit comment about the number of hands? wearing the tools requires no hands.

I am wondering if there is not a further change coming to the manipulate trait that will fix the battle medicine feat for good, but they are also going to have to add that you can use (and benefit from) healer's tools when you use the battle medicine action, probably to the healer's tools themselves.

401 to 450 of 518 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Battle Medicine - How Many Hands? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.