Battle Medicine


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I facepalm when I see people arguing that "The Designers were aware of these issues during the Playtest because I reported them!"

No. Thousands of people participated in the Playtest. Not everyone's opinion was read, remembered, consulted, or used to draft the final version of X, Y or Z.

You can't use that as evidence for either point of view.


Carog the Fat wrote:

After much discussion I came to accept battle medicine doesn't require you to touch the target, just be adjacent or use a healer's kit. I was wondering if this was the intent of the feat and if it will get errata to clarify that you make a medicine check using the DC AND REQUIREMENTS of Treat wounds.

Bold empasis on what need to be added to make this skill somewhat vaguely resemble first aid rather than someone wiggling thier fingers so they dont have to drop thier weapon to heal people.

Wish after taking so much painstaking effort to make good explanations for most abilities, they wouldn't have done a poor job on Battle Medicine. I don't much like it either. I mostly chalk it up to stim pack use, but it requires hands to use, period. Ridiculous that you wouldn't need at least one free hand to do battle medicine.


Battle Medicine is fine. Just leave it alone.
If you don't like it, just houserule it for your group. But please dont call for official errata if it isn't broken (which it isn't. It's once per day).

Vigilant Seal

Such an interesting discussion. No hands, one hand, two hands, Wheither it requires a healing kit, or yelling or glaring at the person heals them. Having been the guy at back of the fight doing the battle medicine, none of the guys are worried about such things they are saying to themselves I got 5 hp left I need some healing I don't care were it comes from, I am about to loose this character that I have spent alot of time investing in it. What do you mean we don't have a Cleric? I guess that guy in the back row better get up and do something that heals some of my HP. So I run up to him and do battle medicine he gets back 2d8 worth of HP, maybe 4d8 if we are lucky. Now I can't use battle medicine again for the whole day. Wait what? We got another combat in 2 hours and these guys have got healed up in the meantime, but are likely to be in the same position and now I can't heal them. I guess it up to the Alchemist to heal them then. Oh! We don't have one of those in the party either. This is going to be a long day!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber

Per today’s blog post of additional resources, we can now accept that battle medicine does not require healers tools, because it is not using treat wounds, only a straight medicine check. Additionally, it does not require two hands.

Quote:
As Mortal Healing (page 105) requires you to specifically use the Treat Wounds action, it does not apply when used with other actions related to medicine or healing, such as Battle Medicine.

So to sum up, only requires a single action with the manipulate trait.


masterslate wrote:
Per today’s blog post of additional resources

Link? I can't find it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

its located here Under the gods and magic book specific stuff.


Ah, I hadn't checked under the collapses.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

How did we jump to that conclusion based on the reference and the clarifications. None of the text refers to hands or the use of a kit...

First came the Godless Healing feat in the World Guide
"You recover an additional 5 Hit Points from a successful attempt to Treat your Wounds or use Battle Medicine on you. After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour, instead of 1 day"
No mention of hands or med kit. This feat just adds to the amount of healing received and reduces the cool-down.

Next came the Mortal Healing feat from Gods and Magic
"You grant greater healing when the gods don’t interfere. When you roll a success to Treat Wounds for a creature that hasn’t regained Hit Points from divine magic in the past 24 hours, you get a critical success on your check instead and restore the corresponding amount of Hit Points."
Again, no mention of hands or med kit. This just increases the success level of treat wounds and has no reference at all to Battle Medicine.

Finally, we get the rules and clarifications from the blog today
[i]"As Mortal Healing (page 105) requires you to specifically use the Treat Wounds action, it does not apply when used with other actions related to medicine or healing, such as Battle Medicine."[/i}
This just clarifies that Mortal Healing does not affect Battle Medicine, only Treat Wounds.

Am I missing something? Where in any of that did we get a clarification whether or not the intent is Battle Medicine requires any number of hands up to two and/or the use of a med kit. the same arguments people have used to justify the kit or two hands can still be argued given the new info. While I agree that it would seem illogical for non-magical, mundane healing to be applicable from a mere glance, 2E suffers from the same thing that makes it better than 1E. The design team was very clear during their conversations that one of the parameters for 2E was to have much more deliberate use of language. Essentially, rules do what they say and don't do what they don't say, similar to the design fundamentals for the Card Game. Given that expectation, we have to accept that Battle Medicine does exactly what it says and does not assume anything it doesn't say.

If it was meant to be a "quickened" treat wounds, the language would have merely said it was treat wounds with the exception of the action required and the cool-down. However, treat wounds is only used to establish the DC for the check and the amount of healing. Essentially, Battle Medicine is not Treat Wounds.

Personally, in my home game, I would require one hand and a touch as part of the action to perform the activity as well as access to the med kit. Keep it in a bandolier for ready access and you can use it as part of the action used for Battle Medicine. I admit this would be a house rule, but it would bring it closer to how I view mundane, non-magical healing in my head.

Of course, YMMV :-D


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:

.

Am I missing something? Where in any of that did we get a clarification whether or not the intent is Battle Medicine requires any number of hands up to two and/or the use of a med kit. the same arguments people have used to justify the kit or two hands can still be argued given the new info. While I agree that it would seem illogical for non-magical, mundane healing to be applicable from a mere glance, 2E suffers from the same thing that makes it better than 1E. The design team was very clear during their conversations that one of the parameters for 2E was to have much more deliberate use of language.

The issue of hands is still tied to questions surrounding the manipulate trait and whether there is an assumed free hand required with manipulate actions unless specified otherwise.

But, as you said, PF2 is extremely deliberate in its use of language and the use of healer’s tools is intentionally excluded from the action battle medicine, which has just been clarified again as NOT being a treat wounds action. It is an entirely different usage of the medicine skill and one not included in the list of actions requiring or benefiting from healer’s tools.

This already seemed pretty clear to me, but the wording in this blog posting confirms that battle medicine can not be assumed to to have any closer a relationship to the treat wounds action than is explicitly stated in the feat.


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

The tricky situation surrounding the manipulate tag is that it does, unequivocally require the use of at least one hand/arm/appendage, but it makes no explicit statement that that hand be considered a free hand. There are manipulate actions that do require a free hand, there are manipulate actions that do not specify the hand be free, and nothing in the description of the trait provides clarity as to whether one or the other is the default state.

Those of us, like me, arguing that battle medicine does not require the use of a free hand, do so because we assume that, because of PF2s specificity of language, any action that has a requirement explicitly states those requirements in the ability. This includes item usage and number of free hands. Other folks have argued, somewhat convincingly, that, at least surrounding the manipulate trait, there might be an opposite situation, where the trait in the core rulebook, has the assumption of free handedness except when the ability that has the trait explicitly says it doesn’t require the hand to be free.

Almost all of us agree that if that second situation is the intended reading of the trait, an errata or at least FAQ is necessary to clarify that position.

Sczarni

Unicore wrote:
There are manipulate actions that do require a free hand, there are manipulate actions that do not specify the hand be free, and nothing in the description of the trait provides clarity as to whether one or the other is the default state.

The default state is that the manipulate trait requires a hand.

The exceptions are explicit, such as somatic spellcasting.


Nefreet wrote:
Unicore wrote:
There are manipulate actions that do require a free hand, there are manipulate actions that do not specify the hand be free, and nothing in the description of the trait provides clarity as to whether one or the other is the default state.

The default state is that the manipulate trait requires a hand.

The exceptions are explicit, such as somatic spellcasting.

Manipulate 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.

Right you need the right type of appendage but it doesn't any where require it to be free. Unless you saying that since it isn't explicitly stated in the rules for dropping objects that you need a free hand to drop and object.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Manipulate 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.
Right you need the right type of appendage but it doesn't any where require it to be free. Unless you saying that since it isn't explicitly stated in the rules for dropping objects that you need a free hand to drop and object.

The argument coming from the other side is along the lines of "OBVIOUSLY dropping objects doesn't require a free hand, the whole point of that action is to make a free hand!" and thus therefor Battle Medicine requires a free hand.

Or in formal logic:

P -> !Q
therefore
P -> R


Draco18s wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Manipulate 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.
Right you need the right type of appendage but it doesn't any where require it to be free. Unless you saying that since it isn't explicitly stated in the rules for dropping objects that you need a free hand to drop and object.

The argument coming from the other side is along the lines of "OBVIOUSLY dropping objects doesn't require a free hand, the whole point of that action is to make a free hand!" and thus therefor Battle Medicine requires a free hand.

Or in formal logic:

P -> !Q
therefore
P -> R

Which is why I responded the way I did if the assumption is that exceptions are explicit then exceptions can't be assumed.


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

I think the take away is that battle medicine clearly does not need healer’s tools, as confirmed with this blog post, but the manipulate trait is still causing multiple interpretations of whether the feat requires a free hand.

Nothing in the blog moves that debate any closer to resolution.

Sczarni

How are you interpreting from the Blog that you don't need Healer's Tools for Battle Medicine?

Or is this just another case of confirmation bias?


I am guessing based off the fact that it isn't treat wounds but simply related to healing/Treat wounds.


Nefreet wrote:

How are you interpreting from the Blog that you don't need Healer's Tools for Battle Medicine?

Or is this just another case of confirmation bias?

"Mortal Healing (P) uses Treat Wounds (Q) (therefor does not apply to Battle Medic (R))"

"Treat Wounds (Q) needs healers tools (S)"

P -> Q
P -> !R
Q is not equal to R
Q -> S
therefore
R -> !S

It is not entirely rigorous, but that's the flow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

You can't call that rigorous at all... Its just plain flawed deduction. (and I'm in favor of the conclusion its trying (and failing) to support).

But yes, I see how people can try to massage that into supporting their desired outcome.


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

The underlying support was that Battle Medicine is excluded from the list of actions that require/can use healer's tools.

Some folks have argued that all medicine actions functioned similarly and thus it could be assumed that battle medicine required healer's tools because it functioned similarly to treat wounds. This blog post dispels that myth that you could assume any cross over between the two actions other than what is explicitly stated in the feat.

Healer's tools are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in relationship to battle medicine. Thus it is safe to assume that there is no connection between them and there is further support that just being a function of the medicine skill does not imply that there is any other connections between actions than what is explicitly stated.

This blog post is not the proof. The burden of proof would be on anyone trying to argue that Battle Medicine does require or even could use healer's tools. The argument that Battle medicine is essentially the same action as treat wounds and thus should have the same material requirements is what has been addressed in the blog.


Unicore wrote:

The underlying support was that Battle Medicine is excluded from the list of actions that require/can use healer's tools.

Some folks have argued that all medicine actions functioned similarly and thus it could be assumed that battle medicine required healer's tools because it functioned similarly to treat wounds. This blog post dispels that myth that you could assume any cross over between the two actions other than what is explicitly stated in the feat.

Healer's tools are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in relationship to battle medicine. Thus it is safe to assume that there is no connection between them and there is further support that just being a function of the medicine skill does not imply that there is any other connections between actions than what is explicitly stated.

This blog post is not the proof. The burden of proof would be on anyone trying to argue that Battle Medicine does require or even could use healer's tools. The argument that Battle medicine is essentially the same action as treat wounds and thus should have the same material requirements is what has been addressed in the blog.

I mean, I can use Battle Medicine to shout somebody out of their little mental spell in a zone of silence, but only if I'm right next to them, and not through using other potential means like mental messaging (Message Spell) outside of the silence area.

But having an expectation of someone being able to meaningfully impact a situation (such as with the Aid Another or Persistent Damage rules, some of which interacts with Medicine quite a bit) by requiring a set of tools which are designed for such things that are identical is rubbish.

Paizo really needs to put in the common-sense clauses like they have with their other rules so that shenanigans like the above don't come to pass.

**EDIT**

One other thing to consider is that PFS rules aren't necessarily the book's rules. It wouldn't be the first time PFS houserules things to make their system work. It probably isn't the last time, either.

Sczarni

I had also thought of that earlier as well, that this is a Society Blog and not a source for anything outside of Society.

Even then, there is nothing I can quote from it that concludes anything regarding the usage of Battle Medicine that hasn't been argued elsewhere.

Still just waiting for an(other) errata or FAQ.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

We can want it errata because folks come up with silly narratives for it to prove a point. That's fine, but that isnt an arguement for how it works now by the book. The book is fairly clear on how it mechanically operates.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:
We can want it errata because folks come up with silly narratives for it to prove a point. That's fine, but that isnt an arguement for how it works now by the book. The book is fairly clear on how it mechanically operates.

Which is how?

It’s a medicine check that has manipulate. Medicine itself does not require any healers tools. Battle Medic does not mention requiring healers tools. Manipulate trait says nothing about free hand(s), just that you must have a hand (or suitable appendage).

And yes, this only applies to PFS; home rule however you want. But in PFS, there is nothing in the book (or in the blog posts) that say you need healers tools or free hand(s).


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
masterslate wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
We can want it errata because folks come up with silly narratives for it to prove a point. That's fine, but that isnt an arguement for how it works now by the book. The book is fairly clear on how it mechanically operates.

Which is how?

It’s a medicine check that has manipulate. Medicine itself does not require any healers tools. Battle Medic does not mention requiring healers tools. Manipulate trait says nothing about free hand(s), just that you must have a hand (or suitable appendage).

You answered the question. Doesn't need Healers Tools, doesn't need a free hand. People only argue that it cant be that because you can use that for silly interpretations, not because the rules are in any way shape or form ambiguous.

And I'm fine with people wanting errata to change the feat (or make it a universal change to medicine, although I think it would be bad) but that is different than arguing against very simple to parse rules logic.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly there is a reasonable argument either way. Battle Medicine is a significant rule that is likely to come up at almost every game session. As such, I believe it demands some clarity from Paizo staff, whether that be designers or OPF developers. They must know what the intention is, so why do we not have a comment from them? There has already been at least one thread with over four hundred posts, IIRC, now this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I dont think there is a reasonable arguement either way as to what the rules actually state. That is clear. There is a reasonable arguement as to why one might want the rules changed but that is a different arguement.

I'd wager paizo dont want to weigh in until they've decided one way or another whether it warrants a change (and major nerf) to reinforce the narrative element over the mechanics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malk_Content wrote:

I dont think there is a reasonable arguement either way as to what the rules actually state. That is clear. There is a reasonable arguement as to why one might want the rules changed but that is a different arguement.

I'd wager paizo dont want to weigh in until they've decided one way or another whether it warrants a change (and major nerf) to reinforce the narrative element over the mechanics.

I believe my interpretation of the rules matches yours, and it felt very clear to me at first as well. At this point it definitely feels like a stretch to assume that healer’s tools we’re an intended requirement, that seems pretty clear resolved especially as it is a multi-part change to the system to make it work where battle medicine even could use healer’s tools.

The manipulate tag is a little more strange though, especially because the principle: “a trait or ability does only what it says it does” feels inconsistently applied with this trait. From a design stand point, why have 90% or more of the actions that have the manipulate trait, and be intended to not require a free hand, state that explicitly in the action? It does create a weird president for when an ability needs to state how many free hands it requires that feels very unnecessary if the trait itself actually provided an answer to that question.

My take is that there is probably some in house debate about what the manipulate trait means and how/whether to solidify that as an explicitly stated rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever an action can be done with no free hands, the rules spell it out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore No Free Hands is not the one true answer.

However, when an action requires a free hand, the rules spell that out. Battle Medicine has no such language, therefore One Free Hand is also not the one true answer.

Battle Medicine heals the same amount as Treat Wounds. How much healing does Treat Wounds do without a medkit? None!
What's the DC for Treat Wounds without a medkit? There is none!
Is this RAI? I don't know.

NONE of the Skill Feats for skills with toolkits say anything about hands or tools. All of them inherit hands & tools from the actions that they modify. Therefore, the lack of mention of hands or tools in Battle Medicine proves NOTHING.

NB: I have made NO MENTION OF REALISM. My position is simply that the rules are ambiguous. At this point in the debate, I feel that anyone who claims the rules are clear is lacking in ... something ... that the forum rules forbid me to speculate on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
You have a lot of people saying that obviously their interpretation is correct, that the issue isn't confusing or ambiguous at all. But that leaves you with the big question: then why are so many people disagreeing? Are they all stupid or malicious? I think the more likely reason is that the issue is just unclear.

And then...

tivadar27 wrote:
This is one where I feel the written rules are pretty clear. There's no requirements for the skill to use multiple hands, and it is called out as using the same DC as Treat Wounds, not being a Treat Wounds attempt.

Made Ascalaphus's point for him.

And 100% agree. If it was "pretty clear," why would there be whole threads debating it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
whew wrote:


NONE of the Skill Feats for skills with toolkits say anything about hands or tools. All of them inherit hands & tools from the actions that they modify. Therefore, the lack of mention of hands or tools in Battle Medicine proves NOTHING.

What other skill feat grants a new action, not modifies an existing action, but has tool requirements?

Skill feats from the core rulebook which grant new actions:
Battle Medicine
Kip up (no items required)
Legendary Negotiator (no items required)
Recognize spell (no items required)
Scared to death (no items required)
Shield block (calls out the requirement of a shield)
Trick magic item (the magic item is explicitly called out in the action description).

There are no other skill feats for skills with tools that explicitly grant a new action to compare Battle Medicine to. All of them inherit an explicit action which they modify. Battle Medicine does not modify an action, it is a new and different action. That is what is further reinforced in the blog post referenced above.

You cannot make assumptions about what actions work when based upon what skill they umbrella under, only what is explicitly called out in the text.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Treat wounds doesn't state "heal nothing of you haven't got Healers Tools" so that is just making stuff up. If you only go by exactly what the feat does, rather than reading into things that arent there, there is no arguement to be had. Battle Medicine uses the DCs and check results from Treat Wounds. Apart from that they are separate. That's it, done.

As for people arguing it therefore the rule must be ambiguous, no. I refer once again to people arguing that "simple crossbow" cant possibly mean crossbows in the simple category and therefore needs errata. Folks will defend a wrong point way past when it is obviously wrong.

Sczarni

Malk_Content wrote:
Medicine itself does not require any healers tools.

Just wanted to correct this one sentence. Every listed use of the Medicine skill does indeed require Healer's Tools.

In the early arguments surrounding Battle Medicine, this was pointed out repeatedly as evidence for needing Tools. Battle Medicine references the Treat Wounds usage of Medicine, which you can't attempt without Tools.

There is one very vocal poster who reasons that, since you can also Recall Knowledge using Medicine (which obviously would not require Tools), that suddenly Battle Medicine also becomes exempt from needing Tools.

There are many people who believe that is a weak argument, at best.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:


Every listed use of the medicine skill does indeed require Healer's Tools.
In the early arguments surrounding Battle Medicine, this was pointed out repeatedly as evidence for needing Tools. Battle Medicine references the Treat Wounds usage of Medicine, which you can't attempt without Tools.

Battle Medicine references only the DCs of Treat Wounds and the amount of healing of Treat Wounds.

The blog post mentioned above explicitly states that "treat wounds" and "battle medicine" are not interchangeable in any other way then explicitly mentioned in the rules text.

The problem is more on the end of the Healer's Tools. They are extremely explicit about what specific actions they can be used for. Battle Medicine is not one of the actions mentioned.

Personally, I think that this level of explicit language is not beneficial to the game and makes the application of common sense more difficult. For example, by RAW, if I wanted to use the Medicine Skill to Earn Income, (which feels like it would be a very common and practical method of earning income), Healer's tools would not be a requirement, nor could I use Expanded Healer's Tools for a bonus when doing so. Both of those strike me as unnecessary limitations and not how I would house rule a home game that I was running, but the RAW was very intentionally written for healer's tools not to just be a necessary item for making medicine checks.

Why couldn't the DCs of Medicine Checks that should require the tools have all been adjusted to be 2 higher and then Healer's Tools just given a +2 bonus to making Medicine checks? (instead of having to have complicated rules about attempting to assemble an improvised set of tools in order to be able to make the check at a -2?) I don't know and it doesn't really matter at this point so speculating about alternatives is largely a homebrew discussion at this point.

An errata would be required for Healer's Tools to be required for all medicine checks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NielsenE wrote:
You can't call that rigorous at all... Its just plain flawed deduction.

You know what else is flawed?

P -> Q
P -> !R
Q is not equal to R
Q -> S
therefore
R -> S

This is even more flawed reasoning because P -> !R yet we've used P -> Q -> S to show that R -> S

(I also typed the logic on my tablet while at the store and does not take into account other things, like the specific wording below, or the correct logical relationships and just relied on "implies").

Nefreet wrote:
In the early arguments surrounding Battle Medicine, this was pointed out repeatedly as evidence for needing Tools. Battle Medicine references the Treat Wounds usage of Medicine, which you can't attempt without Tools.

Except it does not say (like Mortal Healing) that you "make a Treat Wounds action" it says "go refer to the text of Treat Wounds for the DC and healed amounts."

Oh, and:

The Blog wrote:
"Mortal Healing uses Treat Wounds (therefor does not apply to Battle Medic)"

Battle Medic is not Treat Wounds. Therefore Battle Medic is not Treat Wounds, so stop saying that it is.

The Exchange

does anyone take battle medicine without owning tools, so you can treat outside of combat also? just seems a moot point.
now i do see RAW being tricky here.can we just have someone make an edit to say needs one or two hands? you already edited once to once an hour, why did you stop there?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Jeff Morse wrote:

does anyone take battle medicine without owning tools, so you can treat outside of combat also? just seems a moot point.

now i do see RAW being tricky here.can we just have someone make an edit to say needs one or two hands? you already edited once to once an hour, why did you stop there?

because that is a hefty nerf. It changes it from being a single action to (for most characters) an entire turn.


Unicore wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


Every listed use of the medicine skill does indeed require Healer's Tools.
In the early arguments surrounding Battle Medicine, this was pointed out repeatedly as evidence for needing Tools. Battle Medicine references the Treat Wounds usage of Medicine, which you can't attempt without Tools.

Battle Medicine references only the DCs of Treat Wounds and the amount of healing of Treat Wounds.

The blog post mentioned above explicitly states that "treat wounds" and "battle medicine" are not interchangeable in any other way then explicitly mentioned in the rules text.

The problem is more on the end of the Healer's Tools. They are extremely explicit about what specific actions they can be used for. Battle Medicine is not one of the actions mentioned.

Personally, I think that this level of explicit language is not beneficial to the game and makes the application of common sense more difficult. For example, by RAW, if I wanted to use the Medicine Skill to Earn Income, (which feels like it would be a very common and practical method of earning income), Healer's tools would not be a requirement, nor could I use Expanded Healer's Tools for a bonus when doing so. Both of those strike me as unnecessary limitations and not how I would house rule a home game that I was running, but the RAW was very intentionally written for healer's tools not to just be a necessary item for making medicine checks.

Why couldn't the DCs of Medicine Checks that should require the tools have all been adjusted to be 2 higher and then Healer's Tools just given a +2 bonus to making Medicine checks? (instead of having to have complicated rules about attempting to assemble an improvised set of tools in order to be able to make the check at a -2?) I don't know and it doesn't really matter at this point so speculating about alternatives is largely a homebrew discussion at this point.

An errata would be required for Healer's Tools to be required for all medicine checks.

In my opinion, if an action references to something that requires a healer's tools, then the action from which it is referring to should likewise require healer's tools. The amount of logical and rules stretching from a "This thing which should normally work at a distance instead requires being adjacent, and can circumvent abilities which prevent activities with certain traits because reasons" situation is significantly less than a "This thing which is almost identical to this other thing that normally requires something should likewise require that something" situation.

In other words, your interpretation will lead to more broken and probably even unintended consequences if we went down that road. The fact I can use Battle Medicine to shout someone from being mentally damaged back into shape, in an area of silence, but can only do so if I am adjacent to them, is both highly unintended and also not permissible by any sane GM for the same reasons why I can't cast a two-action Heal spell from a distance to an ally.

Pertaining to your other examples, I disagree. Using improvised tools should make earning income with that skill more difficult because you're working with shoddy equipment, which more often than not leads to a not-so-successful business practice; complications can arise from inadequate equipment and certain procedures would be more problematic without certain tools readily available. Conversely, using high-standard equipment will make performing your practice more successful, and likewise be able to make more money off of customers (or at the very least, justify the cost of your time through the quality equipment you practice with, since such things aren't exactly cheap to work with or afford/upkeep). And adjusting DCs like that isn't going to help any when the math is the same and healer's tools are easy enough to acquire, only being difficult if a table or GM makes it as such. By that logic, cut all of the proficiency scalings and numbers by 2 so that trained starts out basic (level plus mod), even though it's just attempting to subtract another step to math just to sate personal ego.


Malk_Content wrote:
Jeff Morse wrote:

does anyone take battle medicine without owning tools, so you can treat outside of combat also? just seems a moot point.

now i do see RAW being tricky here.can we just have someone make an edit to say needs one or two hands? you already edited once to once an hour, why did you stop there?
because that is a hefty nerf. It changes it from being a single action to (for most characters) an entire turn.

I do agree there could be more revisions beyond Battle Medicine stating it requires tools. Such as it being a free action to pull out or stow tool kits in a bandolier instead of it being part of the activity requiring the tool kit.

But it's an opportunity cost you have to consider for in-combat healing, and also compare it to the likes of drawing and drinking potions in-combat, which is equally clunky. You have to drop what you're holding, pull out and drink a potion (2 actions), and then spend the rest of your turn regrabbing everything to be ready to fight again until combat ends.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But it's an opportunity cost you have to consider for in-combat healing, and also compare it to the likes of drawing and drinking potions in-combat, which is equally clunky. You have to drop what you're holding, pull out and drink a potion (2 actions), and then spend the rest of your turn regrabbing everything to be ready to fight again until combat ends.

Potion action economy is pretty bad, you're not wrong. This came up as a problem during the playtest, due to the way the alchemist functioned, and what they did was boost the effectiveness of potions slightly.


Speaking of picking things up, if you have two weapons on the ground, or a weapon and shield or whatever, am I correct in thinking it takes an action per item? Like you can't draw two swords with one action.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I'd wager paizo dont want to weigh in until they've decided one way or another whether it warrants a change (and major nerf) to reinforce the narrative element over the mechanics.

They should be able to comment as to how it was intended in the first place. The people who developed the rule should be able to say what their intention was. We cannot even start to have a conversation about whether or not it warrants errata when we don’t even know definitively how it’s supposed to work as written. There has been plenty of discussion on this. The designers have to know by now it’s a rule with significant ambiguity, or at least assumed ambiguity. It should be a simple thing for them to say something to the effect of, “the rule as published is intended to require 0/1/2 hands and use of a medicine kit or not.” They have all done extensive live play, perhaps Jason more than anybody, so if the rule needs to be nerfed or errata he should have a good feel for it. They don’t have to decide on what the change is right now, just settle the argument about how it’s intended to work so we can move on with our games.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TwilightKnight wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
I'd wager paizo dont want to weigh in until they've decided one way or another whether it warrants a change (and major nerf) to reinforce the narrative element over the mechanics.
They should be able to comment as to how it was intended in the first place. The people who developed the rule should be able to say what their intention was.

There's always the possibility that the ambiguity is actually how it was intended in the first place, that the matter is supposed to be decided on a case-by-case basis by your GM. That approach would certainly be in line with 2E's overall design philosophy.

Grand Lodge Premier Event Coordinator

I disagree. The design philosophy of 2E is deliberate language. Mark has specified that on numerous occasions. Intentional ambiguity was a design philosophy of 1E as attested to by multiple designers going back to SKR.


TwilightKnight wrote:
They should be able to comment as to how it was intended in the first place.

There is one issue behind this, and that could be that they don't want to go down the "Forum Posts/FAQ Threads as Errata" route that they did back in 1E. Simply put, they may not want to post something on a thread and have it treated like gospel. They might instead just simply do actual errata to reflect any changes (or reinforce any current paradigms) so as to not get peoples' hopes up. This was an issue that somewhat plagued 1E in its later years. I don't think they want a repeat of that.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Which was my point, they seem to be trying (you still get some of it) to avoid answers on high being found 200 posts into a forum thread or dropped through tiny amounts of errata. Their philosophy is more deliberate this time round.

And it is a major gameplay choice that will have ramifications at nearly every table, so its understandable they may want to discuss it internally.

Then again the pfs ruling is also as close to official as we currently have. If we want to see what paizos best current thoughts on how it should be handled are dismissing that probably just means you dont like the ruling.


Malk_Content wrote:

Which was my point, they seem to be trying (you still get some of it) to avoid answers on high being found 200 posts into a forum thread or dropped through tiny amounts of errata. Their philosophy is more deliberate this time round.

And it is a major gameplay choice that will have ramifications at nearly every table, so its understandable they may want to discuss it internally.

Then again the pfs ruling is also as close to official as we currently have. If we want to see what paizos best current thoughts on how it should be handled are dismissing that probably just means you dont like the ruling.

What is the PF Society ruling? I don't play in society play, no free time to do so, and can't find anywhere where that kind of info would be presented. Is there a place to go where that kind of information is available?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

They're probably referring to the quote "As Mortal Healing (page 105) requires you to specifically use the Treat Wounds action, it does not apply when used with other actions related to medicine or healing, such as Battle Medicine." (from the Gods Magic section of this page.

But if you find the original rule ambiguous, I don't think this clears anything up.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
They might instead just simply do actual errata to reflect any changes (or reinforce any current paradigms) so as to not get peoples' hopes up. This was an issue that somewhat plagued 1E in its later years. I don't think they want a repeat of that.

I always felt the problem that plagued 1E in later years was that Paizo sometimes failed to acknowledge hotly debated issues for weeks or months or years. If they said, "We're looking into this. For now, it's up to the GM to decide," I'd at least feel like they cared about it.

101 to 150 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.