Battle Medicine - How Many Hands?


Rules Discussion

401 to 415 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 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.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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.


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.


3 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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Nice analogy ^_^

401 to 415 of 415 << 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.