Battle Medicine


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Matthew

When I listened to the podcast, I heard one action for Battle Medicine and one interact action with your healing kit, which sounded like a one-handed action. As graystone points out, though, you need two hands to use healing tools, so I may have been mistaken about needing one hand free instead of two. (In the context, and with the healing kit saying that "[w]hen you carry the tools from place to place, you keep many of the components handy on your person, in pockets or bandoliers", it seemed to make perfect sense that drawing the fewer components you need for Battle Medicine, compared to a 10 minute Treat Wounds, would take a one-handed interact action like drawing a potion out of a pouch.)

However, regardless of whether drawing healing tool supplies from your pouch takes one or two hands, the rules are clear that if you have your healing kit in a bandolier, then drawing them is a free action when using them in the same action that you are using to do Battle Medicine (p. 289 of the CRB):

"A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them."

You would not be taking the interact action with one or two hands to draw your healer tools in this case, you would just draw the healing tools you need from your bandolier as a free action. At that point, it makes sense to me that you would narratively account for the manipulate action of the Battle Medicine by saying what you were doing with the medical supplies -- medicinal pickles, poultices, injection, tablets, etc. (anything that the table agrees makes sense).

Whether you need a hand free to do it, I suppose is not completely clear. I would think yes, but you could make a good argument that you could hold your weapon/staff/etc. in your shield/other hand briefly while using your healer tools, and then put your hand back as a free action since using the tools doesn't take an action. (I think taking your hand off and putting it back on would take a second action if you don't have a free hand, but each table will need to come to its own consensus until/if it is clarified.)

Happy gaming...


12 people marked this as a favorite.

My only strongly held opinion here is that rules should be written down, not given in youtube videos.

Sczarni

I think we all agree on that, but since Paizo has been incredibly slow at everything lately, we're left to grasp at what we can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melfast wrote:
You would not be taking the interact action with one or two hands to draw your healer tools in this case, you would just draw the healing tools you need from your bandolier as a free action.

A bandolier has NO impact on the number of hands needed to us anything put in it: as such, any use of a healers kit requires 2 hands even that is to remove a single one handed item from it. If you treat an item as an individual item and not part of the kit to lessen the number of hands needed then you do not meet the requirements for using a kit...

Something making sense to you and it being a rule are 2 different things.

Nefreet wrote:
I think we all agree on that, but since Paizo has been incredibly slow at everything lately, we're left to grasp at what we can.

Yeah, but there should be some sort of limit. We're talking about second hand on a random video. For all we know, it was a off the cuff 'how would you run it' question to Mark and not a "what is the official stance of PF2' question asked: I'm looking at these things like the old board rule that official rules need to be posted with a disclaimer that they are indeed 'official': anything else, IMO, is opinion of the individual in question.

Now there is merit in knowing their opinions, say to guide your making a houserule, but it's not actual errata/FAQs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Carog the Fat wrote:
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self

There is no such thing as "Rules as Written". Reading is an interpretive activity. Indeed, two different people can read the same text and come to different conclusions.

It's much more sensible to look at this with degrees of certainty. Does it make any sense to just "wiggle your fingers" and perform miracle treatments? Or should we use the framework for Treat Wounds?

When I look at the Medicine skill, I see that every action requires the use of Healer's Tools (including Treat Wounds, which Battle Medicine references). When I look at Healer's Tools, I see they require two hands to use.

*Could* it be as you describe? Sure. But I don't think that's the stronger, more sensible conclusion when taking everything into consideration.

But then you do have to read between the lines. If RAI was to say Battle Medicine IS a Treat Wounds action, then they could have simply written the sentence that way. Instead you have a sentence that goes out of its way to specifically not say that it is a Treat Wounds action, that it is a Medicine check using Treat Wounds DC but is NOT Treat Wounds.

Using Battle Medicine zero handed nearby is more than offset by the nerf to being daily immunity, which again is another way that it is not a Treat Wounds which is hourly immunity.

Game balance does not have to make sense realistically.


krazmuze wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Carog the Fat wrote:
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self

There is no such thing as "Rules as Written". Reading is an interpretive activity. Indeed, two different people can read the same text and come to different conclusions.

It's much more sensible to look at this with degrees of certainty. Does it make any sense to just "wiggle your fingers" and perform miracle treatments? Or should we use the framework for Treat Wounds?

When I look at the Medicine skill, I see that every action requires the use of Healer's Tools (including Treat Wounds, which Battle Medicine references). When I look at Healer's Tools, I see they require two hands to use.

*Could* it be as you describe? Sure. But I don't think that's the stronger, more sensible conclusion when taking everything into consideration.

But then you do have to read between the lines. If RAI was to say Battle Medicine IS a Treat Wounds action, then they could have simply written the sentence that way. Instead you have a sentence that goes out of its way to specifically not say that it is a Treat Wounds action, that it is a Medicine check using Treat Wounds DC but is NOT Treat Wounds.

This isn't entirely true. They may have RAI it to be Treat Wounds, but in order for it not to use the Treat Wounds "bolstered" duration, written it this way instead. Note, I think RAW it's not a use of treat wounds, but the intent is unclear here...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
krazmuze wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Carog the Fat wrote:
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self

There is no such thing as "Rules as Written". Reading is an interpretive activity. Indeed, two different people can read the same text and come to different conclusions.

It's much more sensible to look at this with degrees of certainty. Does it make any sense to just "wiggle your fingers" and perform miracle treatments? Or should we use the framework for Treat Wounds?

When I look at the Medicine skill, I see that every action requires the use of Healer's Tools (including Treat Wounds, which Battle Medicine references). When I look at Healer's Tools, I see they require two hands to use.

*Could* it be as you describe? Sure. But I don't think that's the stronger, more sensible conclusion when taking everything into consideration.

But then you do have to read between the lines. If RAI was to say Battle Medicine IS a Treat Wounds action, then they could have simply written the sentence that way. Instead you have a sentence that goes out of its way to specifically not say that it is a Treat Wounds action, that it is a Medicine check using Treat Wounds DC but is NOT Treat Wounds.
This isn't entirely true. They may have RAI it to be Treat Wounds, but in order for it not to use the Treat Wounds "bolstered" duration, written it this way instead. Note, I think RAW it's not a use of treat wounds, but the intent is unclear here...

If it was intended to be Treat Wounds, I'd imagine it would remove the Wounded condition. It explicitly does not. If it did count as treat wounds, that would also make it applicable for Ward Medic, and treating your whole party at once for one action seems unlikely.

This doesn't address the hands issue, of course. But it does indicate Battle Medicine isn't Treat Wounds.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

graystone wrote:
stuff

All good stuff, but at the end of the day you really only have two choices at this time. (1) accept the video as a clarification or (2) ignore the video and continue to rule as you see it. It’s wishful thinking that Paizo is going to suddenly change how they respond to community questions after years of doing it how they do. The fact is, we do not have an official, sourceable ruling for battle medicine so we have to reply on the general rules which default to GM discretion.


TwilightKnight wrote:
graystone wrote:
stuff
All good stuff, but at the end of the day you really only have two choices at this time.

Actually mine is a third: as I'm a player, I'm not in a position to accept or ignore the video: I'm just not going to bring it up. It's like the old, old days when people had quotes and links from every corner of the site to various dev comments that often both proved and disproved a particular read of a rule depending on the day and dev you got a comment from. There where good reasons that they make official posts only the ones marked official.

As I said, if you're planning on houseruling that the feat has requirements not listed, like hands or a kit, then the dev comments can be valuable but I don't see it as and change on the actual feat itself.

Sczarni

It's not "houseruling". It's using your best interpretation of the available evidence.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's going to be really fun once Paizo inevitably goes WotC, takes down the forum with all the developer posts of various official-ness and suddenly all you people will be left with will be the dreaded videos, because YouTube isn't something that will go away as easily.


Nefreet wrote:
It's not "houseruling". It's using your best interpretation of the available evidence.

It's 1000% a houserule.

Core Rulebook pg. 18, Format of Rules Elements
"Requirements: Sometimes you must have a certain item or be in a certain circumstance to use an ability. If so, it’s listed in this section" + "Entries are omitted from a stat block when they don’t apply, so not all rule elements have all of the entries given below."

rule link

As number of hands and a kit is not in the required area, or listed in the entry, it is not required by the rules. Ignoring the rules, and how they are meant to be formatted and read, is a houserule as requiring hands or a kit is not a listed requirement. I have yet to hear what valid interpretation allows you to add requirements that are unlisted. You can say a strike takes 2 actions, but don't try to tell me it's not a houserule to say so: it's the same as telling me a general medicine check for battle medicine has any different requirement than a general medicine check for a Recall Info check as neither has any requirements listed and in fact both are prevented from gaining any benefit a healers tools.


Gorbacz wrote:
It's going to be really fun once Paizo inevitably goes WotC, takes down the forum with all the developer posts of various official-ness and suddenly all you people will be left with will be the dreaded videos, because YouTube isn't something that will go away as easily.

*shrug* That'll be the day they let me know they no longer want my business [like I did with WOTC]: the day I HAVE to watch a video to get rules errata and FAQ's is the day we part ways. Lucky for me plenty of other games still manage to have forums and can put out errata without the need for podcasts to do so. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Graystone, I get that you're disappointed folks are referencing a random podcast with an offhand comment attributed to somebody at Paizo and calling it temporary errata.

Of course, you can use "stern glance" Battle Medicine all you like. And as you've amply pointed out, it *is* the RAW. As it's written, the feat Battle Medicine doesn't require materials or hands.

Please understand, though, that some of us were very unhappy with the RAW on this feat, and that makes us eager to grasp at straws to houserule it into something closer to our sensibilities. Using this video and its offhand reference is grasping at straws, I'll be the first to admit it, but it does give a tiny bit of insight into what might be the RAI behind this feat.

Let's all hope we get proper errata on it sooner rather than later.


Wheldrake wrote:
Graystone, I get that you're disappointed folks are referencing a random podcast with an offhand comment attributed to somebody at Paizo and calling it temporary errata.

I have no issue at all with people doing what they want with the info in their own games: I just don't want it presented as official errata. That does a disservice to those looking for errata by giving them the wrong idea.

Wheldrake wrote:
Of course, you can use "stern glance" Battle Medicine all you like. And as you've amply pointed out, it *is* the RAW. As it's written, the feat Battle Medicine doesn't require materials or hands.

This was pretty much the point. I have no issue with other houseruling it however they want but call it how it is. Some are calling it an "best interpretation" and I can't see how that is. I'd be upset is someone told me that we were running a 100% by the rules game and then had requirements added to the feat.

Wheldrake wrote:
Please understand, though, that some of us were very unhappy with the RAW on this feat, and that makes us eager to grasp at straws to houserule it into something closer to our sensibilities. Using this video and its offhand reference is grasping at straws, I'll be the first to admit it, but it does give a tiny bit of insight into what might be the RAI behind this feat.

If someone was saying they hate the optics and wanted to houserule it, I'm cool with that. Same with someone saying they want to follow the video suggestion: totally fine as long as they are admitting it's a houserule we're talking about and that's something I wouldn't even comment on [to each their own]. It's when they say it isn't a houserule that it irks me.

As to RAI, for a second hand comment on a random video without context on on how the question was framed... I'm not sure I'd be comfortable taking anything from it. Now if it was a direct quote from Mark and I could see the circumstances around the question, that would be slightly different though even then it's be Marks thought on RAI and not necessarily the game's RAI: I know I've talked to Mark on some topics where how he'd do things didn't end up being how it was ruled in the game [multiple nested sourced bonuses for one].

Wheldrake wrote:
Let's all hope we get proper errata on it sooner rather than later.

Right there with you. ;)

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I've always had issues with people claiming their interpretation is the one true "RAW".

No, it very much is not. This stupid stance has been proved wrong time and time again. You should know better by now.

Stop relying on a concept that only exists to stifle dissenting opinions.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

And I've always had issues with people claiming their interpretation is the one true "RAW".

No, it very much is not. This stupid stance has been proved wrong time and time again. You should know better by now.

Stop relying on a concept that only exists to stifle dissenting opinions.

Yes we all interpret every text that we read, attempting to understand the implication of words put together in specific patterns. But nobody questions how magic missile works (except for how it interacts with the rules for concealment), because people don't bring a lot of real world assumptions to the table about how magic infallible force can strike its target. They read the rules and then say, ok, this spell does what it says it does.

Battle Medicine, on the other hand, has a lot of people essentially adding words that are not present because it "feels wrong" for non-magical healing to be able to work at all in the context of instant return to combat readiness, especially without some kind of reason for it to work, like a nebulous item called healers tools.

But Hit Points don't exist at all in the real world. People don't get injured without consequence until the point that they pass out. It is a game abstraction to begin with for characters to be able to attack one another over and over again, only showing any change in behavior or ability when one of them drops. Battle Medicine as a feat, works much better in game balance, as it is written, without adding any additional actions required to make it work.

The desire to make it use any number of hands, and a set of tools is only nerf to its ability, not a way to magically make it work in line with people's ideas about how non-magical healing can work in an inherently magical world.

The problem is that, with how much PF2 has codified very minor and somewhat arbitrary actions (like gripping a sword but not releasing one's grip), there is a problem for a lot of people who would otherwise be fine saying, "well, as a battle medic, you have a bunch of pre-cut, sticky bandages ready to apply to another character with little more than a quick motion," because, "why can't I set up potions/other items to work the same way?"

And maybe, the next time these folks make a new game, they will have a different answer to that question then they do now, but trying to make the feat battle medicine work like other interactions of skills and items, essentially makes it useless, because of the decision to make magical healing less action intensive as well.

No characters are walking around OP-AF because they can heal an adjacent ally for a moderate amount of hit points a limited number of times per day (1x for most folks).

If the issue is the head cannon, I strongly hope that any errata is simply, saying that any sub-actions to free up a hand are included in the action. The problem there is that you will have the "it takes an action to return a hand to my greatsword" folks up in arms. Maybe rightfully so, but melee damage was designed and balanced around that hand rule, while healing was specifically rebalanced around all healers (magical and non) not requiring a free hand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
And I've always had issues with people claiming their interpretation is the one true "RAW".

If the text was ambiguous in any way I'd agree: it's pretty straight forward in this case, it's that people aren't reading the RAW but the Rules As They Feel They Should Be. Thinking a rule should include something doesn't mean it's ambiguous.

Nefreet wrote:
No, it very much is not. This stupid stance has been proved wrong time and time again. You should know better by now.

Nothing in the feat suggests that you should require hands or a kit. Nothing. It's NOT the Treat Wounds action. Not every medicine action requires hands or tools. Manipulate actions do not require anything other than gestures. The game tells you how requirements should be listed and it doesn't do so for the feat nor does it list requirements in the actual text.

So no, as written, it's pretty clear it has no requirements: it's just that some don't FEEL like it should have them, not that there is a valid reading that requires them.

Nefreet wrote:
Stop relying on a concept that only exists to stifle dissenting opinions.

It's not to stifle at all. I can say with 100% honesty that I can see no interpretation of the words making up the feat that would require someone using the feat to use any hands or have healers tools. It seems like a totally reasonable houserule to me if the optics of it bothers your group.

I'm willing to be WOWed by someone's explanation that would bring any uncertainty to this. Please, illustrate your point and back it up with rules as I have. Show where anything in the feat would add requirements that it doesn't explicitly spell out. Heck, I'd settle for you pointing out where there is some logical misstep in the rules explanation I've given for why it requires nothing. What I've seen either doesn't make logical sense or it's a version of 'I don't like how it feels' or it 'hurts their sensibilities'. So if you feel I'm treating your POV unfairly, please prove me wrong.


Nefreet appears to be following the philosophy that the precise wording is irrelevant; our best guess of the original intent is what matters.

It's a fundamental philosophical difference; you're not going to be able to bridge it.

Sczarni

graystone wrote:
Not every medicine action requires hands or tools.

You keep repeating this and you *know* it is incorrect. You're twisting the existence of a Recall Knowledge action to imply that using Medicine doesn't require healer's tools.

All (listed) uses of Medicine require a kit
All (practical) uses of Medicine require a kit
All (relevant to the argument) uses of Medicine require a kit

Insert whatever word works for you. Of course Recall Knowledge wouldn't require anything more than... Recalling Knowledge.

Also, even if we disagree about how many hands it takes to use Battle Medicine after listening to the audio, the important take away is that you at least need a healing kit to do it.

I was initially on the side that believed Battle Medicine required two hands. I came to that conclusion after reading the available material and coming to my own interpretation, just as you read the same material and come to a different conclusion. That alone should be proof there is no such thing as "RAW".

Having a character who uses Battle Medicine frequently, I embraced the idea that you only needed one hand, because dropping weapons and/or taking Quickdraw to mitigate the action economy is painful. I would very much like it if you could use either one or no hands.

But I don't see any support for that in the text I'm reading.

Sczarni

Matthew Downie wrote:
Nefreet appears to be following the philosophy that the precise wording is irrelevant; our best guess of the original intent is what matters.

This is incorrect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FYI, recall knowledge may require one free hand : scratching your head or rubbing your chin ;)

Philosophy, where do we go !?


Nefreet wrote:
But I don't see any support for that in the text I'm reading.

I don't see any support for battle medicine requiring healer's tools in the text. Battle medicine doesn't list it, healer's tools don't list it, the medicine skill entry doesn't list it. The only "official" source for that seems to be the random video. If you are seeing support for that in the text, can you point me towards it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to throw in my support to Graystone here in regards to Battle Medicine requiring Healer's Tools. As I have pointed out before, Battle Medicine is VERY specific in it's wording to not operate exactly as Treat Wounds . First look at the Feat Battle Medicine:

CRB PG.258 "Battle Medicine" wrote:

Traits: GENERAL HEALING MANIPULATE SKILL

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

Compare to any of the trained or untrained Medicine skill uses which do require Healer's Tools. They specifically call out the requirement of healer's tools to use whereas Battle Medicine does not.

It is my belief that you could benefit from the bonus to Medicine Checks granted by expanded healer's tools so long as your GM agrees that Battle Medicine qualifies, however it is not called out as a requirement of Battle Medicine in any location in the book.

As to whether Battle Medicine requires a hand to use and the Manipulate trait. This is the really muddy situation as the Manipulate Trait states:

CRB PG.633 "Manipulate Trait" wrote:
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.

This is where the "wiggle your fingers" arguments comes from, and to be honest, it is a fair argument. Battle Medicine does nothing to state how you go about "patching up" yourself or your ally so it is entirely possible that they intend for you to provide a nice vigorous back rub with the pommel of your sword to work out that kink from that orc's axe. I don't agree with that logic, but it stands that the rules as worded do in fact support that argument, flimsily as they may.

The best fix would be for Battle Medicine to be rewritten to require a free hand like any other such action meant to be used in combat. Quick Alchemy for example calls out the need for one. Battle Medicine does not.

Sczarni

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we can all agree clarification would be nice, indeed. At this point we're just rehashing the exact same points as before the video.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is, not only this is an issue of "the rules say X" versus "the intended rule is probably Y", it's an issue of "this isn't balanced" versus "this isn't realistic".

No clarification is going to please everyone. If they make it realistic-ish ("Of course it needs two hands! It would take ten times longer to apply a bandage one handed!") then it's not a useful combat action for most PCs. ("Another junk feat. I guess I'll throw away my character and make a Cleric.") If they say it needs no hands, then it's going to be too silly for a lot of players. ("So you can just kiss it better?")

I think one-handed use is probably the best balanced answer, though that would require that Paizo are willing to be inconsistent with other uses of the Healer's Kit, or have it not need a kit...

Sczarni

Or, keep it in your Bandolier, and just use one hand to slap on that miracle poultry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Shot of adrenaline, I'm telling you. One hand, quick to deliver, dangerous to use more than once per day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the adrenaline idea. Wish there was an in game item with that description.

My head canon of what Battle Medicine constitutes is very much creating a walking wounded situation. Go military with it and just get the person up and moving, rather than really healed. This is why it doesn't remove the "wounded" condition, your just slathering on some numbing agents and maybe bandaging the hanging bits in place until it's safe to operate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A fellow gamer described it briefly as "I stuff gauze into your wound" to my great amusement...


Personally, I like the stern glance viewpoint for battle medicine, since hit points are not just physical wounds.

Core Rule Book, page 459 wrote:
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.

I feel a stern glance could be described as restoring your wherewithal and heroic drive.

A character can be at 0 hit points without a single physical wound on their body if its inflicted by mental damage for example. I presume treat wounds action in that case is more like counseling instead of binding up wounds to stop bleeding.

Out of curiosity, do people have similar issues with hero points that they do with the no-hand battle medicine? Thats is a case of no one taking an action, but the character stops dying or bleeding out on the floor or whatever. Why can't you flavor battle medicine in the same way? Some kind of heroic grit keeping you moving against all odds?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

6 seconds of counseling is called a pep talk.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hiruma Kai wrote:
I feel a stern glance could be described as restoring your wherewithal and heroic drive.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning. If Battle Medicine requires no hands and no materials, I called it "Stern Glance" healing. That's the RAW.

In this case, it should be qualified as a supernatural ability. End of story.

I suspect we will eventually get errata making it require healer's tools, and hence two free hands, unless the healer's tools get errata too.


Also, the notion that you need two hands to tie a bandage is a bit overdone here. Yeah, you need a couple sets of fingers, but a lot of hisorical shields were strapped to your arm as well as held, so briefly letting go or using part of that hand to brace as the other hand tied wouldn't be out of line, I don't think. Similarly for weapons held in one hand, you could easily brace with your palm and wrap with a free hand.

Either way, this is all just theory. It's a fictional game, and a lot of skill feats are already ridiculous (don't get me started on "Legendary Thief"). I've accepted that pathfinder skills now border on the realm of fantastical in 2e. So whatever Paizo decides is "fair" here is fine by me, even if it is zero hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
I suspect we will eventually get errata making it require healer's tools, and hence two free hands

That would make it, quite literally, useless.

Sczarni

That's how I've been playing it for 4 levels. Definitely not useless.

After listening to the audio I started doing it one-handed, which has also been nice, but if it's clarified I need two hands, no sweat.


Not so!

It will have limited utility compared to magical healing, yes, but still worth taking as a "break in case of emergencies" feat. Perhaps equivalent to Diehard in terms of frequency of use?

That said, I'm fairly positive additional Skill Feats will be printed to further support Medicine's use in combat. As these feats don't "compete" with Class Feats (and to a lesser extent, General feats) in terms of character combat potential, investing in Medicine, non-magically, will likely turn out to be a fully legitimate trajectory to take a character, on par with other options.

Have faith!


Wheldrake wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:
I feel a stern glance could be described as restoring your wherewithal and heroic drive.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning. If Battle Medicine requires no hands and no materials, I called it "Stern Glance" healing. That's the RAW.

In this case, it should be qualified as a supernatural ability. End of story.

I don't see why it should be supernatural. If we're talking about grit and determination, magic and what not is not needed to explain anything. Its a 2 second glance implying, "You going to get up and win this fight or just lie there on the floor while everyone else does the work?!"


Since HP don't represent only physical meat damage, Battle Medicine can be described as "you show your 'wound' to the skilled medic and they inform you that it's nowhere near as bad as you first thought it was, so now you are less convinced of your imminent death."

Of course, some people hate that kind of thing... but that's a them problem, not a game rules problem.


Hiruma Kai wrote:

Personally, I like the stern glance viewpoint for battle medicine, since hit points are not just physical wounds.

Core Rule Book, page 459 wrote:
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.

I feel a stern glance could be described as restoring your wherewithal and heroic drive.

A character can be at 0 hit points without a single physical wound on their body if its inflicted by mental damage for example. I presume treat wounds action in that case is more like counseling instead of binding up wounds to stop bleeding.

Out of curiosity, do people have similar issues with hero points that they do with the no-hand battle medicine? Thats is a case of no one taking an action, but the character stops dying or bleeding out on the floor or whatever. Why can't you flavor battle medicine in the same way? Some kind of heroic grit keeping you moving against all odds?

I think you hit the nail on the head, more eloquently then my earlier post. HP are abstract, and I think many get tripped up on that. They equate every sword hit as actual physical wounds, rather then an abstract depletion of resources (mental, physical, whatever...) "Healing" is simply replenishing those resources. Take the marathon runner, too tired to go on. But a "stern glance" of encouragement, or a "pep talk", can make them rise back up with a sense of renewed vigor... And before you try to say exhaustion is not the same, I can make the same case for MMA, boxing, ect... And any other physical sports, wartime experience from veterans, cancer patients... Sometimes all you need is a kind word, a gesture, a glance, to receive a renewed sense of vigor and shake off the pain and continue on...

Want an in-game example, compare it to Orc Ferocity. In a round about way, it is basically a free heal. Through force of will, stubborn, ect..., You healed yourself the amount of damage below 1 HP. And no one questions that for some reason...

The perception disconnect is saying every strike is a purely physical wound and requires medical bandages and such, in a game that states HP are a general state of everything (physical, mental, heroics, wherewithal, ect...). They are a "resource pool", and as such a mental boost can "replenish" that resource pool to. It isn't just a purely physical wound when someone rolls a successful hit with a sword. HP and damage are abstract, simplified way to express interaction between them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stern Glance/Pep Talk healing sounds like a Charisma-based leadership ability. It doesn't mesh very well with "must be trained in Medicine" and "attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds".


Matthew Downie wrote:
Stern Glance/Pep Talk healing sounds like a Charisma-based leadership ability. It doesn't mesh very well with "must be trained in Medicine" and "attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds".

Head canon it as you will, at the end of the day it is simply a way to give non-casters a 1 action method for healing their allies or themselves in a short amount of time. I imagine the designers probably had a similar discussion and decided to just run with it, because mundane healing is a great addition to this edition at the end of the day, even if sometimes it makes... less than all of the sense.


When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate? Since you're clearly more interested in mocking the rules than interpreting them in a coherent manner, why should we take your opinion seriously?

Sczarni

whew wrote:
When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate?

+1 to this.

For those staunchly opposed to needing hands for Battle Medicine this requirement gets "hand waved".


whew wrote:
When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate? Since you're clearly more interested in mocking the rules than interpreting them in a coherent manner, why should we take your opinion seriously?

I was using the same language people are using to "mock" the skill to begin with. Let's be "coherent" about what HP are first, see above book quotes from p459. People take issue with a non bandage type healing, by bringing up the hypothetical sword thru the chest scenario. Yet these grievous wounds do not affect the characters ability to run, fight, climb, swim, ect, in the slightest... In fact whether you have 1 hp or 250 hp, you function the same for performing all actions. Take it farther and lets say the "sword thru the chest", "crushed skull", "broken bones" only happens 0 hp and dying. Yet somehow slapping a bandage on makes you right back to "can perform anything at full functionality" That broken limb? splint and a bandaid, and your good to run the next tri-athalon. That dagger thru the chest? I stitched it up and all the muscle and tendons are back together again, that concussion is all better now...

As for the "that sounds like a charisma check". Maybe, one could also then argue Int and Wis just as easily, knowing what to do(knowledge), when to do it and how to do it(Wis). At the end of the day to keep it simple, they picked a stat that universally applied to keep it simple.

As for manipulate, I could go into that your head is an appendage (appendage is not just limbs/hands look it up), since I know your going to bring up the second half of manipulate, and your head is required for a gesture (the first sentence) such as a nod, wink, spoken word (the second sentence, defining the action):

"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." p.633

I believe that meets the criteria for manipulate action (defined an appendage, and an action). But I will say that maybe they use manipulate action to keep it simple, as it is still a distracting action, especially when it comes to AoO and triggering reactions from enemies and allies alike (see Aid another if your wondering why I say ally). I could list a host of other examples, but I think all it will invite is more "what about -ism's" that frankly are not neccessarily relavant, but are more of an attempt to side-track, and disparage, rather than dialogue...

As Beowolf99 stated - "Head canon it as you will..."

Is that "coherant" (your words, not mine) enough? I am sorry that presenting a point of view and an example is "mocking" and not being "serious" enough for you. It was presented as a "food for thought" and also to re-iterate what the book defines HP as (not what we sometimes project it as, raw damage), they are more than just how "many times I can get stabbed thru the chest before I die".

**editing to add this point of clarification. I am focusing on the nod, whatever... to illustrate that particular action. You could expand that to the universal thumbs up pick me up, dance a jig to raise your spirits and make you smile, a physical gesture that is personal to you that conveys somehting (the trainer gesturing to the boxer)... and so on...


beowulf99 wrote:
I imagine the designers probably had a similar discussion and decided to just run with it, because mundane healing is a great addition to this edition at the end of the day, even if sometimes it makes... less than all of the sense.

I'd bet money the designers thought it should require a healing kit (but forgot to say so in the text) and the relevant hands, even if that makes it less than optimal.

But feel free to run it RAW (or make up your own house-rule) if that makes the game better.


Matthew Downie wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I imagine the designers probably had a similar discussion and decided to just run with it, because mundane healing is a great addition to this edition at the end of the day, even if sometimes it makes... less than all of the sense.
I'd bet money the designers thought it should require a healing kit (but forgot to say so in the text) and the relevant hands, even if that makes it less than optimal.

The reason I doubt this is because I included, in my feedback during the playtest, that this was silly and rolled with it because the action economy was about par for the amount of healing you got from it (its comparable to a single-action Heal spell, with similar limitations).

And they chose not to change the wording.

You could argue that it got overlooked, but when their design philosophy has been to tag everything with traits (even when traits imply other traits) and go to great lengths to put "requires: 2 hands" or "requires: medical kit" or whatever on literally everything, that this one got overlooked seems implausible to the point of being impossible.

There's been something like FIVE threads on it since the playtest started. And still they've said nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
whew wrote:
When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate?

+1 to this.

For those staunchly opposed to needing hands for Battle Medicine this requirement gets "hand waved".

Well, yes. Battle medicine's manipulate trait could be satisfied with a hand wave. I quote the manipulate rules:

Core Rulebook pg. 633 wrote:


Manipulate
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait.

I note that somatic spells, such as lay on hands, have the manipulate trait, and yet can be done with hands full. Its not a rules contradiction at all. You just need to have hands.

Although I suppose instead of calling it a stern glance, which could be done at range and needs to be seen to work, its closer to a thump of support, which gives it a bit more manipulate and less visual.

Its not a question of can the rules work that way, as there's no contradiction, its a question of believability and what the developers intended.

Either it is an outright mistake, and they should have included all the boiler plate that is included on the Treat Wounds (traits, calling out 2 hands, requires a healer's kit), or it is written as intended, and you head canon however you need to make it believable for you. Neither stance is inherently contradictory.

Either way, you have to assume something fantastical. Either a thump can get someone up and fighting who was going to die in the next 6 seconds, or someone can provide sufficient medical attention to someone who was going to die in the next 6 seconds in 2 seconds in the middle of combat.

Again, it makes as much sense as someone getting up off the ground from dying in the next 6 seconds purely by heroic resolve. I'm surprised more people aren't complaining about things like cloud jump, as opposed to something interacting with nebulous hit points - which somehow never result in permanent injuries despite being 6 to 30 seconds away from death. I mean, why aren't there more one-eyed, one legged adventurer's around? At some point, some things are for ease of play and having fun with a game.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
whew wrote:
When making a stern glance, what appendage is being used to Manipulate?

+1 to this.

For those staunchly opposed to needing hands for Battle Medicine this requirement gets "hand waved".

I absolutely love the idea of telling my players who complain about the verisimilitude of needing one hand free that it is needed for “hand waving purposes”. I will be using that for sure!

Still think it is the right call from a gameplay standpoint even if none of it is “realistic”.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't be surprised if it got overlooked since the name itself was supposed to be something different and was overlooked.

51 to 100 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Battle Medicine All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.