|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
There is no PFS ruling and it is very unlikely that the ever will be. PFS leadership first tries to follow the rules - and only in rare circumstances when a rule doesn't fit PFS will they generate a 'house rule' that applies to all of the Society and overrules the CRB or other books.
In this case rather a clarification is needed - not a house rule. And clarification comes from developers.
Having said this - sometimes PFS has a more informal chat with some developers and info comes from them in various guises - but I'm not aware that this has happened here.
Pathfinder Society GMs (like me) frequent these boards and research them if they have questions. Some of the info then feeds back to other GMs who don't read these boards but who chat at conventions or store games or when they are at a table and confronted with a ruling they might not agree with.
My own opinion should be clear. I went to research the 100+ occurrences of manipulate in the CRB - summarized them and came to for myself to the conclusion that:
Healer tools: questionable if they are used - I would suggest to have them in a bandolier for RP purpose and as you need some anyhow if you use medicine in downtime or for stop bleeding. But I have no basis to enforce them via RAW.
Free Hand: In my view manipulate indicates at least one free hand is needed. The only alternative with precedent without hands (or similar appendages) would be some 'somatic' uses which are not supported by the traits that battle medicine has.
Number of free Hands: As manipulate = yes it means at least 1. But as medicine tools = maybe and as I mentioned bandolier I only can ask to have at least one hand free.
Enforcement in real games: I try to tell players that is how I do it. Did I miss some 'no free hands' during play? Likely. There is a lot you have to take care of during the heat of battle. I do multiple mistakes in every scenario I do. There is a balance to be struck between flow of the game and questioning rules. I try to rule in favour of a player if in doubt - but will check after a game.
That is the reason why I went to every single occurrence of manipulate in the CRB - to look at other examples how Paizo requires free hands / what wording they use / to put it into context.
Feedback from others: The other GMs I talked to agree with me on these rulings. But these represent only a tiny majority and therefore this does not represent an official stance by PFS GMs overall. I know of at least one other 5-star who vehemently argues in these topics against no free hands. But I wouldn't be surprised if you find some 5-star GMs who rule differently.
I hope this helps. This is not a magic yes/no answer. You will ne a developer to give you that one. And most players / GMs who post here have already decided. So this is more for players / GMs who come here for guidance and are lost in the argument.
|
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.
Then we’re on the same page :)
|
|
My own opinion should be clear. I went to research the 100+ occurrences of manipulate in the CRB - summarized them and came to for myself to the conclusion that:
Healer tools: questionable if they are used - I would suggest to have them in a bandolier for RP purpose and as you need some anyhow if you use medicine in downtime or for stop bleeding. But I have no basis to enforce them via RAW.
Free Hand: In my view manipulate indicates at least one free hand is needed. The only alternative with precedent without hands (or similar appendages) would be some 'somatic' uses which are not supported by the traits that battle medicine has.
Number of free Hands: As manipulate = yes it means at least 1. But as medicine tools = maybe and as I mentioned bandolier I only can ask to have at least one hand free.
Enforcement in real games: I try to tell players that is how I do it. Did I miss some 'no free...
You mentioned RAW only in your first point. The “somatic” manipulate for battle medicine could be thought of as the battle medic pointing to the recipient and saying “chin up!” or “it’s just a flesh wound!” Hell, they can even give the recipient a slap on the back while wielding a sword. Additionally, if a PC has taken mental damage only, healers tools aren’t going to do anything there.
Taking other uses of manipulate is great for theory arguments and home games, but RAW should mean don’t connect dots that aren’t there.
While Battle medicine is seemingly pretty powerful, it can only be used once per day on each PC. In PFS, that usually means once per scenario, and with 2-4 encounters on average, it’s pretty insignificant and could prevent many PC deaths. In my experience with PFS so far, I have had my first TPK in under 20 tables, while I’ve never come close in around 80 1E tables (from the GM side). I feel like 2E is a more deadly game, so hero points and things like battle medicine are very important to keeping things hard and tactical.
Free Hand: In my view manipulate indicates at least one free hand is needed. The only alternative with precedent without hands (or similar appendages) would be some 'somatic' uses which are not supported by the traits that battle medicine has.
Grab Edge while falling has manipulate and allows the attempt without free hands (you just drop your items unless you crit).
Grab Edge while falling has manipulate and allows the attempt without free hands (you just drop your items unless you crit).
Free Hand: In my view manipulate indicates at least one free hand is needed. The only alternative with precedent without hands (or similar appendages) would be some 'somatic' uses which are not supported by the traits that battle medicine has.
But...But....That's explicitly called out like somatic so that doesn't matter. Except dropping an item isn't called out as not needing free hands so I guess you better keep a free hand anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Point out is a far better example of an action with the manipulate trait that is not explicit about the number of hands, similar to battle medicine.
If the manipulate trait alone requires a free hand, then point out does as well, and that is pretty weird to me.
Other interesting cases that dispel the idea that all instances of the manipulate call out when they do not require a free hand:
Feast on the Fallen
Bond Conservation
Conceal spell
Form control
Harmonize
Leyline conduit
Melodious Spell
Overwhelming Energy
Quaking Stomp
Reactive Distraction
Widen spell
In fact, looking at this list, it becomes pretty clear that the manipulate action causes far more problems if it requires a free hand (unless explicitly stated otherwise) than if it doesn't.
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.Go read the circus weapons thread and tell me that again.
I think (if we are thinking the same thread) that its a bit different in fact based of that philosophy circus weapons would not be common even in a circus due to lack of deliberate language.
|
I think (if we are thinking the same thread) that its a bit different in fact based of that philosophy circus weapons would not be common even in a circus due to lack of deliberate language.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.Go read the circus weapons thread and tell me that again.
No, it's the same situation as this one. In both cases, there is a lack of explicit language. What's being ignored by all parties is the idea that the lack of explicit language is intentional - the deliberateness is in the ambiguity, because it is designed to be resolved on a case-by-case basis by the GM.
That is exactly the case in the Circus Weapons thread, because the two sides - "they should be common in circuses" and "I don't want to be forced to accept them in my game" - are both arguing for language that literally does what Uncommon already does, i.e., leaves it up to the GM. You can see it all over the system, from what is involved in trying to stop persistent damage to what the DC for a random check should be. The rules provide a range, an example, some guidelines, that kind of thing, but ultimately the decision is up to the GM. (I find it hard to believe that the existence of this element of the system is controversial, considering it has been the subject of intense debate and complaint since the playtest...)
That same philosophy is relevant to this question because Manipulate's description contains that kind of ambiguity, and looking at the rest of the system, there is every reason to believe that the ambiguity is intentional to let the GM make the ruling that makes sense to them.
If the GM buys, "buck up, soldier!" as sufficient to let Battle Medicine work, then it is sufficient. If the player describes how their character is grabbing some kingsfoil from a pouch and slapping it on the wound, then the GM is likely to say the character needs a free hand. If the player says they are using their healer's tools, the GM might well require both hands be free. Maybe the character has a flaming sword and describes cauterizing the wound with it. Sure, why not? No free hand needed. And so on.
PF2 is not a system where "the one right answer" will always exist. Table variation is built explicitly into the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Even if what you state is true, as far as I am concerned the correct design decision always is to NOT use ambiguity in the first place!
Either provide a set in stone fixed rule for a given situation OR clearly state that anything concerning how to rule this situation is GM decision. Result: pages of discussions and a lot of arguing at the game table avoided.
Ambiguously written rules are a pain in the arm as they will make consistency go down the drain. One and the same situation rated differently because at one time it did or did not interact with the plot etc. etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any one would disagree that trying to define the explicit action of Battle Medicine is a pedantic task. The issue is that taking your hand off of a two handed weapon requires a whole action to put it back, which makes the game feel like every smallest movement by a character needs to be recorded within the rules.
Fundamentally the question of tools and number of hands for this one feat is really a question of "what kind of action commitment and character dedication commitment is necessary to be capable of healing another character?"
For casters with access to the heal spell, the action commitment is very very low, but the character dedication commitment can be fairly significant:
A cleric can get lots of free heal spells, but it is the cost of your class choice and one significant class feature (healing font).
Other spell casting classes end up having to dedicate a lot of their early spell selection choices to it, and to keep up, need to sacrifice some of their higher level spells to it as well.
So dedicating your class and either a significant class feature (healing font or divine sorcerer) or a significant part of your spell selection, allows you access to one action in-combat healing that is usually repeatable and when you do spend more than one action on it, the results are significantly boosted.
There is also a non-class dedicated method for providing in-combat healing now and clearly there are a lot of different attitudes about what the action cost of that should be/ what the game initially intended which is half of what we are seeing played out in these threads about hte feat.
Then there are also the people who probably don't care at all about the action cost/balance, but just want a narrative that feels real world plausible, But that concern is so subjective and not really something that can be represented in any kind of 2 to 6 seconds of action that it really cannot be resolved by the rules. Either you are willing to suspend your disbelief about non-magical healing working quickly or you are not, and then the action which allows it just needs to explain itself sufficiently to satisfy the folks willing to allow it.
I think the hard part is remembering that all the pedantry of the PF2 rules around number of hands is about game balance and also not about real world simulationism. Especially with the general increase in the number of critical hits and how magical items work now, 2 handed weapons greatly increase the Damage output of characters. Maybe a shield can off-set that, but I don't think the designers wanted all decisions about weapons to boil down to: do I want to do the most damage, or do I want to have the best defense? So they expanded those choices by including things characters can do that explicitly require free hands to do them.
Is battle medicine supposed to be one of these things that encourages you to choose not to carry a 2 handed weapon or a shield? Or is it supposed to exist as a way for any character, with any loadout to be as capable of in combat healing as a dedicated cleric?
That is the original development question that could still be answered either way by a future errata. However, we have really moved past the original intent question at this point in the games life cycle and have to look at how the rules as written answer that question.
The way the manipulate trait and the feat battle medicine are currently written in the core rulebook, they lean heavily towards saying that the feat is supposed to make a slightly restricted version of combat healing available to any character, regardless of loadout capable of in combat healing. All of the arguments that challenge that reading do so by relying on an appeal to realism (which is problematic as discussed above) or intention rather than by literal reading.
The manipulate trait is just too vague to take at face value one way or another about the required number of hands for an action, and the feat and healer's tools description are too explicit to even allow their use together.
Now I think that some folks, wanting still for there to be an errata specifying that the feat requires at least one free hand, can rightly argue that the ambiguity of the manipulate trait leaves open the possibility of interpreting a required hand, but it is not clearly required, and at most, it could be argued, like by Shisumo, that this is an intentional ambiguity left for GM interpretation.
If that is true, that the ambiguity of the feat is intentional in order to be responsive to the GM in play, then it is probably a feat that needs to be excluded from PFS play because the issue of how many hands it requires is one that needs to be discussed by a group before play begins or else there is a high likelihood of hurt feelings and people feeling like their character concept is being deliberately squashed by a particular GM interpretation.
|
|
lots of words
Well said. My main reason for following this thread and commenting is due to my heavy involvement in PFS. It is vital that this feat is played the same at every table because of how much of a different game it can be depending on how this feat is handled. Additionally, with the removal of CLW wand spamming and the increased difficulty of enemies, broadening the variety of healing in game matters.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed. Over in the PFS Forum a poster just complained that Battle Medicine was run three different ways at three different tables of the same Convention.
Mark Seifter happened to be posting about something else in that same thread, and I linked to this thread, so you know Paizo knows about the issues.
I imagine (or at least hope) that the reason they're taking so long is to draft up some in-depth Errata Blog that covers hand usage and manipulating in general so that the other points brought up in these threads can be addressed as well.
Indeed. Over in the PFS Forum a poster just complained that Battle Medicine was run three different ways at three different tables of the same Convention.
Mark Seifter happened to be posting about something else in that same thread, and I linked to this thread, so you know Paizo knows about the issues.
I imagine (or at least hope) that the reason they're taking so long is to draft up some in-depth Errata Blog that covers hand usage and manipulating in general so that the other points brought up in these threads can be addressed as well.
That would be a great best case and it's what I hope for. While I enjoy quick answers on questions to get a situation resolved, actually explaining the why and how of the answer tends to help keep other questions that are extremely close from becoming the next version of the first question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is pretty clear that this is an issue around which there is a purposeful silence, coming from the whole development team, probably meaning that there are larger discussions in house then are going to get spilled by one developer (even one as awesome and involved as Mark) because there is a great potential for a decision on this to have large rippling effects on other manipulate actions/actions that require tools, and there is no reason to be hasty.
Yes it means that a single feat is being employed very differently at different tables, and it is a significant, new feat for PF2 that draws a lot of interest as a "you could never do something like this before" option, but it is not destroying the game while whatever conversation needs to be had is happening around it. I don't see the response to this issue coming in anything short of some kind of official notification. Not buried in thread conversation. Maybe I am wrong, but it all feels too deliberate to see a sudden break now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might not be destroying the game, but with this edition being more deadly it could at least in PFS lead to deaths or survivals for different groups that can very much affect enjoyment. Imagine have a GM run it "requires tools and both hands" so who ever is healing needs at minimum all 3 actions in a round to use it and still have a weapon or shield in hand by the end of turn, or less if you needed to move. You die because it really wasn't tactical to do all that when the party is in a fight. Later your talking about how tough that fight is and someone ask if your group had good healing because battle medicine saved their buts since the alchemist was able to use it and still toss out a few bombs to finish off some targets. I know I would be a bit miffed at that especially if it set me back on gold/PP/ or whatever resource 2e PFS uses to bringing me back from the dead.
... it can only be used once per day on each PC. In PFS, that usually means once per scenario...This is not true I think. It can be used once per day on each PC per character with Battle Medicine, right? So, if a party had 6 characters, each with Battle Medicine, then each PC could benefit 6 times per day.
Or am I missing something?
(PS - This seems weird to me that a character can benefit multiple times from different healers.)
This is correct.
Some effects grant you immunity to the same effect for a set
amount of time. If an effect grants you temporary immunity,
repeated applications of that effect don’t affect you for as
long as the temporary immunity lasts. Unless the effect says
it applies only to a certain creature’s ability, it doesn’t matter
who created the effect. For example, the blindness spell
says, “The target is temporarily immune to blindness for
1 minute.” If anyone casts blindness on that creature again
before 1 minute passes, the spell has no effect.
Battle Medicine does make this distinction.
The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine
for 1 day.
So a party with multiple characters who all have Battle Medicine could apply that battle medicine to every other character and themselves once per day each.
|
|
... it can only be used once per day on each PC. In PFS, that usually means once per scenario...This is not true I think. It can be used once per day on each PC per character with Battle Medicine, right? So, if a party had 6 characters, each with Battle Medicine, then each PC could benefit 6 times per day.
Or am I missing something?
(PS - This seems weird to me that a character can benefit multiple times from different healers.)
This is correct.
Some effects grant you immunity to the same effect for a set
amount of time. If an effect grants you temporary immunity,
repeated applications of that effect don’t affect you for as
long as the temporary immunity lasts. Unless the effect says
it applies only to a certain creature’s ability, it doesn’t matter
who created the effect. For example, the blindness spell
says, “The target is temporarily immune to blindness for
1 minute.” If anyone casts blindness on that creature again
before 1 minute passes, the spell has no effect.Battle Medicine does make this distinction.
So a party with multiple characters who all have Battle Medicine could apply that battle medicine to every other character and themselves once per day each.The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine
for 1 day.
An yes, you guys are correct. I misread/misremembered that one. Niiice
Like Captain Morgan was saying way up top of the thread. Hit points are an abstraction. And I don't see someone being healed or patched up in 6 to 10 seconds while someone is swinging at them. It is probably more of a shot of adrenaline or just pulling them away for a second and getting their sweat out of their eyes.
But saying you can do it without touching them? How tf do you do a medicine check on someone without touching them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The same way you create fireballs out of thin air, climb up a perfectly flat wall, turn into a dragon, teleport to another plane of existence, or kill someone by saying "BOO!". Cause the rules say you do.
A fantastic summary
Fireball -> magic
Spider Climb -> magic
Polymorph -> magic
Teleport -> magic
Phantasmal Killer -> magic
Battle Medicine - non magical healing
Guess which of these has the manipulate trait and which hasn't.
Bonus points - guess which has the somatic trait and which hasn't.
|
|
Ah ah ah, not so fast!
Climb flat walls - legendary climbing
Scare someone to death - ....scare to deathBoth non magical.
Explanations? Hopefully forthwith
Climb flat walls - legendary climbing
Scare to death - legendary intimidationIndeed - not so fast - or what was your point again when you made up the list?
Edit: Less /s now. My whole point was that indeed you put your finder exactly on the right spot with your earlier summary as well as with your addition.
There is precedent in the rules that allows similar feats as battle medicine work without the need of manipulate/free hands. As such some players / GMs see no problem with it.
But with all likelihood they seem to be either behind magic, supernatural, racial or legendary feats/traits/abilities and therefore completely break versimilitude for some players / GMs to allow them without need of a free hand.
Like Captain Morgan was saying way up top of the thread. Hit points are an abstraction. And I don't see someone being healed or patched up in 6 to 10 seconds while someone is swinging at them. It is probably more of a shot of adrenaline or just pulling them away for a second and getting their sweat out of their eyes.
But saying you can do it without touching them? How tf do you do a medicine check on someone without touching them.
Not requiring a free hand is not the same thing as not requiring some kind of contact. You do have to be adjacent to the target and be able to use an arm or appendage. There is just no rule saying the hand must begin or end the action free handed.
Remember all meta-magic feats have the manipulate tag as well, and are not somatic components. Let’s not push manipulate into meaning that the whole list of actions above require a free hand as well. I posted a whole list of manipulate actions above that are going to get a lot less usage if they require a free appendage.
It is just as plausible that a nod and a pat on the back ( even with the flat of a blade) can get a character up and fighting again as a band aid slapped hastily on a sword wound.
|
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!
At least you've got a former field medic Monk to help with the battle medicine. Well, except for that crit fail broken nose that one time, but it wasn't my fault. The patient moved unexpectedly.
I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread. It would be nice if we could get "official" answers, especially for PFS:
1. Does Battle Medicine require a healer's kit? (It seemed to me coming in that arguing that it did not was willfully obtuse, but I'm not so sure any more.)
2. If it doesn't require a healer's kit, does it require one hand free?
I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread. It would be nice if we could get "official" answers, especially for PFS:
1. Does Battle Medicine require a healer's kit? (It seemed to me coming in that arguing that it did not was willfully obtuse, but I'm not so sure any more.)
2. If it doesn't require a healer's kit, does it require one hand free?
Yeah, PFS is the real issue here.
I can say that at my home table, it creates absolutely zero gameplay issues if you dont invent new restrictions for the ability and just allow it to be used as written. Sure, it might be a bit weird if you think about it - but as a game mechanic its about perfect when you don't worry about exactly how it works or hands etc.
But organized play means consistency is important for people without a reliable home game.
|
There was an apparent 'stealth errata' to Battle Medicine about a week or so ago:
'Requirements You are holding or wearing healer's tools.'
The fact that this single line appeared without comment or mention by anyone at Paizo has a lot of players scratching their heads, wondering if this is a posting error or actual errata...
Yeah, PFS is the real issue here.
I can say that at my home table, it creates absolutely zero gameplay issues if you dont invent new restrictions for the ability and just allow it to be used as written. Sure, it might be a bit weird if you think about it - but as a game mechanic its about perfect when you don't worry about exactly how it works or hands etc.
But organized play means consistency is important for people without a reliable home game.
Definitely. I have zero problem making a ruling and moving on in a home game. At most I'd probably put my decision in writing.
As for PFS...after chatting with a local VA, we're both going to go with "requires 1 hand free, but doesn't require healer's tools." As far as we can tell, that is the RAI (but clarification would be greatly appreciated).
There was an apparent 'stealth errata' to Battle Medicine about a week or so ago:
'Requirements You are holding or wearing healer's tools.'The fact that this single line appeared without comment or mention by anyone at Paizo has a lot of players scratching their heads, wondering if this is a posting error or actual errata...
On Archives of Nethys, right? I noticed that, though in my opinion it raises more questions than it answers (like "how does one wear healer's tools?").
There was an apparent 'stealth errata' to Battle Medicine about a week or so ago:
'Requirements You are holding or wearing healer's tools.'The fact that this single line appeared without comment or mention by anyone at Paizo has a lot of players scratching their heads, wondering if this is a posting error or actual errata...
Seems like a good compromise if it is in fact as intended. It means that you need the healers kit, and you need them available as a non-action - but you do not need to be able to fully use them with a free hand, in theory.
On Archives of Nethys, right? I noticed that, though in my opinion it raises more questions than it answers (like "how does one wear healer's tools?").There was an apparent 'stealth errata' to Battle Medicine about a week or so ago:
'Requirements You are holding or wearing healer's tools.'The fact that this single line appeared without comment or mention by anyone at Paizo has a lot of players scratching their heads, wondering if this is a posting error or actual errata...
I'm 99.9% sure "wearing" Healers Tools is referring to the rules for Bandoliers.
I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread. It would be nice if we could get "official" answers, especially for PFS:
1. Does Battle Medicine require a healer's kit? (It seemed to me coming in that arguing that it did not was willfully obtuse, but I'm not so sure any more.)
2. If it doesn't require a healer's kit, does it require one hand free?
Based on the Errata Page it does now require a healers kit (in hand or Worn) but hands is still an issue.
|
|
I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread.
Heh. THIS thread has over 500 posts arguing about the same thing.
Based on the Errata Page it does now require a healers kit (in hand or Worn) but hands is still an issue.I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread. It would be nice if we could get "official" answers, especially for PFS:
1. Does Battle Medicine require a healer's kit? (It seemed to me coming in that arguing that it did not was willfully obtuse, but I'm not so sure any more.)
2. If it doesn't require a healer's kit, does it require one hand free?
At what point would it be accepted that a free hand is not a requirement? Does it need to come out and say so explicitly, despite that not being the typical paradigm for 2e?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just ran into this myself...and wow, this thread.Heh. THIS thread has over 500 posts arguing about the same thing.
Oh dear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think a single thing in all of 2E, and very, very few things in 1E, have been discussed as much, and with as little coming from it, as Battle Medicine. I’m kind of growing to hate the Feat, honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think a single thing in all of 2E, and very, very few things in 1E, have been discussed as much, and with as little coming from it, as Battle Medicine. I’m kind of growing to hate the Feat, honestly.
Based on what I've now seen, I can understand why one might feel that way!
Less easy to understand is why something like this would be allowed to fester...especially since it could be cleared up with a single post.
I don’t think a single thing in all of 2E, and very, very few things in 1E, have been discussed as much, and with as little coming from it, as Battle Medicine. I’m kind of growing to hate the Feat, honestly.Based on what I've now seen, I can understand why one might feel that way!
Less easy to understand is why something like this would be allowed to fester...especially since it could be cleared up with a single post.
I mean that's the case for a lot of issues one would think but it seems that they feel the best way to handle it is to have a committee look over things and not only make sure the way they want it done is sound but look for anything else it might break in the process. I mean just look at the back log of things that 1E never got answered and I'm sure a lot of those could have been really simple calls. But these boards have a habit of turning said mountain into a molehill.
Uhhh, Talon, you’ve uh, you’ve got the saying a bit wrong.
It’s ‘make a mountain out of a molehill,’ ie to take something small and insignificant, and turn it into something overwhelming and giant.
Issue is, Battle Medicine doesn’t really have a lot of wiggle room in how you can rule it, and not make it an effectively dead feat, vs what a good portion of people consider OP.
Uhhh, Talon, you’ve uh, you’ve got the saying a bit wrong.
It’s ‘make a mountain out of a molehill,’ ie to take something small and insignificant, and turn it into something overwhelming and giant.
Issue is, Battle Medicine doesn’t really have a lot of wiggle room in how you can rule it, and not make it an effectively dead feat, vs what a good portion of people consider OP.
Rule #1 don't post before caffeine has kicked in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At what point would it be accepted that a free hand is not a requirement? Does it need to come out and say so explicitly, despite that not being the typical paradigm for 2e?
Yes, because being able to do complicated things like using Healer's Tools without a free hand (or two) is also not a typical paradigm for 2e.
Battle Medicine doesn’t really have a lot of wiggle room in how you can rule it, and not make it an effectively dead feat, vs what a good portion of people consider OP.
I don't think people are saying it's OP in the conventional sense. Just that it would be unrealistic if it required zero hands.
Just that it would be unrealistic if it required zero hands.
Realism should not be a significant concern in Pathfinder 2E.
Theres a mechanical gameplay niche for in-combat healing at a low action and opportunity cost - no need to punish players by making that complicated, action intensive, or unapproachable.
That's why I think Battle Medicine would say it requires a free hand if it required a free hand - that requirement adds a lot of mechanical baggage to reduce a broadly useful, gameplay and party friendly feat to a feat that's only useful for a subset of characters who might take on the burden of investing in Medicine.
That doesn't feel in the spirit of 2E.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At what point would it be accepted that a free hand is not a requirement? Does it need to come out and say so explicitly, despite that not being the typical paradigm for 2e?Yes, because being able to do complicated things like using Healer's Tools without a free hand (or two) is also not a typical paradigm for 2e.
Battle Medicine doesn’t really have a lot of wiggle room in how you can rule it, and not make it an effectively dead feat, vs what a good portion of people consider OP.I don't think people are saying it's OP in the conventional sense. Just that it would be unrealistic if it required zero hands.
I mean any more unrealistic than if say you needed a hand to use the tools but were still doing something that fixed that much damage in the span of a single action without magic? The feat is unrealistic from the get go that's not a problem. No matter how you rule it works/what it needs/hands its gonna be unrealistic.
And when it comes up that HP isn't actual wounds and since BM doesn't fix the wounded condition its not actually fixing damage then we are back to why do we need a kit/hands to boost morale or whatever fluff is being used.
The feat is unrealistic from the get go that's not a problem.
Not a problem for you, maybe. It's a problem for a lot of people who get quite angry about the idea of hands-free battle medicine. Everyone has their own snapping point when it comes to realism. Grab some kind of alchemical bandage with your free hand from your healer's kit in your bandolier and slap it on a wound, all in a couple of seconds? Stretches credibility. Do the same thing without using your hands at all? Breaks credibility. YMMV.
And when it comes up that HP isn't actual wounds and since BM doesn't fix the wounded condition its not actually fixing damage then we are back to why do we need a kit/hands to boost morale or whatever fluff is being used.
It would be more realistic if we were doing something to boost morale. But instead we are required to have a Healer's Kit and to make a Medicine check to do... something.
The feat is unrealistic from the get go that's not a problem.Not a problem for you, maybe. It's a problem for a lot of people who get quite angry about the idea of hands-free battle medicine. Everyone has their own snapping point when it comes to realism. Grab some kind of alchemical bandage with your free hand from your healer's kit in your bandolier and slap it on a wound, all in a couple of seconds? Stretches credibility. Do the same thing without using your hands at all? Breaks credibility. YMMV.
What Alchemical bandage? That's not what your doing other wise we wouldn't need a feat to slap said bandage on. Or if it is a bandage why do I need a feat to use it period not just quicker? I mean anyone could apply a special bandage, this feat is showing some sort of training in medical ability and the (now needed) healers kit usage. Not that having this feats grants you special 1/day bandaids that only you can use. Now if you want to say that the Medic knows how to apply the right stuff from the kit to an injury to patch it up that's all good but now we are stretching the realism of how quick you are doing it. Because it has to be something that's not pre-packaged or prepared in advance otherwise anyone could do it by the Medic showing them or by having the item which again is unrealistic.
And when it comes up that HP isn't actual wounds and since BM doesn't fix the wounded condition its not actually fixing damage then we are back to why do we need a kit/hands to boost morale or whatever fluff is being used.It would be more realistic if we were doing something to boost morale. But instead we are required to have a Healer's Kit and to make a Medicine check to do... something.
Yep "something" and there is nothing that "something" could be that fits a perfect definition of realism. We either accept that fact or we rage against it but this feat is just one of many that aren't realistic. It stands out because it doesn't require you to be an expert or higher so its odd but there are plenty of unrealistic things going for 2E.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medicine argument over 1000 posts summed up in ten. QED