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.
So even if they print another CRB errata tomorrow and BM is still the same that wouldn't be good enough? So for your purposes you are correct until the Devs tell you that its wrong?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having finally got my APG, and read the Medic feat descriptions in print, it has become exceedingly obvious that IF the Errata is only "You are holding healer's tools or are wearing them," Then that is the developers explicitly telling you that you do not need a free hand to use the feat, because they have the exact language figured out to tell you that they do require a free hand, and they chose not to use it for battle medicine. IF the Stealth Errata that we already have is the full and only official Errata to Battle Medicine, the question of number of hands is officially and fully resolved at 0.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having finally got my APG, and read the Medic feat descriptions in print, it has become exceedingly obvious that IF the Errata is only "You are holding healer's tools or are wearing them," Then that is the developers explicitly telling you that you do not need a free hand to use the feat, because they have the exact language figured out to tell you that they do require a free hand, and they chose not to use it for battle medicine. IF the Stealth Errata that we already have is the full and only official Errata to Battle Medicine, the question of number of hands is officially and fully resolved at 0.
This.
Its theoretically possible the stealth Errata that came out for Battle Medicine at around the same time as the APG is a mistake, but the APG itself makes it perfectly clear they know how to write this requirement such that a free hand is required.
If Battle Medicine retains a distinct Requirement to the Medic abilities which do require a free hand, then its pretty clear what's intended.
Its also possible it will be errataed to match those under Medic.
Until it is though, my assumption is that they meant what they wrote.
A few others
Several of the Metamagics are manipulate but themselves don't seem to require hands for their own use.
I just went through core and skipped metamagic because "oh it follows the rules of somatic components!" possible argument.
I just went through core and skipped metamagic because "oh it follows the rules of somatic components!" possible argument.A few others
Several of the Metamagics are manipulate but themselves don't seem to require hands for their own use.
I went through everything Archives had listed with the trait and while somatics might be needed for the spells themselves the specific application of metamagic may not. Also one I left off Form Control
Also one I left off Form Control
That one is metamagic, so "metamagic" covers it. :)
So even if they print another CRB errata tomorrow and BM is still the same that wouldn't be good enough? So for your purposes you are correct until the Devs tell you that its wrong?
Just because something isn't in the first errata or second errata doesn't mean it won't be in the third or fourth. Just like BM doesn't need Healer's Tools, until suddenly it does. Maybe the design team is caught up in their own internal 'game balance versus realism' debate and that's why they haven't weighed in yet.
My gut feeling currently is that they would want it to require at least one hand, and they just haven't said so yet. It seems contrary to PF2's general 'shifting your grip is an action' attitude to hands that you merely need to wear healer's tools (perhaps as some type of hat?) to use them, you don't need to use a hand as well.
I'm trying to visualise how that could work, and finding it a struggle... Maybe it's a wound-management operation you can do with a couple of fingers, even with your sword hand... You know what? I think I could accept that. I think I will make my own ruling (purely hypothetical, since I'm not running a game) that you don't have to worry about hands. And if they later say that you do, I would not change my ruling for the duration of the (imaginary) game that I'm (not) running, because it's not fair on the (imaginary) player to undermine their build choices.
But I still think that they should answer this as it's a Frequently Asked Question and some people will not be easily persuaded to change their minds.
I think we are likely done with a FAQ system sadly, it'll be check the latest Errata and see if it updated.
But I find it disingenuous to work under the assumption that since they haven't said it's correct we should assume that it might get changed sometime years down the road. I mean it's stood and been known about for a year now. Even after updating the text we don't have a specific hands requirement.
Sure we could get another situation where the rule gets "clarified" down the way in a few years. But at that point a lot of people will be shocked and surprised that "it's always been that way" since its been a known issue for a while. I agree that nipping it in the bud sooner is better and even coming out and saying that we are working on potential errata for it would let people know something will change.
But if the last years have told us anything those type of answers are fewer and farther between coming and a lot of times it's just printed in the next run or fixed in the next book without even a post saying hey look here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having finally got my APG, and read the Medic feat descriptions in print, it has become exceedingly obvious that IF the Errata is only "You are holding healer's tools or are wearing them," Then that is the developers explicitly telling you that you do not need a free hand to use the feat, because they have the exact language figured out to tell you that they do require a free hand, and they chose not to use it for battle medicine. IF the Stealth Errata that we already have is the full and only official Errata to Battle Medicine, the question of number of hands is officially and fully resolved at 0.
LOL. No.
Look at "administer first aid." It has the manipulate trait, and it requires that you have healer's tools. Manipulate means that one "must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait." Since there is no explicit mention of needing a hand (or hands) free, you're in effect arguing that one can perform first aid by gesturing so long as you have healer's tools in your possession. Like, even in your backpack.
Personally, I think that's obtuse. And while you're free to disagree, declaring the matter "officially and fully resolved" because you think it is, to put it kindly, incorrect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having finally got my APG, and read the Medic feat descriptions in print, it has become exceedingly obvious that IF the Errata is only "You are holding healer's tools or are wearing them," Then that is the developers explicitly telling you that you do not need a free hand to use the feat, because they have the exact language figured out to tell you that they do require a free hand, and they chose not to use it for battle medicine. IF the Stealth Errata that we already have is the full and only official Errata to Battle Medicine, the question of number of hands is officially and fully resolved at 0.LOL. No.
Look at "administer first aid." It has the manipulate trait, and it requires that you have healer's tools. Manipulate means that one "must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait." Since there is no explicit mention of needing a hand (or hands) free, you're in effect arguing that one can perform first aid by gesturing so long as you have healer's tools in your possession. Like, even in your backpack.
Personally, I think that's obtuse. And while you're free to disagree, declaring the matter "officially and fully resolved" because you think it is, to put it kindly, incorrect.
Why not just say: "Have healer's tools" then? In what context would wearing healer's tools make any difference what-so-ever? With picking a lock, treating poison, and most other skills, the "have x tools" seems pretty explicit that you have them at hand for the task.
SO why specify that you could be wearing the healer's tools? And if wearing them was intended as the language that allows you to use the tools with only one hand, why specify in other abilities that you require one hand?
Again, if the current stealth Errata is the full extent of the Errata, any other interpretation of Battle medicine than it requires no hands is reading extra requirements into a action that is deliberately different than other actions that do require some number of hands.
Having finally got my APG, and read the Medic feat descriptions in print, it has become exceedingly obvious that IF the Errata is only "You are holding healer's tools or are wearing them," Then that is the developers explicitly telling you that you do not need a free hand to use the feat, because they have the exact language figured out to tell you that they do require a free hand, and they chose not to use it for battle medicine. IF the Stealth Errata that we already have is the full and only official Errata to Battle Medicine, the question of number of hands is officially and fully resolved at 0.LOL. No.
Look at "administer first aid." It has the manipulate trait, and it requires that you have healer's tools. Manipulate means that one "must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait." Since there is no explicit mention of needing a hand (or hands) free, you're in effect arguing that one can perform first aid by gesturing so long as you have healer's tools in your possession. Like, even in your backpack.
Personally, I think that's obtuse. And while you're free to disagree, declaring the matter "officially and fully resolved" because you think it is, to put it kindly, incorrect.
Why not just say: "Have healer's tools" then? In what context would wearing healer's tools make any difference what-so-ever? With picking a lock, treating poison, and most other skills, the "have x tools" seems pretty explicit that you have them at hand for the task.
SO why specify that you could be wearing the healer's tools? And if wearing them was intended as the language that allows you to use the tools with only one hand, why specify in other abilities that you require one hand?
Again, if the current stealth Errata is the full extent of the Errata, any other interpretation of Battle medicine than it requires no hands is reading extra requirements into a action that is deliberately different than other...
if it said only have healer's tool, then people would say what if you have a bandolier. the whole point of the bandolier is that it specially reducing the number of hands for the healers tools.
the other reason is that the other actions where this should apply arent abused or people accept the internal logic of the rules. If you tried to pick a lock the vast majority of GMs are going to say you need your hands free and have the picks in your hand, even though by raw you only need to have them. Repair by raw deosnt require your being free either or that the tools are in your hand. However most Gms don't allow such abuses in those cases.
the question now, is that since the APG has been forced to specify how treat wounds is suppose to work in the medic archtype. Is now the same level specificty required for all the other actions that doesn't specify that the tools are actually in your hands, thieving, performance, craft, et al.
Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs
Unlike some other actions, Repair is actually specific about this.
"You spend 10 minutes attempting to fix a damaged item, placing the item on a stable surface and using the repair kit with both hands."
I'm guessing this is because the Quick Repair feat allows you to use the Repair action in combat at higher proficiency levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if the current stealth Errata is the full extent of the Errata, any other interpretation of Battle medicine than it requires no hands is reading extra requirements into a action that is deliberately different than other actions that do require some number of hands.
If only repeating something made it true...
Meanwhile, I think I'll chose option 3 (which, by the way, we *know* to be true): Paizo's designers, being human, are sometimes inadvertently inconsistent.
But sure...you got ahead and declare it "officially and fully" resolved. I'll just "officially and fully" ignore you.
Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.
I see you're new here... ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, I think I'll chose option 3 (which, by the way, we *know* to be true): Paizo's designers, being human, are sometimes inadvertently inconsistent.
So its a mistake until it says what you want it to say.
Imagine if it it read identically to the requirement on Treat Condition as of now, and people were suggesting that was a mistake and it was probably intended to not include the bit about a free hand.
You can't just declare that its wrong until it agrees with you - its written the way it is as of less than two weeks ago, and it deserves the presumption that they knew what they were writing until the moment the author contradicts that.
Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.I see you're new here... ;-)
Should we show them the 10ft jump thread?
So its a mistake until it says what you want it to say.
Imagine if it it read identically to the requirement on Treat Condition as of now, and people were suggesting that was a mistake and it was probably intended to not include the bit about a free hand.
You can't just declare that its wrong until it agrees with you - its written the way it is as of less than two weeks ago, and it deserves the presumption that they knew what they were writing until the moment the author contradicts that.
No...your interpretation of what is written is a mistake, because it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Or should we also assume that crawling doesn't require limbs? After all, the crawl action doesn't list "limbs" as a requirement. What about jumping? Turns out you don't need limbs for that, either!
This is precisely the position you're taking. So yes, I'm going to ignore your position. Because your position is profoundly silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So its a mistake until it says what you want it to say.
Imagine if it it read identically to the requirement on Treat Condition as of now, and people were suggesting that was a mistake and it was probably intended to not include the bit about a free hand.
You can't just declare that its wrong until it agrees with you - its written the way it is as of less than two weeks ago, and it deserves the presumption that they knew what they were writing until the moment the author contradicts that.
No...your interpretation of what is written is a mistake, because it doesn't make a lick of sense.
Or should we also assume that crawling doesn't require limbs? After all, the crawl action doesn't list "limbs" as a requirement. What about jumping? Turns out you don't need limbs for that, either!
This is precisely the position you're taking. So yes, I'm going to ignore your position. Because your position is profoundly silly.
...you don't actually need limbs to either crawl, or jump.
Ask a Snake.
No one is here debating the 'reasonableness' or 'reality' of using Battle Medicine with no hands. There's no point, because doing meaningful first aid in six seconds is already ridiculous and silly.
We're discussing a Game Mechanic, and to see if you can utilize a Game Mechanic, you check the rules. Reason takes a back seat.
And the rules are clear when you need a free hand - see Treat Condition. Until the Requirement on Battle Medicine reads like the one on Treat Condition, you clearly don't need any free hands.
|
Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.I see you're new here... ;-)Should we show them the 10ft jump thread?
Despite the FAQ, the conflicting text in the Core Rulebook that caused that argument has yet to be changed.
And the rules are clear when you need a free hand - see Treat Condition. Until the Requirement on Battle Medicine reads like the one on Treat Condition, you clearly don't need any free hands.
I don't see Treat Condition. How about "Treat Wounds"?
Treat Wounds
Exploration | Healing | Manipulate
Requirements: You have healer’s tools.
It reads that you "have" (but not that you must be holding) healer's tools. Nothing about needing a free hand, either, though it has the manipulate trait, which means that "you must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait."
So by your logic, someone who has healer's tools in their backpack, and who literally HAS NO HANDS can treat wounds. Because they can gesture.
Blatant chicanery. And no, ignoring logic "because dragons" doesn't make it any better. Quite the contrary, in fact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...clearly...I'm sorry, but you/we/all can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it any more true than it was yesterday, last week, last month, or last year.
Exactly. It is manifestly not "clear."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the rules are clear when you need a free hand - see Treat Condition. Until the Requirement on Battle Medicine reads like the one on Treat Condition, you clearly don't need any free hands.I don't see Treat Condition. How about "Treat Wounds"?
Treat Wounds
Exploration Healing Manipulate
Requirements You have healer’s tools.It reads that you "have" (but not that you must be holding) healer's tools. Nothing about needing a free hand, though it has the manipulate trait, which means that "you must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait."
So by your "logic," someone who has healer's tools in their backpack, and who literally HAS NO HANDS can treat wounds. Because they can gesture. Right?
Blatant chicanery. And no, ignoring logic "because dragons" doesn't make it any better. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Did you look for Treat Condition?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2029
Conflating realism and game mechanics doesn't help anyone. Game mechanics - because they're an abstraction - do not necessarily have to follow the rules of reality. Its perfectly acceptable to handwave a lack of free hands for certain abilities, even when it would make sense, if the game is more balanced and fun because you don't impose extra restrictions on the guy who decided to do the party a favor and pick up extra healing.
Did you look for Treat Condition?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2029
Conflating realism and game mechanics doesn't help anyone. Game mechanics - because they're an abstraction - do not necessarily have to follow the rules of reality. Its perfectly acceptable to handwave a lack of free hands for certain abilities, even when it would make sense, if the game is more balanced and fun because you don't impose extra restrictions on the guy who decided to do the party a favor and pick up extra healing.
My point about treat wounds stands. By strict RAW, a person with stumps instead of hands and a healer's kit in their backpack can treat wounds with a gesture. You sure you want hitch your wagon to that one simply because "games mechanics are an abstraction"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you look for Treat Condition?
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2029
Conflating realism and game mechanics doesn't help anyone. Game mechanics - because they're an abstraction - do not necessarily have to follow the rules of reality. Its perfectly acceptable to handwave a lack of free hands for certain abilities, even when it would make sense, if the game is more balanced and fun because you don't impose extra restrictions on the guy who decided to do the party a favor and pick up extra healing.
My point about treat wounds -- which you have (understandably) avoided addressing -- stands. By strict RAW, an person with stumps for hands and a healer's kit in their backpack can treat wounds. You sure you want hitch your wagon to one simply because "games mechanics are an abstraction"?
Absolutely.
Your example of a person with no hands is hyperbolic, and meant to make my position look absurd - despite the fact that what I'm arguing is incredibly reasonable in the context of Roleplaying Games.
Regardless, your example about Treat Wounds is flawed in that Treat Wounds is an Exploration activity, with no action cost. Its not equivalent. The number of hands required during Exploration is essentially immaterial. Treat Condition on the other hand, is exactly the same sort of scenario as Battle Medicine and has a Requirement line is that essentially identical to that of Battle Medicine, except for the fact that it tells you you need a hand free.
Are you arguing that despite the literal text and meaning of the words being different for Battle Medicine and Treat Conditions requirement lines that they are actually identical? Because they factually are not.
Your example of a person with no hands is hyperbolic, and meant to make my position look absurd - despite the fact that what I'm arguing is incredibly reasonable in the context of Roleplaying Games.
But still RAW. You claim logic is irrelevant, that all that matters is the RAW...yet you discount my as hyperbolic...on what grounds, again?
Your position looks absurd because it is absurd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current Errata'd text for Battle Medicine is different from 2 medic feats that are otherwise very similar.
Arguing that there is no fundamental difference between the wording of the updated battle medicine and the new feats in the APG is illogical.
Some people are arguing that they hope the Errata changes to match that of the APG. That is an understandable position, however it seems unlikely at this point if they decided on the current Errata after almost a year of deliberation and chose not to include text about the number of hands.
Maybe the stealth Errata is not a full update, we will have to wait and see, but until it changes, there is no reason to insist that playing the game the according to the rules as written is absurd.
You are always welcome to house rule things however you want.
Your example of a person with no hands is hyperbolic, and meant to make my position look absurd - despite the fact that what I'm arguing is incredibly reasonable in the context of Roleplaying Games.But still RAW. You claim logic is irrelevant, yet you immediately discount my 100% RAW counter-example as hyperbolic...on what grounds, again?
Your position looks absurd because it is absurd.
Your argument is that the text for the Requirements for Battle Medicine and Treat Condition is identical.
It is demonstrably not.
In one case, a Free Hand is not mentioned. In the other, it is.
The reasonable conclusion is that in one case, a Free Hand is not relevant, and in the other, it is.
Unless you presuppose, with no evidence at all, the one of the two is in error. Which it may be, but we don't have any reason to believe that until it is made clear by the authors.
Reality and reasonableness for the description of the actions is essentially irrelevant - this is a game, not a simulation.
Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.I see you're new here... ;-)Should we show them the 10ft jump thread?
Don't knock it too hard. That 10-foot jump thread made it so you have to beat DC 25 to jump over a 20-foot pit in 2nd Edition.
Your argument is that the text for the Requirements for Battle Medicine and Treat Condition is identical.
No, it's not. Not even close, in fact.
My argument is that cleaving to RAW without any regard for logic whatsoever results in people who are completely bereft of hands being able to treat wounds. Which it does.
Reality and reasonableness for the description of the actions is essentially irrelevant - this is a game, not a simulation.
The rules don't say that characters need an atmosphere to survive, either. If you want to run a game with vacuum-dwelling, bilateral-amputee healthcare providers, you're certainly free to do so. But pretending that's the default, or that those who don't follow suite are "imposing extra restrictions"? Yeah...not so much.
|
|
Don't knock it too hard. That 10-foot jump thread made it so you have to beat DC 25 to jump over a 20-foot pit in 2nd Edition.Going by the logic of the last few posts, there is now an open questions of whether or not you really need to have lock picks in your hands to pick a lock, whether or not you need to open your repair kit to do repairs. That such an absurd situation has blown up this way, i would have never have imagined.I see you're new here... ;-)Should we show them the 10ft jump thread?
I feel vindicated.
Your argument is that the text for the Requirements for Battle Medicine and Treat Condition is identical.No, it's not. Not even close, in fact.
My argument is that cleaving to RAW without any regard for logic whatsoever results in people who are completely bereft of hands being able to treat wounds. Which it does.
Reality and reasonableness for the description of the actions is essentially irrelevant - this is a game, not a simulation.The rules don't say that characters need an atmosphere to survive, either. If you want to run a game with vacuum-dwelling, bilateral-amputee healthcare providers, you're certainly free to do so. But pretending that's the default, or that those who don't follow suite are "imposing extra restrictions"? Yeah...not so much.
I can't speak for Krispy but in my case on the free hand argument its not that hands aren't needed. It's that a free hand isn't needed. I would think for this type of quick patch up that needs the kit worn (assuming they mean bandoleer) or in hand you could still be pulling some bandages off a roll while gripping a sword in your hand or smearing some salve on or what ever is needed. I think needing suitable appendages and having those appendages free are 2 completely different things. My stance on this has been about free hands and people sticking with the argument that [Manipulate] means you have to have a hand free.
I can't speak for Krispy but in my case on the free hand argument its not that hands aren't needed. It's that a free hand isn't needed. I would think for this type of quick patch up that needs the kit worn (assuming they mean bandoleer) or in hand you could still be pulling some bandages off a roll while gripping a sword in your hand or smearing some salve on or what ever is needed. I think needing suitable appendages and having those appendages free are 2 completely different things. My stance on this has been about free hands and people sticking with the argument that [Manipulate] means you have to have a hand free.Your argument is that the text for the Requirements for Battle Medicine and Treat Condition is identical.No, it's not. Not even close, in fact.
My argument is that cleaving to RAW without any regard for logic whatsoever results in people who are completely bereft of hands being able to treat wounds. Which it does.
Reality and reasonableness for the description of the actions is essentially irrelevant - this is a game, not a simulation.The rules don't say that characters need an atmosphere to survive, either. If you want to run a game with vacuum-dwelling, bilateral-amputee healthcare providers, you're certainly free to do so. But pretending that's the default, or that those who don't follow suite are "imposing extra restrictions"? Yeah...not so much.
I've not addressed the absurd "limitless medics" case because its an an example of both Reductio Ad Absurdum and Slippery Slope fallacies. Allowing Battle Medicine without a Free Hand is neither absurd, nor does it lead to ridiculous results.
As far as what it looks like in game, who knows - each table can explain it how they like. Maybe you just handwave the action cost of setting aside your weapon momentarily. Maybe narrative-time pauses while you resolve the first aid, like in a movie where dialog happens when time seems pressing. Or maybe your stuff in your hands is just gone or ignored, video game style.
It doesnt really matter - its perfectly valid for Battle Medicine to not require a free hand for entirely gameplay and balance reasons. Insisting that it must require a free hand for simulation/reality reasons is forgetting that Pathfinder is a game.
FWIW, I find thenobledrakes argument about tools requiring hands per the equipment table to be the most compelling counterpoint - however, this is problematic in combat for a number of reasons. The biggest being that needing two hands for tools for a large number of combat actions that dont seem to make that assumption adds unnecessary extra action costs to those actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that if an ability says that it requires you to have the tools, then you need to be holding them when you use them. I think there might have been a discrepancy in the language between tools and items when the rule book was being written as far as the use of have vs wield.
However, that doesn't make battle medicine require that you have the tools in hand, if the Errata says have or wearing. That language, without the addition of a number of hands, really looks to me like it is pointing at battle medicine not requiring a free hand.
Another important question though is going to be whether you can get the bonus from improved healer's tools to Battle Medicine without them changing the language of healer's tools themselves to include Battle Medicine as an action that can benefit from them. In retrospect, if the plan was always to introduce new actions that will require or use the healer's tools, I really don't understand the purpose of spelling out specific actions in the description of the core rulebook that can use them. It makes for a pretty messy situation as more content gets added.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My stance on this has been about free hands and people sticking with the argument that [Manipulate] means you have to have a hand free.
That isn't the argument being made, though. The argument being made is that manipulate sometimes means you have to have a hand free, but that the rules aren't consistent about making the distinction.
It appears that both sides are destined to continue talking past one another, but I'll give it one more try. Treat wounds not only doesn't explicitly require a free hand, but it doesn't even specify that you have to be holding or using the healer's kit...merely that you "have" one. Meanwhile, the manipulate trait reads "you must physically manipulate an item or (emphasis mine) make gestures to use an action with this trait." Since a gesture certainly doesn't require a free hand, per the RAW a character can treat wounds without using his hands in any capacity whatsoever. Which is patently absurd. That leaves two options:
1. The rules intend absurdity.
2. The rules do not intend absurdity, but are inconsistent about specifying when the manipulate trait requires a free hand.
Personally, option #2 seems much more plausible (not to mention charitable), but seeing as how it has been cast as a grievous affront to the designers, I suppose I'd better add that YMMV. :P
After hundreds of posts in multiple threads stretching back a year, the only thing that is truly clear is that we're not going to settle this ourselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treat wounds not only doesn't explicitly require a free hand, but it doesn't even specify that you have to be holding or using the healer's kit...merely that you "have" one.
Because it's a downtime activity and it doesn't matter.
As such, nobody on either side is referencing it as supporting material.Since a gesture certainly doesn't require a free hand, per the RAW a character can treat wounds without using his hands in any capacity whatsoever.
I like how you jumped from "doesn't require a free hand" to "does not require hands at all" which is absurd.