Battle Medicine

[Gortle]

Make a ruling and move on.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

Yeah, see the issue with that is, that doesn’t fly in PFS. At all. As it stands, there is so much unnecessary ambiguity about how the Feat works that it causes lots of problems.

[Feral]

I suspect the design team is taking their time in ruling for this and a lot of the obvious PF2 hot button issues because of the flack they got for the off-the-cuff rulings they used to give for PF1 a few years back. There’s probably plenty of disagreement on the design team itself.

[Nefreet]

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Yeah, see the issue with that is, that doesn’t fly in PFS. At all. As it stands, there is so much unnecessary ambiguity about how the Feat works that it causes lots of problems.

In PFS, we're told as GMs to make a ruling and move on with the game.

As a player, just be prepared for the occasional GM to rule conservatively.

At least with the errata, the possibilities are now either 1 hand or 0, so you don't have to worry about 2.

I used to rule that it was 2, and ran my characters like that as well. 1 is a nice compromise. If you get a GM who believes it's 0, even better.

[ikarinokami]

Nefreet wrote:

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Yeah, see the issue with that is, that doesn’t fly in PFS. At all. As it stands, there is so much unnecessary ambiguity about how the Feat works that it causes lots of problems.

In PFS, we're told as GMs to make a ruling and move on with the game.

As a player, just be prepared for the occasional GM to rule conservatively.

At least with the errata, the possibilities are now either 1 hand or 0, so you don't have to worry about 2.

I used to rule that it was 2, and ran my characters like that as well. 1 is a nice compromise. If you get a GM who believes it's 0, even better.

it's never zero. if you have bandolier its one because the bandolier allows you use the heal kit with one hand.

if you dont have a bandolier its two hands, because a heal kit otherwise requires the use of two hands to use.

[Bast L.]

ikarinokami wrote:

it's never zero. if you have bandolier its one because the bandolier allows you use the heal kit with one hand.

if you dont have a bandolier its two hands, because a heal kit otherwise requires the use of two hands to use.

By the rules as written, it's 0 or 2 (you wear or hold tools, so you wear in bandolier (0 hands), or hold in 2 hands (2 hands)). By the interpretation that you need to use the tools, and that this necessitates the tools' hands' requirement, it's 2. Where are you getting 1 from? Bandolier says you can draw the tools as part of the action to use them, but if you're using the tools you drew, and you have to satisfy their hand requirement, you need to draw with 2 hands (in the case of healer's tools).

Your view is not unreasonable, and even makes some sense, but I don't see the rules' support for it. If there is some, please correct me.

As for realism arguments from other posts, non-magical cloud jump kind of throws that out the window. I just interpret battle medicine as a kind of reassurance, "hey, I'm your medic, and I'm here and ready with tools, so get back in the fight."

[KrispyXIV]

The rules as currently written very clearly do not require you to use any number of hands. You simply need to be wearing (or holding) the Healer's Tools.

You may not think that makes sense, but its not ambiguous. Ambiguous would imply its unclear.

[Nefreet]

The "1" comes from the Manipulate Trait, which is still being argued over.

So your GM could rightly rule 1, or rightly rule 0. Since your Healer's Tools are likely to be worn in your Bandolier, 2 should never need to come up.

[KrispyXIV]

Nefreet wrote:

The "1" comes from the Manipulate Trait, which is still being argued over.

So your GM could rightly rule 1, or rightly rule 0. Since your Healer's Tools are likely to be worn in your Bandolier, 2 should never need to come up.

I mean, I get this.

There's nothing under Manipulate that says 'free hand' though, and traits like Somatic that place restrictions on when you can use its version of the Manipulate trait are very clear (IE, "With full hands, but not while bound" - which I read as explaining a broad range of situations where Manipulate would normally be allowed, and then specifying which ones are off limits for that trait).

I'm just saying that there's absolutely no rule that explicitly requires a free hand for Battle Medicine or Manipulate actions - unless there's one I've missed.

Now, they could very well come back and errata this and I'd be wrong then, but atm I'm very confident this 'free hand' requirement has been entirely inferred and is supported nowhere in actual rules text.

[Ravingdork]

You're wrong! You're all wrong! Why, it says so right here in the holy text.

It most definitely clearly requires three hands! Three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt use, and the number of the using shall be three. Four shalt thou not use, neither use thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be used, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hands of Healing towards thy foe, who, being worthy in My sight, shall not snuff it.

[Bast L.]

Oh, manipulate is definitely not free hand. Examples to demonstrate:

Release (could never let go of something held in 2 hands)
Could never use a bo staff's parry trait
Couldn't disable some devices with your thief tools

and other stuff. Of course, this is a silly reading of those rules, but when so many manipulate actions specify that you need a hand free, and others don't, I'm pretty sure manipulate is not a free hand activity by default.

[Nocte ex Mortis]

*Headdesk so hard I break the floor*

[Nefreet]

I wonder what Paizo considers more of a signal that something needs an FAQ - one thread with over 500 posts, or two?

[shroudb]

Bast L. wrote:

Oh, manipulate is definitely not free hand. Examples to demonstrate:

Release (could never let go of something held in 2 hands)
Could never use a bo staff's parry trait
Couldn't disable some devices with your thief tools

and other stuff. Of course, this is a silly reading of those rules, but when so many manipulate actions specify that you need a hand free, and others don't, I'm pretty sure manipulate is not a free hand activity by default.

unfortunately, this is the core of the issue:

in playtest, Manipulate stated that it needed a hand. In release it lost this text.

there are manipulate actions that clearly dont need a hand, and manipulate that clearly need a hand, the problem is that neither those that do, nor those that don't, make a mention of that.

you really can rule it in any way you want until a clear errata comes out.

[Matthew Downie]

What manipulate actions (setting aside Battle Medicine) clearly need a hand but don't say they do?

[Nefreet]

Whichever ones a GM thinks need a hand?

[shroudb]

Matthew Downie wrote:

What manipulate actions (setting aside Battle Medicine) clearly need a hand but don't say they do?

stuff like pick a lock, palm an object, affix a talisman, craft, and others

[Matthew Downie]

Quote:

Pick a Lock

MANIPULATE
Requirements You have thieves’ tools.

Presumably the people who think you can use Battle Medicine with zero hands free feel the same about picking a lock. You only have to 'have' thieves' tools, you don't have to wield them in your hands.

If I ever finished my homebrew D20 system it would probably say, "Don't worry about free hands - we can assume the PC holds his sword between his teeth (a non-action) while he works, or something like that." Then these issues would be less of a problem.

[KrispyXIV]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Quote:

Pick a Lock

MANIPULATE
Requirements You have thieves’ tools.

Presumably the people who think you can use Battle Medicine with zero hands free feel the same about picking a lock. You only have to 'have' thieves' tools, you don't have to wield them in your hands.

If I ever finished my homebrew D20 system it would probably say, "Don't worry about free hands - we can assume the PC holds his sword between his teeth (a non-action) while he works, or something like that." Then these issues would be less of a problem.

I mean, the rules are there to facilitate the game.

The narrative is up to the players and GM.

If these abilities don't require a 'free hand' from a rules perspective, then its up to the players and GM to create the narrative to fit what happens.

Maybe they do hold their weapon in their teeth? Or maybe narratively setting your weapon aside to pick the lock is distinct from mechanically unequiping your weapon? The sky is the limit, and the onus is on your table to explain how it works in your narrative.

[shroudb]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Quote:

Pick a Lock

MANIPULATE
Requirements You have thieves’ tools.

Presumably the people who think you can use Battle Medicine with zero hands free feel the same about picking a lock. You only have to 'have' thieves' tools, you don't have to wield them in your hands.

If I ever finished my homebrew D20 system it would probably say, "Don't worry about free hands - we can assume the PC holds his sword between his teeth (a non-action) while he works, or something like that." Then these issues would be less of a problem.

and that's why i said that it will always be gm dependent until a clear ruling is made: manipulate lost it's requirement in the playtest, but a lot of actions didn't change to account for that.

some things are obvious (you probably wont find a gm that will allow you to craft stuff by willing them into existence if you cant use your hands while in a smithy, or picklocking a door by looking at it really intensly) others... less so.

[thenobledrake]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I mean, the rules are there to facilitate the game.

The rules happen to include a paragraph titled "Hands" on page 287, which collaborates with the "Hands" column on the adventuring gear tables, which creates a general need to actually put hands on the items you're using... but folks are seemingly willing to ignore that since activities that rely on items say the word "have"

[Falco271]

Taking the text from other feats, most notably from the Medic archetype feats, at least the RAI seems clear, even if part of the text in BM is missing.

Treat Condition
Source: Advanced Player's Guide pg. 184
Archetype: Medic
Prerequisites: Medic Dedication
Requirements: You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free.

[ikarinokami]

Bast L. wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

it's never zero. if you have bandolier its one because the bandolier allows you use the heal kit with one hand.

if you dont have a bandolier its two hands, because a heal kit otherwise requires the use of two hands to use.

By the rules as written, it's 0 or 2 (you wear or hold tools, so you wear in bandolier (0 hands), or hold in 2 hands (2 hands)). By the interpretation that you need to use the tools, and that this necessitates the tools' hands' requirement, it's 2. Where are you getting 1 from? Bandolier says you can draw the tools as part of the action to use them, but if you're using the tools you drew, and you have to satisfy their hand requirement, you need to draw with 2 hands (in the case of healer's tools).

Your view is not unreasonable, and even makes some sense, but I don't see the rules' support for it. If there is some, please correct me.

As for realism arguments from other posts, non-magical cloud jump kind of throws that out the window. I just interpret battle medicine as a kind of reassurance, "hey, I'm your medic, and I'm here and ready with tools, so get back in the fight."

what. it is always 1 or 2. healers kit requires two hands. the bandolier requires one hand free to access the med kit.

it's not complicated. the bandolier is only one hand because you don't need both hands to manipulate the healers kit, because they are already exposed so you can access them with only one hand,

[ikarinokami]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The "1" comes from the Manipulate Trait, which is still being argued over.

So your GM could rightly rule 1, or rightly rule 0. Since your Healer's Tools are likely to be worn in your Bandolier, 2 should never need to come up.

I mean, I get this.

There's nothing under Manipulate that says 'free hand' though, and traits like Somatic that place restrictions on when you can use its version of the Manipulate trait are very clear (IE, "With full hands, but not while bound" - which I read as explaining a broad range of situations where Manipulate would normally be allowed, and then specifying which ones are off limits for that trait).

I'm just saying that there's absolutely no rule that explicitly requires a free hand for Battle Medicine or Manipulate actions - unless there's one I've missed.

Now, they could very well come back and errata this and I'd be wrong then, but atm I'm very confident this 'free hand' requirement has been entirely inferred and is supported nowhere in actual rules text.

so you can pick locks without a free hand, and nearly every other action listed in the skills section. the entire skills section of the rule book is going to have to be rewritten.

[Unicore]

The point about this weird stealth errata of Battle Medicine, is that it is deliberately (we assume, it has a year now for consideration) not the same as other abilities that make the hands requirement clear. If it simply said: "Must have healer's tools." The debate would be over. The feat requires two hands, because healer's tool requires two hands. But the errata that added the requirement that the feat requires access to healer's tools, is intentionally different from other requirements that make hands usage more clear. Does wearing healer's tools require hands? No, not by any metric established within the internal game logic.

In a game that sets aside rules space to tell you that you have to spend an action to return your hand to your two-handed weapon from having pushed open a door, a lot of people are expecting more specific clarity about how many actions a feat like battle medicine is supposed to take. Some people see this as a debate about verisimilitude, but for many of us it is much more about the internal power balance of the action economy, and the only way that Battle Medicine can require the character to use healer's tools and not require two hands to do so, if for an errata to the manipulate trait to make it clear that the default position of actions with the manipulate trait is that it requires one hand free unless the action says otherwise, and then several actions need to be fixed to not require a free hand. Figuring all of this out could be the kind of complicated, but relatively small game effect changes that will result in the fix that a lot of people seem to want (Battle medicine to require one free hand), but it makes sense that they had to go over the entire book with a fine tooth comb to sort that out without wrecking actions like grab a ledge, release, point out, etc.

Personally, I have been using no hands for battle medicine since the beginning, and out of 5 parties over the course of a year of play, I have still only ever seen it seen it used consistently in battle in one of them , by a rogue that would never use the ability if it required one or more free hands. Magical healing is just so much more powerful, flexible and reliable for combat, and treating wounds after combat is just a vastly superior option than wasting actions in combat unless it is absolutely necessary, which it almost never is if you have a cleric. I hope it remains something where you can have the healer's tools in a bandolier and then not require a free hand, because it is an interesting mechanic to have added to the game, but already requiring that you be adjacent to your injured ally is challenging enough in most combat situations. Having to be adjacent, and then spend multiple actions to use the feat, likely within striking range of a powerful enemy (that hurt your ally in the first place) is a very quick path to TPK-landia, especially as the action can hurt your ally on a critical failure. Especially in comparison to a Cleric standing 30ft back and hitting them with a 2 action heal spell that will usually be ahead on its potential healing value.

If the only change to battle medicine is what is currently in the errata, then I will feel pretty confident continuing to allow no hands battle medicine checks as strict interpretation of the Rules as written.

[KrispyXIV]

thenobledrake wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I mean, the rules are there to facilitate the game.

The rules happen to include a paragraph titled "Hands" on page 287, which collaborates with the "Hands" column on the adventuring gear tables, which creates a general need to actually put hands on the items you're using... but folks are seemingly willing to ignore that since activities that rely on items say the word "have"

That reference certainly does help build the case for ambiguity.

I still think I agree with Unicore's recent point though - if I told my players that they now had to meet an unlisted free hand requirement for Battle Medicine, it would kill both the feat and in-combat non-magical healing instantly. The feat is already sufficiently limited from a gameplay perspective even without that requirement, and further limiting it is just hurting player gameplay options for the cause of "unneeded realism".

As a rule, I dont go against my players like that unless the rules explicitly tell me to.

[Matthew Downie]

Unicore wrote:

If it simply said: "Must have healer's tools." the debate would be over. The feat requires two hands, because healer's tool requires two hands.

The APG quote given just above says that healer's tools don't always require two hands:

Quote:

Treat Condition

Requirements: You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free.

[Grankless]

Very excited for the full errata to come out this week (allegedly).

[Nocte ex Mortis]

I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve got a feeling I’m going to reach my Final Form and Crack The Sky when it comes out though.

[thenobledrake]

KrispyXIV wrote:

As a rule, I dont go against my players like that unless the rules explicitly tell me to.

I use that same approach... but I differ in that I think not explicitly creating an exception to the rule I mentioned from page 287 is the rules explicitly telling me to go against my player if they believe they don't have to free up their hands to do things which require tools.

[Unicore]

you wear armor though, that doesn't require you to be touching it with your hands. The addition of the second half of the requirement, that you can be wearing the healer's tools means something different than, you must have the healer's tools in hand to use this feat.

Maybe the logical in world explanation is that there are healer's tools that can be worn in such a way that they can apply healing without the user having to directly manipulate the tools with their free hands. Maybe the adrenaline shot can be triggered from a wrist mechanism or it is salve that can be applied with the back of ones hand?

[bugleyman]

At this point, it isn't even about what I believe is -- or isn't -- logical. As a PFS GM, I'd appreciate explicit confirmation of exactly how Battle Medicine is intended to work.

[Artificial 20]

Due to a misaimed internal pointer, it's actually the character receiving healing that has to have free hands.

Also, if you stand in the very top left square of the map and use Battle Medicine, it heals the first creature in initiative.

[bugleyman]

Artificial 20 wrote:

Due to a misaimed internal pointer, it's actually the character receiving healing that has to have free hands.

Rumor has it that using battle medicine with a null pointer is what killed Aroden. ;-)

[TwilightKnight]

bugleyman wrote:

At this point, it isn't even about what I believe is -- or isn't -- logical. As a PFS GM, I'd appreciate explicit confirmation of exactly how Battle Medicine is intended to work.

Wouldn’t that be nice

It’s “cute” that some are still posting as if they can ‘splain how their interpretation of the feat is clearly the right one despite the mountain of evidence otherwise. There are only two ways to settle this issue: GM makes a ruling, or Paizo finally posts errata/FAQ for the feat. Anything else is just hot air.

[Artificial 20]

bugleyman wrote:

Artificial 20 wrote:

Due to a misaimed internal pointer, it's actually the character receiving healing that has to have free hands.

Rumor has it that using battle medicine with a null pointer is what killed Aroden. ;-)

And Irori ascended by taking voluntary flaws to underflow all his scores.

There's more to it than that, but he doesn't want it spreading.

[Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind]

If the intent was to emulate words of encouragement with no hands used, Battle Medicine should resemble Encouraging Words and be a Diplomacy check, but it isn't. The flavor text states, "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat," and the feat has the Manipulate trait. No matter how one interprets the Manipulate trait, it clearly does not involve speaking because that's what the Auditory trait is available to signify; Battle Medicine doesn't have the Auditory trait.

Unless Archives of Nethys is going rogue, adding "Requirements: You are holding or wearing healer's tools." should settle the dispute over the need to manipulate healer's tools. The Battle Medicine debate originally emerged because Battle Medicine didn't list healer's tools as a requirement before.

Falco271 wrote:

Taking the text from other feats, most notably from the Medic archetype feats, at least the RAI seems clear, even if part of the text in BM is missing.

Treat Condition
Source: Advanced Player's Guide pg. 184
Archetype: Medic
Prerequisites: Medic Dedication
Requirements: You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free.

^This seems to be the best indication of where the Paizo developers are landing on this debate and I think it is more than fair to the players as a solution considering that the usage entry for healer's tools lists 2 hands. The requirements for the Medic's Treat Condition will serve as my ruling at my table until the developers say otherwise.

[Talonhawke]

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

If the intent was to emulate words of encouragement with no hands used, Battle Medicine should resemble Encouraging Words and be a Diplomacy check, but it isn't. The flavor text states, "You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat," and the feat has the Manipulate trait. No matter how one interprets the Manipulate trait, it clearly does not involve speaking because that's what the Auditory trait is available to signify; Battle Medicine doesn't have the Auditory trait.

Alright we can agree so far.

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Unless Archives of Nethys is going rogue, adding "Requirements: You are holding or wearing healer's tools." should settle the dispute over the need to manipulate healer's tools. The Battle Medicine debate originally emerged because Battle Medicine didn't list healer's tools as a requirement before.

We don't know that, we do now know we need a healers kit. But we don't actually know what is being manipulated. The kit the person being healed?

Second that still doesn't require hands without it being stated. Several manipulate actions/feats/etc. are things that don't need a free hand to preform.

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Falco271 wrote:

Taking the text from other feats, most notably from the Medic archetype feats, at least the RAI seems clear, even if part of the text in BM is missing.

Treat Condition
Source: Advanced Player's Guide pg. 184
Archetype: Medic
Prerequisites: Medic Dedication
Requirements: You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free.

^This seems to be the best indication of where the Paizo developers are landing on this debate and I think it is more than fair to the players as a solution considering that the usage entry for healer's tools lists 2 hands. The requirements for the Medic's Treat Condition will serve as my ruling at my table until the developers say otherwise.

So even though we had an update to the Errata Doc just before this book came out and when adding healers tools they didn't add a line about a hand we should assume they meant too? It might be oversight or it might be intentional. As for you homegames thats fine.

[First World Bard]

I suspect that we will see an actual update to the errata fairly soon. I strongly suspect that update will add the 'wearing them and have a hand free' language.

[Talonhawke]

First World Bard wrote:

I suspect that we will see an actual update to the errata fairly soon. I strongly suspect that update will add the 'wearing them and have a hand free' language.

We may very well see that, we may not. I haven't looked over everything with that language but those things i have aren't limited usage like battle medicine.

[KrispyXIV]

First World Bard wrote:

I suspect that we will see an actual update to the errata fairly soon. I strongly suspect that update will add the 'wearing them and have a hand free' language.

If it ISNT in there, at what point do people concede, "Well, maybe they DO mean what they printed."

Thats what seems to be lacking here - a concession that its possible that its printed exactly as intended, and free hands aren't required.

I'm willing to grant that its possible they'll rule that it does require a free hand.

But I maintain that interpretation requires a change from whats currently printed.

[First World Bard]

KrispyXIV wrote:

I'm willing to grant that its possible they'll rule that it does require a free hand.

But I maintain that interpretation requires a change from whats currently printed.

Isn't that literally the definition of errata? :)

But yes, if they don't address hands in the next actual errata drop (the one where we expect them to fix the Arrow-Catching shield and whatnot), I would consider the matter settled in the not needing hands sense.

[Gisher]

First World Bard wrote:

KrispyXIV wrote:

I'm willing to grant that its possible they'll rule that it does require a free hand.

But I maintain that interpretation requires a change from whats currently printed.

Isn't that literally the definition of errata? :)

No, no, no! Please, no! Don't start a discussion about the definition of errata. Those never turn out well.

[Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind]

Talonhawke wrote wrote:

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Unless Archives of Nethys is going rogue, adding "Requirements: You are holding or wearing healer's tools." should settle the dispute over the need to manipulate healer's tools. The Battle Medicine debate originally emerged because Battle Medicine didn't list healer's tools as a requirement before.

We don't know that, we do now know we need a healers kit. But we don't actually know what is being manipulated. The kit the person being healed?

The most logical conclusion to me is that both the person being healed and the healer's tools are being manipulated, as any field medic would require interacting with both to "patch up" themselves or an ally. But... Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume for a moment that the person being healed was indeed the only thing being manipulated. In this case I, the healer, am still using at least one "suitable appendage" to manipulate that person either way. I need the use of at least one hand. I can't escape the need for a hand.

But if this was indeed the case, why list healer's tools as a requirement to perform a specific Manipulate action, and why add them now when they weren't there before? What function is their mere presence serving now that was overlooked before? Something prompted that update.

In either case, at least one hand is needed. Functionally, that's what's important to pin down.

Talonhawke wrote wrote:

Second that still doesn't require hands without it being stated. Several manipulate actions/feats/etc. are things that don't need a free hand to preform.

Do you have an example that I can look at beyond the somatic component to Cast A Spell? Page 303 makes sure to fully explain how and why somatic spell components are an acceptable manipulate action to perform with an occupied hand so as to avoid confusion regarding this special case. As I recall, the reason for removing a free hand as a universal standard for the Manipulate trait during the Playtest was to facilitate casting somatic spells with occupied hands. The first draft of the Playtest required a free hand to cast a somatic component and it wasn't as fun, so they changed it to allow casters to wave their staff/sword/etc for most spells.

I understand and I'm also calling for Paizo to make hand usage more discreet and clear, but would you agree that there is also precedent for several similar actions/activities that surely require hand-use even though they did not express it clearly enough? My evidence:

- Every other common Medicine skill check
- Pick a Lock
- Repair

Surely it must require manipulation of the healer's tools to stop bleeding with Administer First Aid? Or Repairing an item requires manipulation of the repair kit? Certainly Picking A Lock isn't possible without manipulating the thieves' tools, whereas Stealing or Palming An Object wouldn't require these tools (and as such, thieves' tools aren't listed as a requirement for those two manipulate actions).

At this point, what is the justification to interpret Battle Medicine any differently from Administer First Aid or Pick A Lock?

[bugleyman]

Yeah...so the errata to Battle Medicine helps, but whether or not the manipulate trait means you need an empty hand appears to be "it depends." Sometimes you do (pick a lock), sometimes you don't (somatic components).

In my opinion, a system as codified as Pathfinder 2E really needs to be consistent about the use and specific meaning of traits. This wouldn't be difficult: The manipulate trait could explicitly require a free hand, and a separate trait -- say, gesture -- could be used to indicate a free hand is not required. Alternatively, just remove the manipulate trait from anything that doesn't require a hand. Either way, consistency is paramount.

[Nefreet]

bugleyman wrote:

In my opinion, a system as codified as Pathfinder 2E really needs to be consistent about the use and specific meaning of traits.

And we're only one year in...

[Draco18s]

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Talonhawke wrote wrote:

Second that still doesn't require hands without it being stated. Several manipulate actions/feats/etc. are things that don't need a free hand to preform.

Do you have an example that I can look at beyond the somatic component to Cast A Spell?

Dropping items (Release, Free Action p470)

Grab an Edge (a critical success means you don't even drop stuff!)
Interact (470, presumably you can interact with an object that is occupying your hands without needing extra hands, open doors with your hands full (if I can do this carrying two bags of groceries, then so should my character))
Train Animal (268, hands are not mentioned)
Conceal an Object (251, if I can put it in my pocket and show my hands are empty, then I do not need hands in order to perform this action)
Impersonate (245)
Quaking Stomp (93, go on, tell me this needs hands)

[Matthew Downie]

KrispyXIV wrote:

If it ISNT in there, at what point do people concede, "Well, maybe they DO mean what they printed."

When someone from the design team confirms it.

[Talonhawke]

Draco18s wrote:

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:

Talonhawke wrote wrote:

Second that still doesn't require hands without it being stated. Several manipulate actions/feats/etc. are things that don't need a free hand to preform.

Do you have an example that I can look at beyond the somatic component to Cast A Spell?

Dropping items (Release, Free Action p470)

Grab an Edge (a critical success means you don't even drop stuff!)
Interact (470, presumably you can interact with an object that is occupying your hands without needing extra hands, open doors with your hands full (if I can do this carrying two bags of groceries, then so should my character))
Train Animal (268, hands are not mentioned)
Conceal an Object (251, if I can put it in my pocket and show my hands are empty, then I do not need hands in order to perform this action)
Impersonate (245)
Quaking Stomp (93, go on, tell me this needs hands)

A few others

Feast of the Fallen

Several of the Metamagics are manipulate but themselves don't seem to require hands for their own use.