| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meanwhile, I see that both sides are still talking past each other, and there is still no ruling in sight. *sigh*
What would a ruling look like if no hands are required?
Where would Paizo publish such a ruling?
|
As significant as this issue appears to be, it wouldn't be surprising to see it discussed in a weekly blog post, though just adding clarification commentary in the FAQ section would suffice. They could publish an updated errata document knowing that eventually they will need to reprint the CRB and when that happens it would be a good time to incorporate the errata document.
If that is a long-way off, it would be quite easy for the organized play team to post in their FAQ a clarification with the explicit addition that it in no way is meant to be permanent or an errata to the game system. It is just a temporary clarification specifically for the PFS campaign to reduce/eliminate table conflict until such time as the designers release a permanent resolution. That they are unwilling to do so, is both frustrating and disappointing.
I don't need any help with my home game. We have a solution that works for us and it doesn't really matter what the designers come up with. However, PFS needs a consistent ruling to curtail the conflicts.
What would a ruling look like if no hands are required?
"You can use Battle Medicine even with both hands full and with your Healer's Tools in your bandolier."
Where would Paizo publish such a ruling?
In this thread. On Twitter. In the FAQs. In a blog post. In a clarifying errata to the main rulebook. On YouTube. Any of the above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would a ruling look like if no hands are required?"You can use Battle Medicine even with both hands full and with your Healer's Tools in your bandolier."
Where would Paizo publish such a ruling?In this thread. On Twitter. In the FAQs. In a blog post. In a clarifying errata to the main rulebook. On YouTube. Any of the above.
Imagine if they had to go back and Errata every single manipulate action that doesn't require a free hand to say, "You can use X even with both your hands full."
From any kind of systems logic perspective, it would make no sense to add language to the feat if no free hands are required. When an activity has a requirement, the rules really should spell that requirement out explicitly.
I do honestly understand where all this confusion is coming from. The manipulate tag used to do exactly what people who think BM should require a free hand needed to do to make that clear in the playtest. Then it was changed to allow casters to not require a freehand.
Now the Manipulate tag is unnecessarily confusing with the way it words hand usage. Why even both stating "Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait?" "suitable" is the text book definition of vague wording, and GMs who want battle medicine (or many other feats) to require a hand a fully empowered by language like that to decide suitable means free. It doesn't even clearly establish that you cannot complete these activities with your hands bound behind your back, that is all handled by the restrained condition. I guess it is what prevents animals from performing magic?
Maybe that ambiguity was the intention of the rule to empower GMs to apply their own logic for home games, but it really does wreck havoc on organized play, not just for battle medicine but for any future action given the manipulate tag and no further instruction about hand usage. A GM would be equally within their rights to say that point out requires a free hand, or the bard feat Harmonize, or the barbarian feat Instinctive Strike. That is the wrong path for the future of the game to go down, and that is why, for future content and potential Errata, especially with how the APG uses language to describe actions, it needs to default to actions and activities only require a free hand if they explicitly say so. Manipulate needs to just be a stand in for complex movements that can be impeded by being restrained and capable of provoking some reactions, because that is what is fully within the existing text for it to do, and will require the least amount of additional Errata.
If battle medicine specifically is going to require one or two free hands, then new errata is needed to specify that.
Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.
They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.
Stretching realism and outright breaking realism are two different things, one of which mundane stuff can't do. Speaking in areas of silence is something being argued that Battle Medicine can do, and yet I don't see anyone saying that's a problem or that it's permitted in the feat's capabilities, when nothing of the sort is mentioned. So making stuff up to make it work is fine, but utilizing congruent rules to demonstrate how it shouldn't work is not?
As another example, fighters can have ridiculous amounts of strength and athletics to wrestle with rhinos. That's fine. I don't have a problem with this.
Said Fighter having hands full or no Grapple weapon with which to wrestle said rhino to the ground, or wrestling an incredibly larger creature without feats, is still physically impossible, something that no sane GM would allow. This very concept is the same thing that I am applying to Battle Medicine.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can kill you by staring at you. I can literally live in a volcano or Antarctica butt naked. I can do a full medical assessment of a person at a literal glance, telling your entire medical history by how your hair moves. I can FALL FROM SPACE and not only not die, but not even scratch my knee. I can become Spider-Man, and stand on a vertical surface without concern. I can read a letter, sealed in an envelope, by touch alone.
And yet, Battle Medicine is the thing on this list that directly requires magic to be remotely possible?
I can kill you by staring at you. I can literally live in a volcano or Antarctica butt naked. I can do a full medical assessment of a person at a literal glance, telling your entire medical history by how your hair moves. I can FALL FROM SPACE and not only not die, but not even scratch my knee. I can become Spider-Man, and stand on a vertical surface without concern. I can read a letter, sealed in an envelope, by touch alone.
And yet, Battle Medicine is the thing on this list that directly requires magic to be remotely possible?
In fairness, you are comparing Legendary skill feats to a Trained skill feat. 15th level PF2 PCs are heroes of myth and legend. 1st level PCs are adventurers just starting out. There should be a difference in capabilities there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of them are Legendary. Three of them are level 1 and level 2 Feats. One of those becomes Legendary. Zero of them require magic.
Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.
They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.
Stretching realism and outright breaking realism are two different things,one of which mundane stuff can't do.
I'm sorry that apparently patching up multiple wounds in 2-3 seconds only stretches you realism but doing it with something in hand doesn't.
Speaking in areas of silence is something being argued that Battle Medicine can do, and yet I don't see anyone saying that's a problem or that it's permitted in the feat's capabilities, when nothing of the sort is mentioned. So making stuff up to make it work is fine, but utilizing congruent rules to demonstrate how it shouldn't work is not?
Not my argument but as you have said lets assume a "handless"(Different from Free hand not needed) use of the feat exist what ever is being done would clearly be something that would have to work in silence unless we are going to change the tags based on usage. Not my argument on the feat so talk to those people about that.
As another example, fighters can have ridiculous amounts of strength and athletics to wrestle with rhinos. That's fine. I don't have a problem with this.
So RAMVORD (rules as my views of reality dictate) then? If you find it acceptable then its all good but if it breaks your bubble of reality it is silly and not acceptable?
Said Fighter having hands full or no Grapple weapon with which to wrestle said rhino to the ground, or wrestling an incredibly larger creature without feats, is still physically impossible, something that no sane GM would allow. This very concept is the same thing that I am applying to Battle Medicine.
Well yeah the rule for grapple clearly spell that out. What does this have to do with a section of rules that don't clearly spell out a hands requirement? The only correlation I can see is that if you have the proper tools handy (grapple weapon) your hand doesn't actually need to be free. So its possible that because of how quick the action going on is you don't need a completely empty hand to "battle Medicine"
I can kill you by staring at you. I can literally live in a volcano or Antarctica butt naked. I can do a full medical assessment of a person at a literal glance, telling your entire medical history by how your hair moves. I can FALL FROM SPACE and not only not die, but not even scratch my knee. I can become Spider-Man, and stand on a vertical surface without concern. I can read a letter, sealed in an envelope, by touch alone.
And yet, Battle Medicine is the thing on this list that directly requires magic to be remotely possible?
"Realistic" is in the eye of the beholder sadly. And the less magical an ability is the more people rage against it. I mean I've seen threads about shooting arrows in 1E needing to be capped because no-one should be shooting 6+ arrows in 6 seconds.
|
|
I think I repost this here from a different thread a while ago. This was before !! the errata and solely deals with manipulate and how the 124 instances of it appearing in the CRB are handled.
The CRB is surprisingly concise in regard to the use of hands and manipulate. The question hands or no hands boils down to a) does battle medicine involve physical interaction (free hand needed) or b) is battle medicine a gesture (no free hands needed).
I find it interesting how often I heard by now - no hands mentioned - no hands needed. It was mentioned several times that Battle Medicine has the manipulate trait. So the question therefore becomes – how does manipulate and hands (free hands) work. I took some time and looked up manipulate in the CRB.
When I said I took some time then I mean I looked at the 124 mentions of the word manipulate to form an opinion what the CRB truly means when using manipulate.
First: all over the book manipulate is connected to hands. At least 5 spells mention explicit: You have hands in this battle form and can take manipulate actions. while one mentions the opposite It can’t cast spells, activate items, or use actions that have the attack or manipulate trait.
There are other mentions that relate to hands as in Manacles, the grappled and restrained condition.
So I hope this establishes that for the manipulate trait you need hands. I ignore at this stage some other suitable appendixes. as this is mainly left to the GM to decide. Manual dexterity explicitly deals with this if you are a familiar, dragon form, elemental form explicitly deal with this in the spell description to ensure the GM isn’t deciding against you when you are supposed to be able to use manipulate.
Now that we have established hands are needed we need to attack the next question”: when is a free hand needed?
Spells are straight-forward. If it involves something physical, then it needs a free hand. The material trait or a focus both needs a free hand (well - in case of the focus it is ok if you already hold the focus). Somatic aka gestures can be done without a free hand. Verbal has no manipulate trait and therefore can be done without hands.
This leads to actions chapter 9. Interact explicitly names a free hand. Release that you already hold the item in your hand. Grab an edge was pointed out as special. You also need a free hand for a success, but critical success allows you to do it without a free hand. Affixing a talisman even needs 2 hands.
There is one exemption - Point out doesn't mention a hand. Well - if you are as old as I'm then you might remember that a pointer at school looked more or less like a spear. Having something long in you hand might actually improve the point out action. We also could argue if pointing out is a gesture. Either way – no free hand needed.
So far it looks pretty solid how the rules deal with manipulate, hands and free hands.
This leads to actions described in chapter 5 under skills and feats. There are 17 !! skills and feats listed in this chapter. Only a single of these mentions hands. This is repair which needs a stable surface, a repair kit and 2 hands. Good luck to do this during battle.
Administer first aid, treat disease, treat poison and treat wounds do not mention hands. Some argue that the requirement You have healer’s tools is enough - and I'm not arguing this. But I wanted to point out – not adding explicit text for hands is the default in how skill actions and feats are described.
So how far did we get:
a) manipulate means hands
b) gestures can be done with hand occupied
c) otherwise if there is physical interaction you need a free hand or the item in that hand in chapter 9.
This leads to 2 options – can all skills/feats in chapter 5 with manipulate be done without free hands by RAW – or did Paizo think it being unnecessary to specify hands?
Let us investigate the argument – no hands mentioned – no hands needed. This leads to interesting outcomes for actions under thievery. Disable device says Some devices require you to use thieves’ tools. So RAW - do I need hands when I don't need thieves tools?
Pick a lock is another beauty. It says You have thieves’ tools but it allows you to use improvised thieves tools. Improvised thieves tools have no listed stats. Can I open a lock without hands at a -2 - claiming improvised thieves tools which don't need hands?
And the final beauty: Pick Pocket does neither list hands nor tools and not even that you have to be adjacent. Just steal an item that is worn / doesn't indicate hand usage and you do it from distance with a stern glance (insert /s tag here).
My interpretation – if you rule that not explicitly mentioning hands means it is like a gesture and no free hands needed for battle medicine, then you can pick pocket from a distance without hands free as no hands are mentioned either and to top it off – pick pocket doesn’t mention being adjacent either – which battle medicine does.
On the other hand – if all of these actions need a free hand then battle medicine needs one as well. Keep in mind – the only exemption so far was spells (gesture), pointing out and grab and edge (where a free hand is mentioned but critical success overrules it).
Are there any other exemptions out of the 124 mentions of manipulate? We have the Quaking Stomp feat that has the manipulate trait. I would argue that the suitable appendix in this case is a free feet and not a free hand. I guess Paizo trusts us GMs enough that we can make this ruling without explicitly writing down that a free foot is needed.
There are 2 or 3 other instances where it is left up to the GM to decide.
Let me know if I missed anything? Here is my spreadsheet that I generated. I didn't annotate every occurrence and I deleted duplication.
In my view the manipulate trait is surprisingly concise in the CRB in RAI as well as RAW. If I have a criticism – you need to start reading chapter 7 (spells) and 9 (playing the game) before interpreting the lack of explicitly mentioning hands in chapter 3-5. And yes - it seems deliberate that they don't mention hands in chapters 3-5 as it seems to generate unnecessary clutter and more difficulty to read the text. Alas this leads to discussions like this one.
Also, interact does not mention free hands.
INTERACT [one-action]
MANIPULATE
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the
terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a
door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt
a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
As presumably you can interact with an object that you are holding (and therefore have no free hands). Note the lack of a "requirements: at least one free hand" line, which is present in dozen or so feats that actually do require a free hand.
Grab an Edge even goes out of its way to say you don't need free hands, but can't be restrained, even though you drop whatever you're holding as a result (unless you critically succeed).
I can kill you by staring at you. I can literally live in a volcano or Antarctica butt naked. I can do a full medical assessment of a person at a literal glance, telling your entire medical history by how your hair moves. I can FALL FROM SPACE and not only not die, but not even scratch my knee. I can become Spider-Man, and stand on a vertical surface without concern. I can read a letter, sealed in an envelope, by touch alone.
And yet, Battle Medicine is the thing on this list that directly requires magic to be remotely possible?
The odds of someone literally dying from fear, even with the feat and max Intimidation, is still very slim. Not unlike people dying from a panic attack, embarrassment, etc., which is so rare it's almost unheard of. So it's not even that strong, and even when it happens, it's essentially a fluke.
People live like that in real life, which their experience and skills in Survival shows. The most unlikely one is being in space or without oxygen, which I would agree is preposterous without magical help.
T.V. shows do that all the time, and a skilled medical expert can tell symptoms and cause of death right away. It really isn't something skills can't replicate.
I will agree that you wouldn't take damage from the impact of the fall. But you would still take fire damage from re-entering Golarion's atmosphere and dropping down, maybe persistent fire damage unless you land in a body of water. Or it just doesn't work that way because, you know, fantasy realm doesn't have all the physics of the real world.
Gymnasts and circus performers have plenty of crazy balancing acts. I wouldn't expect them to climb walls or hang from the ceiling like Spider-Man. But they can certainly balance on narrow surfaces incredibly well like him too.
Reading a letter would most likely be a case of intuition and comprehension of what the letter would be, something that movies have done before. Unrealistic, but certainly not impossible with skills.
Sure i can look for that and while I do you find the video of a surgeon patching up the basic Damage from 2 crossbow bolts in roughly 2 seconds. Since Realism is so important I'm sure your gonna wanna change the time to use the feat to match real world doctors as well.
They could have just as easily forgotten it as a requirement, just like they forgot that Healer's Tools was a requirement, and it was errata'd in. I'd definitely like to see a surgeon work while his hands are occupied with a sword and shield, or a big axe occupying his hands that he would be using scalpels, snips, thread, etc. and successfully fixing up a patient. If you can post a video of someone doing that, I'll concede this and never bring it up ever again. I highly doubt one exists, though.
Stretching realism and outright breaking realism are two different things,one of which mundane stuff can't do.I'm sorry that apparently patching up multiple wounds in 2-3 seconds only stretches you realism but doing it with something in hand doesn't.
Speaking in areas of silence is something being argued that Battle Medicine can do, and yet I don't see anyone saying that's a problem or that it's permitted in the feat's capabilities, when nothing of the sort is mentioned. So making stuff up to make it work is fine, but utilizing congruent rules to demonstrate how it shouldn't work is not?Not my argument but as you have said lets assume a "handless"(Different from Free hand not needed) use of the feat exist what ever is being done would clearly be something that would have to work in silence unless we are going to change the tags based on usage. Not my argument on the feat so talk to those people about that.
As another example, fighters can have ridiculous amounts of strength and athletics to...
Because I imagine it takes fine motor skills and precision, best done with hands that aren't holding things, to appropriately perform the feat. Plus, with the errata requiring Healer's Tools, that has to interact with the feat somehow, and the closest correlation to that being Treat Wounds, specifying 2 hands on the Healer's Tools required. 1 hand can be argued, but arguing an armless person can use the feat is even worse than magic.
A GM might have to add or remove traits based on a player using an activity (in a way) that the rules don't cover, or just outright deny that usage/activity based on the grounds of not being (or having basis) in the rules. I'll have you take a guess on which option most GMs go with, keeping in mind that flexibility, fairness/balance, and rule of cool concepts are all on the line.
If we are comparing activity time based on how long it takes, tripping/grabbing a foe takes an equal (or less) amount of time to elapse before its effects take place compared to Battle Medicine, so the same logic would apply. Except it doesn't seem to, so that's not the case.
Even so, grapple is just one example. Disarm, Trip, Shove, all can be done without hands in real life, and there are plenty of non-hand references that work very well that I don't see not being applicable other than "Because the rules say so."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main criticism at the time I wrote it was:
The CRB doesn't tell it needs Healers Tools - therefore it could be somatic. The errata does specify that this isn't the case.
My main issue with your long post is that it stills seems to be conflating "No free hand needed" into "Magiclly wave arms and thing happens." I can do a lot of things without "free" hands in real life while still using my hand and fingers. I'm not sure anyone, and I know I'm not, on the no free hands side is arguing that you don't use your hands. I've seen it strawmanned plenty of times though. No sure using lock picks with stuff in hand is recommended but it might be doable.
Much like you can gesture when pointing something out.
they probably need to make the manipulate trait context dependent.
|
|
Why does then the Free Hand Weapon Trait exist?
Free-Hand: This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free‑hand weapon on it.
Why does it explicitly spell out that with a free hand weapon you can make manipulate actions if you can do them with a sword and shield in hand as well.
|
|
And about fine motor skills etc.
For all of this there are feats. Want a shield and board and perform battle medicine?
NIMBLE SHIELD HAND FEAT 6
ARCHETYPE
Prerequisites Bastion Dedication
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does then the Free Hand Weapon Trait exist?
Free-Hand: This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free‑hand weapon on it.
Why does it explicitly spell out that with a free hand weapon you can make manipulate actions if you can do them with a sword and shield in hand as well.
For one reason there are a myriad of options that do specify a free-hand is needed. I can wear one and still use material components, Treat conditions, Grapple, use certain feats. It's more than just i can use manipulate traits. And likely it's 1. so that questions didn't pop up about gauntlets taking up your free hand. And 2. an easy future proofing to make sure that if they made a weapon they wanted to work that way they can just slap that trait on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And about fine motor skills etc.
For all of this there are feats. Want a shield and board and perform battle medicine?
NIMBLE SHIELD HAND FEAT 6
ARCHETYPE
Prerequisites Bastion Dedication
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that’s holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can’t use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn’t apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.
I mean it does let me hold the kit instead of wearing it but sadly, Battle Medicine is not the Interact action
So that particular feat doesn't help. I would help you open a door with your shield hand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thod, you are leaving out class feats that have the manipulate trait and really mess up the "either a gesture or must require a free hand argument."
Bond Conservation - do I need a free hand to manipulate my bonded item if it is a ring, or a hat or a belt?
Reactive distraction - I don't even know what you are manipulating when you do this action, but it seems like you are doing more than gesturing.
There are a whole stream of metamagic feats that do not have the somatic action listed, but do have the manipulate tag. Are we safe just to assume these must be gestures? And if so, why?
You get into really hot water with this argument if you look at all the new manipulate actions in the Advanced Players Guide.
What are you manipulating with actions like accompany or anoint ally?
Is it really fair to design rules where the players and GM have to decide for every single action whether it is a gesture or a physical interaction? And if there are only 2 of these categories, why combine them into 1 tag and not just have gesture be a separate tag from manipulate and then somatic actions could have had the gesture tag instead?
It seems pretty clear that the manipulate tag is not meant to be interpreted as "requires a free hand unless the activity is obviously a gesture." It seems like the point of the tag is to clarify what you can't do when you are restrained, and what might provoke a reaction.
Number of free hands required seems to pretty clearly fall outside of the manipulate tag, post initial playtest, because actions that require a specific amount of free hands say so, outside of having to have the tools or weapons in your hands to do them. Maybe some actions in the core rulebook didn't get originally updated to include additional language about hand usage originally, but they need to, if they are going to have a specific hand requirement. If the Errata to battle medicine did not (does not, if it changes) include that, when other new actions with almost the exact same wording did get the addition of a hand requirement, it is pretty telling that the intention is that the feat does not require a free hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems pretty clear that the manipulate tag is not meant to be interpreted as "requires a free hand unless the activity is obviously a gesture." It seems like the point of the tag is to clarify what you can't do when you are restrained, and what might provoke a reaction.
And Bingo was his name-o.
The rules are very clear about when a free hand is required and how various items occupy your hands in a way that makes them not-free.While I agree that some [manipulate] actions clearly do use your hands, some do not, and there's a clear distinction (in the rules!) between something that requires free hands and something that does not: free hands are listed as a requirement on the action. Things that do not...do not.
Battle Medicine does not have the requirement, therefor they are not required.
I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.
Of bigger concern should be the fundamental false equivalence between one side saying "I think it works this way, but it is unclear." and the other side saying I know it works this way, it is clear."
Those aren't comparable (albeit opposed) positions. Only one side continues to insist that their interpretation is "clearly" correct, in spite of 800+ posts across multiple threads indicating otherwise.
I'd also find this whole discussion much less toxic if one side didn't keep accusing the other of arguing in bad faith simply because they "don't like the rules." But I'm not holding my breath on that front.
There's a clear distinction (in the rules!) between something that requires free hands and something that does not
Only...sometimes there is a clear distinction; sometimes there isn't (see: Pick a Lock).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.
While I agree with what your saying here, the feat itself blatantly leads to having to assume some kind of fantasy handwaving. Regardless of how many hands, tools, or the state of said hands this feat is almost accomplishing in 2 seconds what treat injury does in 10 minutes. The only thing it won't do is fix the damage that needs some time off to heal. I mean there is no plausible "realistic" explanation for how this feat actually work as long as HP is a mix of actual health, wherewithal, and heroic drive.
I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.
Of bigger concern should be the fundamental false equivalence between one side saying "I think it works this way, but it is unclear." and the other side saying I know it works this way, it is clear."
Those aren't comparable (albeit opposed) positions. Only one side continues to insist that their interpretation is "clearly" correct, in spite of 800+ posts across multiple threads indicating otherwise.
I'd also find this whole discussion much less toxic if one side didn't keep accusing the other of arguing in bad faith simply because they "don't like the rules." But I'm not holding my breath on that front.
100% agree with you, and for a long it's this preception that fantasy has no rules or internal logic or adherence to a set principles or boundaries was the reason fantasy was never taken seriously for a long time. One of the most importants parts of any fantasy creation to be taken seriously is that it adheres and follow its own internal logic or the entire endevour becomes silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.
Of bigger concern should be the fundamental false equivalence between one side saying "I think it works this way, but it is unclear." and the other side saying I know it works this way, it is clear."
Those aren't comparable (albeit opposed) positions. Only one side continues to insist that their interpretation is "clearly" correct, in spite of 800+ posts across multiple threads indicating otherwise.
I'd also find this whole discussion much less toxic if one side didn't keep accusing the other of arguing in bad faith simply because they "don't like the rules." But I'm not holding my breath on that front.
SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.
I appreciate where you're coming from. However, I don't share your confidence. It doesn't help that the errata isn't really errata, per se -- it is a FAQ entry. If you go to the product page and download the errata, this isn't there.
So I would appreciate an explicit "battle medicine requires _ hands to use." I do understand that expecting an explicit statement about every possible rule would be unreasonable and undesirable, but I believe that, given the history, it is warranted in this case.
And for the record, if the answer is "it require no hands," then great! It requires no hands. Case closed. This is a game, and therefore necessarily involves abstractions. But that's not quite the same thing as being comfortable drawing the inference that the intention is the maximum level of abstraction, every time. If that were the case, then why add a requirement around the healer's kit?
Overall, I think we could all stand to remember that people with different opinions can disagree in good faith (which I believe is the case here). And I definitely include myself in "all," as I have obviously resorted to hyperbole in this thread (albeit out of sheer frustration, but still).
SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.I appreciate where you're coming from. However, I don't share your confidence. It doesn't help that the errata isn't really errata, per se -- it is a FAQ entry. If you go to the product page and download the errata, this isn't there.
Which is why we've been calling it "stealth errata" because a FAQ entry hasn't actually changed what's in the book because its not errata (despite being phrased as such). If it is errata, then it should be in the next errata push (whenever that happens).
SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.I appreciate where you're coming from. However, I don't share your confidence. It doesn't help that the errata isn't really errata, per se -- it is a FAQ entry. If you go to the product page and download the errata, this isn't there.
So I would appreciate an explicit "battle medicine requires _ hands to use." I do understand that expecting an explicit statement about every possible rule would be unreasonable and undesirable, but I believe that, given the history, it is warranted in this case.
And for the record, if the answer is "it require no hands," then great! It requires no hands. Case closed. This is a game, and therefore necessarily involves abstractions. But that's not quite the same thing as being comfortable drawing the inference that the intention is the maximum level of abstraction, every time. If that were the case, then why add a requirement around the healer's kit?
Overall, I think we could all stand to remember that people with different opinions can disagree in good faith (which I believe is the case here). And I definitely include myself in "all," as I have obviously resorted to hyperbole in this thread (albeit out of sheer frustration, but still).
I think we all would like a X hands ruling for good or bad.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding to a Skill Feat "using this feat does not require a free hand" sounds pretty awkward (should we add it to all Skill feats that do not require a free hand?).
Come to think of it, is there a feat out there in PF2 that already uses such a wording?
I believe in PF2 they prefer to explicitly mention what is required.
Like "requires a free hand".
Just add traits "Hands 0, Hands 1 and Hands 2" and be done with it.
Intimidating Prowess (Hands 0)?
If in doubt why not? Use Hands (X).
Intimidating Prowess
General, Skill, Hands 0
Intimidating Prowess (Hands 0)?
It might be sufficient to do it for abilities that require tools and which don't require the normal number of hands associated with those tools...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidating Prowess (Hands 0)?It might be sufficient to do it for abilities that require tools and which don't require the normal number of hands associated with those tools...
Doesn't 272 already cover this?
Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.
SOme of us are saying that it was a little unclear in the past, but if they "fixed" it the way that it is worded in the current Errata, without adding the language for free hand usage that appears in other feats created before the Errata, then it has become clear that they chose not to include that additional language to say the feat requires the use of free hand.I still see old canards like "but fantasy" popping up for explaining battle medicine. Which is discouraging, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the very nature of the suspension of disbelief. But I digress.
Of bigger concern should be the fundamental false equivalence between one side saying "I think it works this way, but it is unclear." and the other side saying I know it works this way, it is clear."
Those aren't comparable (albeit opposed) positions. Only one side continues to insist that their interpretation is "clearly" correct, in spite of 800+ posts across multiple threads indicating otherwise.
I'd also find this whole discussion much less toxic if one side didn't keep accusing the other of arguing in bad faith simply because they "don't like the rules." But I'm not holding my breath on that front.
You know, even the developers probably had this very same thought process when they first initially released the Core Rulebook, of it being "appropriate and accurate" to what they wanted the rules to convey. And then we had a wave of errata come up that either changed balance or intent on some abilities and rules that they (and we) genuinely believed was the case this time around instead of it simply, you know, not even coming to pass if it was good enough or correct to begin with.
Clearly, just because it isn't adjusted now, while it's still a highly argumentative topic (especially because the "errata" only touched on one of two major contention points), doesn't mean they A. Aren't watching the posts to either comprehend sides or reach a conclusion of their own, and B. Didn't overlook (some of) the debate behind the posts. I mean, it may never be adjusted, but I do suspect that, with enough contention about it, there may be a specific clarification in an errata or something, similar to what they did with it now requiring Healer's Tools being worn or held, when before it obviously didn't per RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn’t the medic archetype feat requirements crush all resistance and hope among the no hands crew? The writing is on the wall.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn’t the medic archetype feat requirements crush all resistance and hope among the no hands crew? The writing is on the wall.
Do you mean the archetype where the requirement for a Free Hand is explicit for all of the relevant feats, written and printed prior to the most recent errata which includes no such requirement for Battle Medicine?
That would seem to indicate something, and that something is that no Free Hand is required because Medic is proof they know how to write that into a Requirements entry.
We did discuss that earlier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What a bizarre assessment of Paizo organization and competence being attributed to a line that magically appeared in the document with no announcement.
So denial it is.
they probably need to make the manipulate trait context dependent.
The sad thing is, it already is. Which is why people are freaking out.
Why didn’t the medic archetype feat requirements crush all resistance and hope among the no hands crew? The writing is on the wall.
It's interesting you bring that feat up. I think it's actually a good idea to look at the construction of the requirement. The medic feat in question if you haven't read it says the exact same wording as the FAQ'd Battle Medicine, but it has the addition of the following verbage at the end, "and have a hand free." This adds a constraint to the medic feat that's not present in battle medicine. This can mean one of two things. You need two hands free for battle medicine, or you need no hands free. I used to be in the one hand free camp, but now I'm leaning my interpretation to two-hands free if you're simply "wearing it". Looking at the tools themselves they actually describe how you "wear it" which will be instructive.
When you carry the tools from place to place, you keep many of the components handy on your person, in pockets or bandoliers.
So lets put that together with Bandolier text which states that the bandolier "[allows] you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them". So absent a bandolier, when you're wearing the tools you'd have to spend an action to get them out if your action required them. And bandolier's explicitly mention the Healer's tools as being something that it'd be useful for, which all but guarantees at least some action would require them to be "drawn" and used in an encounter. So what actions in an encounter need healer's tools in the CRB: Administer First aid and Treat Poison. Here it's simply "You have Healer's tools" which is the same language you see for Pick a Lock action and Thief's Tools. Okay, what does it mean to say you "have the tools", my hunch is the FAQ text for Battle Medicine, " You are holding [them] or you are wearing [them]".
So, why not 0 hands? Because if it was 0 hands, they wouldn't bother with the statement in the medic feat. It'd already be clear that you didn't need a free hand. It'd be odd to place a limitation on the Treat Condition feat that isn't present on Treat Poison. Additionally, bandoliers would have no function for healer's tools. Something at odds with the text of bandoliers. Suffice to say, when you do battle medicine (or administer first aid), you need to not just have these tools, you must use them too, which means 2-hands to use them, as a bandolier only lowers the actions it takes to get them out, not the number of hands to use them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...we could have the same argument for the umpteenth time...but why?
Anyone who thinks they have some great new insight is simply mistaken. I promise that, whatever it is, it is already in this thread...and didn't settle it. For real.
Say it with me: We. aren't. going. to. settle. this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here it's simply "You have Healer's tools" which is the same language you see for Pick a Lock action and Thief's Tools. Okay, what does it mean to say you "have the tools", my hunch is the FAQ text for Battle Medicine, "...
Jesus christ, five posts above yours.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42sh0&page=8?Battle-Medicine#387
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here it's simply "You have Healer's tools" which is the same language you see for Pick a Lock action and Thief's Tools. Okay, what does it mean to say you "have the tools", my hunch is the FAQ text for Battle Medicine, "...Jesus christ, five posts above yours.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42sh0&page=8?Battle-Medicine#387
Right, you've got a quote from the book that sets the baseline that having a thing and wielding it are different and distinct, and explicitly establishes that some actions will merely require you to have a thing and not wield it.
Its not really ambiguous at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean...we could have the same argument for the umpteenth time...but why?
Anyone who thinks they have some great new insight is simply mistaken. I promise that, whatever it is, it is already in this thread...and didn't settle it. For real.
Say it with me: We. aren't. going. to. settle. this.
No but maybe if the thread gets big enough it might cause the server repair goblins to demand an answer so they can get it to stop popping back up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I’m fairly certain that at this point we’ve gone far beyond goblins, and are deep into the Abyss, where even critters like Jubilex and Grazzz’t are shaking their head or head-like appendages, and disavowing everything in this argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why didn’t the medic archetype feat requirements crush all resistance and hope among the no hands crew? The writing is on the wall.It's interesting you bring that feat up. I think it's actually a good idea to look at the construction of the requirement. The medic feat in question if you haven't read it says the exact same wording as the FAQ'd Battle Medicine, but it has the addition of the following verbage at the end, "and have a hand free." This adds a constraint to the medic feat that's not present in battle medicine. This can mean one of two things. You need two hands free for battle medicine, or you need no hands free.
What it means is that Paizo was at least marginally incompetent and screwed up in one of two ways. They either further screwed up their self evident screw up of an early undocumented/unannounced one line change to the FAQ by forgetting (or having a rogue/underinformed employee do the update without full consultation) to include the "and have a hand free" requirement, or they deliberately, in the cause of their FAQ update screw up, decided to also make this one ability stand out like a sore thumb compared to every other battle treatment ability.
I prefer to attribute the least possible incompetence to Paizo and assume it's the former.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to attribute the least possible incompetence to Paizo and assume it's the former.
Why would you assume its a screw up at all? There's absolutely zero evidence for that, other than the personal belief that you think it "sticks out" for being different.
The most reasonable assumption is that they knew exactly what they were doing, and left it intentionally different for balance and gameplay reasons.
Theres absolutely no reason to suspect they made a mistake until they either change it or claim it was an error.
I prefer to attribute the least possible incompetence to Paizo and assume it's the former.
Why would you assume its a screw up at all? There's absolutely zero evidence for that, other than the personal belief that you think it "sticks out" for being different.
The most reasonable assumption is that they knew exactly what they were doing, and left it intentionally different for balance and gameplay reasons.
Theres absolutely no reason to suspect they made a mistake until they either change it or claim it was an error.
Both balance and gameplay reasons suggest it needs a hand. Paizo is smart enough to recognize this.