| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both balance and gameplay reasons suggest it needs a hand. Paizo is smart enough to recognize this.
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.
Xenocrat, how does Battle Medicine need to require a free hand for balance reasons? This thread, and others, are full of strong arguments about how magical casting, which does not require a free hand, is far superior to this feat for combat healing. What you are saying here flies in the face of that evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both balance and gameplay reasons suggest it needs a hand. Paizo is smart enough to recognize this.
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.
Yeah, gonna disagree in an absolutely massive way on that. Even under the best circumstances and loosest interpretation of things, Battle Medicine with maximum investment isnt causing magical Healing to lose any sleep.
It merely creates a viable option for in-combat healing, directly proportional to skill investment and class feat investment for non-magical healing characters.
Theres no gameplay reason at all for restricting it, unless you're trying to limit the viability of non-magical healing - and viable non-magical healing is one of the best features, not bugs, of PF2.
Paizo, please make Greataxes, Greatswords, and Polearms one handed and stop limiting the viability of two handed weapons. Also a feat to hold a potion or elixir in your mouth and spit it into another's mouth to stop limiting the viability of using consumables on party members.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo, please make Greataxes, Greatswords, and Polearms one handed and stop limiting the viability of two handed weapons. Also a feat to hold a potion or elixir in your mouth and spit it into another's mouth to stop limiting the viability of using consumables on party members.
This is absolutely a case of false equivalency. More or less on all fronts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two handed weapons were deliberately designed around the reality of require 2 hands and give a major boost to weapon damage because striking runes increase number of dice. This was a decision to make them worth more than the difference in weapons in past editions of the game. In the playtest, battle medicine absolutely required a hand for game balance reasons, but so did all casting, including magical healing. That changed with the change to the manipulate trait. Nothing was added (yet) to make battle medicine require a hand again. Comparing the combat healing effectiveness of a character investing skill and feat resources (so major character resources) to consumable items feels disingenuous to me. healing someone in combat with a potion should be more action intensive then battle medicine (from purely a game balance mechanical perspective, not narrative or realism) because consumables are cheap and plentiful in this world. If battle medicine were as action intensive as using potions and elixirs, why would any character waste feats on it? potions are already usable multiple times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the playtest, battle medicine absolutely required a hand for game balance reasons
No it didn't. Its on page 163, feel free to check it for yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the playtest, battle medicine absolutely required a hand for game balance reasonsNo it didn't. Its on page 163, feel free to check it for yourself.
you are right. The manipulate tag never had a free hand requirement. They just removed the requirement from somatic casting.
Let's look at this from a reverse perspective instead of our typical forward perspective. Why are Healer's Tools mentioned or required in these abilities? More importantly, why now instead of beforehand when they weren't required?
Furthermore, what's the point of the "Hands" entry in each of the tools' descriptions when they don't actually do anything or impact any of the mechanics of what they are intended to be used for? It always seems that the abilities or activities that call for these tools always specify the hands required, so why do we have these worthless redundant entries? Shouldn't Paizo just remove them and save word count that way?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at this from a reverse perspective instead of our typical forward perspective. Why are Healer's Tools mentioned or required in these abilities? More importantly, why now instead of beforehand when they weren't required?
Furthermore, what's the point of the "Hands" entry in each of the tools' descriptions when they don't actually do anything or impact any of the mechanics of what they are intended to be used for? It always seems that the abilities or activities that call for these tools always specify the hands required, so why do we have these worthless redundant entries? Shouldn't Paizo just remove them and save word count that way?
These are reasonable questions. Luckily, Draco18s provided the answer already.
On page 272, it says this -
Wielding Items
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. 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.
Bold mine.
That means that the point of the Hands entry for items does exactly what it says - it tells you how many hands it takes to Wield the item, as per the definition of Wielding on page 272. This applies any time an ability required you to wield an item.
However, page 272 is quite clear that you do not have to wield an item to use a related ability - many just require to have or carry it. Its quite explicit.
Let's look at this from a reverse perspective instead of our typical forward perspective. Why are Healer's Tools mentioned or required in these abilities? More importantly, why now instead of beforehand when they weren't required?
Furthermore, what's the point of the "Hands" entry in each of the tools' descriptions when they don't actually do anything or impact any of the mechanics of what they are intended to be used for? It always seems that the abilities or activities that call for these tools always specify the hands required, so why do we have these worthless redundant entries? Shouldn't Paizo just remove them and save word count that way?
These are reasonable questions. Luckily, Draco18s provided the answer already.
On page 272, it says this -
Wielding Items
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. 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.Bold mine.
That means that the point of the Hands entry for items does exactly what it says - it tells you how many hands it takes to Wield the item, as per the definition of Wielding on page 272. This applies any time an ability required you to wield an item.
However, page 272 is quite clear that you do not have to wield an item to use a related ability - many just require to have or carry it. Its quite explicit.
You sidestepped both of my question entirely.
My first question is in regards to the purpose of the errata taking place in the first place. Everyone argued that you didn't need Healer's Tools. It's changed now. But why, when Healer's Tools being a requirement wasn't apparent? This reference to wielding items does nothing to answer the question posed.
It segues into my next question, which is to bring up the purpose of referencing hands needed to wield the tools in question, when you can't "wield" them like you can a weapon, and even if you can, every ability you could use said tools with already overrides the purpose of listing "hands" required to wield them, because, well, waste of space and contradictory information. There is nothing in regards to Thief's Tools or Healer's Tools that would lead them to actually ever requiring hands to use them for anything that lists them as a requirement. Not the activities. Not the Manipulate trait. Nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You sidestepped both of my question entirely.
My first question is in regards to the purpose of the errata taking place in the first place. Everyone argued that you didn't need Healer's Tools. It's changed now. But why, when Healer's Tools being a requirement wasn't apparent? This reference to wielding items does nothing to...
Presumably, the Errata was in response to all the questions about Battle Medicine and the questions about whether it required Healer's Tools. It would appear that they decided that yes, you do need them.
The reference to wielding does answer your question, you just seem to be confused by what you found when you looked - there aren't many actions that require you to wield your tools. That may be the case... and what if it is? Oh well. The rules are in the book to cover you should an action exist that asks you to wield tools.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first question is in regards to the purpose of the errata taking place in the first place. Everyone argued that you didn't need Healer's Tools. It's changed now. But why, when Healer's Tools being a requirement wasn't apparent?
We don't know. You'd have to ask Paizo.
But now that it has changed, those of us who said "it doesn't need tools" don't argue that point any more because Paizo changed it. Maybe it was supposed to be there all along. Maybe it was added to appease the verisimilitude folks.It segues into my next question, which is to bring up the purpose of referencing hands needed to wield the tools in question, when you can't "wield" them like you can a weapon, and even if you can, every ability you could use said tools with already overrides the purpose of listing "hands" required to wield them, because, well, waste of space and contradictory information. There is nothing in regards to Thief's Tools or Healer's Tools that would lead them to actually ever requiring hands to use them for anything that lists them as a requirement. Not the activities. Not the Manipulate trait. Nothing.
...and?
Maybe its there because there may in the future exist a feat that requires you to wield a kit.
You sidestepped both of my question entirely.
My first question is in regards to the purpose of the errata taking place in the first place. Everyone argued that you didn't need Healer's Tools. It's changed now. But why, when Healer's Tools being a requirement wasn't apparent? This reference to wielding items does nothing to...
Presumably, the Errata was in response to all the questions about Battle Medicine and the questions about whether it required Healer's Tools. It would appear that they decided that yes, you do need them.
The reference to wielding does answer your question, you just seem to be confused by what you found when you looked - there aren't many actions that require you to wield your tools. That may be the case... and what if it is? Oh well. The rules are in the book to cover you should an action exist that asks you to wield tools.
For what, though? There's no reason for the action to require the Healer's Tools, as both sides have so evidently proven. Adding it in as a requirement has really only made this feat more contentious instead of less contentious.
There are no activities in the game that require wielding such tools, merely that you possess them, meaning the concept of "tools requiring hands to wield them" is both outdated and pointless due to the simple fact that everything that uses those tools ignores the actual required listing of hands needed.
My first question is in regards to the purpose of the errata taking place in the first place. Everyone argued that you didn't need Healer's Tools. It's changed now. But why, when Healer's Tools being a requirement wasn't apparent?We don't know. You'd have to ask Paizo.
But now that it has changed, those of us who said "it doesn't need tools" don't argue that point any more because Paizo changed it. Maybe it was supposed to be there all along. Maybe it was added to appease the verisimilitude folks.It segues into my next question, which is to bring up the purpose of referencing hands needed to wield the tools in question, when you can't "wield" them like you can a weapon, and even if you can, every ability you could use said tools with already overrides the purpose of listing "hands" required to wield them, because, well, waste of space and contradictory information. There is nothing in regards to Thief's Tools or Healer's Tools that would lead them to actually ever requiring hands to use them for anything that lists them as a requirement. Not the activities. Not the Manipulate trait. Nothing....and?
Maybe its there because there may in the future exist a feat that requires you to wield a kit.
When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players.
I will point out that Quick Alchemy reads:
Requirements You have alchemist’s tools (page 287), the formula
for the alchemical item you’re creating, and a free hand
Let me know how you're going to accomplish that if you have to wield the alchemist's tools. They require 2 hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players.
There's a vocal contingent who thinks that the "have tools" means you don't need to actually use the tool. Which is absurd, as you've come to with your positive construction.
If there's a requirement for the tools, it's because you need to use them. You don't have to wield them as per the pg 272 rules, but you are limited by the pg 287 rules about how many hands to use said tools. Now they're going to jump in and say, "but the ability doesn't say you need to use the tools, just have them! and Pg 272 accounts for that!". To which I say, uh huh. Then why the manipulate trait? What am I manipulating? Oh the Item listed in the manipulate description, which is the tool! They do a song and dance about balance etc, but they strain credulity.
I will point out that Quick Alchemy reads:
Let me know how you're going to accomplish that if you have to wield the alchemist's tools. They require 2 hands.Requirements You have alchemist’s tools (page 287), the formula
for the alchemical item you’re creating, and a free hand
The free hand requirement is actually a liberating statement here, it's telling you that you don't need two free hands to use the tools otherwise specified in the table. The same as the Medic's Treat Condition feat ability.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players.There's a vocal contingent who thinks that the "have tools" means you don't need to actually use the tool. Which is absurd, as you've come to with your positive construction.
If there's a requirement for the tools, it's because you need to use them. You don't have to wield them as per the pg 272 rules, but you are limited by the pg 287 rules about how many hands to use said tools. Now they're going to jump in and say, "but the ability doesn't say you need to use the tools, just have them! and Pg 272 accounts for that!". To which I say, uh huh. Then why the manipulate trait? What am I manipulating? Oh the Item listed in the manipulate description, which is the tool! They do a song and dance about balance etc, but they strain credulity.
The free hand requirement is actually a liberating statement here, it's telling you that you don't need two free hands to use the tools otherwise specified in the table. The same as the Medic's Treat Condition feat ability.
I will point out that Quick Alchemy reads:
Let me know how you're going to accomplish that if you have to wield the alchemist's tools. They require 2 hands.Requirements You have alchemist’s tools (page 287), the formula
for the alchemical item you’re creating, and a free hand
You can't just ignore the rules that explicitly say "Some abilities will require you to merely have tools, but not wield them." Just because it completely undermines your point. Or at least, its not a valid argument.
The rules for hands on tools exist so that if youre required to wield something for an action, you can determine what that means.
The book establishes on page 272 quite clearly that in the absence of text saying you need hands free or saying you need to wield the associated items, you dont need to have free hands or wield the items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't just ignore the rules that explicitly say "Some abilities will require you to merely have tools, but not wield them." Just because it completely...When would you be wielding Healer's Tools or Thief's Tools, though, as a Core option? I was always under the impression that activities requiring access to these things would require actually using them (read: wield) to perform the activity. Except now everyone is arguing that it isn't, per RAW, with each activity listing the apparent amount of free hands needed, and therefore the Hands listing on the kits becomes superfluous and pointless to include, as it can mislead players.There's a vocal contingent who thinks that the "have tools" means you don't need to actually use the tool. Which is absurd, as you've come to with your positive construction.
If there's a requirement for the tools, it's because you need to use them. You don't have to wield them as per the pg 272 rules, but you are limited by the pg 287 rules about how many hands to use said tools. Now they're going to jump in and say, "but the ability doesn't say you need to use the tools, just have them! and Pg 272 accounts for that!". To which I say, uh huh. Then why the manipulate trait? What am I manipulating? Oh the Item listed in the manipulate description, which is the tool! They do a song and dance about balance etc, but they strain credulity.
The free hand requirement is actually a liberating statement here, it's telling you that you don't need two free hands to use the tools otherwise specified in the table. The same as the Medic's Treat Condition feat ability.
I will point out that Quick Alchemy reads:
Let me know how you're going to accomplish that if you have to wield the alchemist's tools. They require 2 hands.Requirements You have alchemist’s tools (page 287), the formula
for the alchemical item you’re creating, and a free hand
Except the text actually means "No abilities will require you to wield tools," because nothing in the game (at least currently, but with this current trend it will remain indefinitely) requires wielding tools. Nothing. There is no activity, no feat, no ability, nothing within currently published options that require "wielding" tools. At least, by this reading, that's how it is.
So with that, it's dead space, per RAW, creating conflicting information (hence the arguments), and with each activity involving tools now writing out its own requirements separate from this apparent general assumption that will never be in play, there is no reason to have this text to begin with (because look what it's caused). Especially when people are arguing "You aren't actually using tools," even though it's required to possess them to perform the activity. Which defeats the point of them being a requirement in the first place when they aren't used and don't have any implication as to why they are required when they aren't used in regards to the activity. What does a healer's tools have to do with an activity that doesn't require you to use them? This is like saying you have a marker for a project, and you need a marker for the project, but you never actually use the marker for the project. It's a pointless criterion that does nothing but waste time and space for some arbitrary "requirement" that shouldn't apply when it's not being used.
This whole idea of "Required, but not used," is precisely why we're up in outrage. If something is required, it should have to be used in some manner. Telling me armless medics are some of the most effective healers in the game just because some dude strapped healer's tools to his bandolier is why we're drawing this line. This is on the same levels of crazy as "Humans in Golarion should have tails because a certain combination of feats can give me a tail attack," and here you all are, agreeing with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Especially when people are arguing "You aren't actually using tools," even though it's required to possess them to perform the activity.
Actually, that's more or less the literal opposite of what is being said by most people.
We're saying that the action cost associated with disarming and using the tools, if they're involved in the activity, is being 100% handwaved for gameplay purposes.
Clearly, the tools are being used - they provide bonuses, are required to be available, etc. Its just from a gameplay perspective, you don't need a gameplay relevant free hand.
Again - its absolutely ridiculous to provide first aid in one action anyway. Whats being argued here for are game mechanics, because game mechanics are what is important related to this feat.
You can rationalize however you need to -but again, game mechanic, not similuation.
Please stop trying to frame the opposing position as 'ridiculous' when its not - your strawman you're creating is less desirable, but thats not what anyone is suggesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the text actually means "No abilities will require you to wield tools," because nothing in the game (at least currently, but with this current trend it will remain indefinitely) requires wielding tools. Nothing. There is no activity, no feat, no ability, nothing within currently published options that require "wielding" tools. At least, by this reading, that's how it is.
Gasp! The horror! Whatever shall we do about possibilities laid down by the general rules and never taken up by specific ones!?
IT IS THE END OF TIMES, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS BROKEN.
Especially when people are arguing "You aren't actually using tools," even though it's required to possess them to perform the activity.Actually, that's more or less the literal opposite of what is being said by most people.
We're saying that the action cost associated with disarming and using the tools, if they're involved in the activity, is being 100% handwaved for gameplay purposes.
Clearly, the tools are being used - they provide bonuses, are required to be available, etc. Its just from a gameplay perspective, you don't need a gameplay relevant free hand.
Again - its absolutely ridiculous to provide first aid in one action anyway. Whats being argued here for are game mechanics, because game mechanics are what is important related to this feat.
You can rationalize however you need to -but again, game mechanic, not similuation.
Please stop trying to frame the opposing position as 'ridiculous' when its not - your strawman you're creating is less desirable, but thats not what anyone is suggesting.
Even in a case of game mechanics and arguing usage, I still disagree. If the implication of "having" tools eventually leads to "using" tools, as you are arguing in regards to the activity, you should still be required to use them appropriately, i.e. wield them, which is what wielding means, straight from your rules quotation: You're ready to use them. If you aren't ready to use them, then you aren't actually using them. Even if the game doesn't outright say so, the concept of "possession eventually leading to usage" should overrule, what I'd like to dub, the Armless Medic Fallacy.
As an analogous example, I have a Greatsword, and the Quick Draw feat. As an action, I can interact to draw out a weapon and attack with it, which is what Quick Draw does. I would never allow a player to just betray the laws of gravity/game mechanics and draw it with one hand, or perform silly Jedi shenanigans and just mentally propel his sword from their sheath into the gullet of an enemy (at least without something like Telekinetic Projectile, which is cool, but a whole separate thing), because the feat doesn't say you need hands to use your weapons. To me, this is precisely what you're arguing, that the absence of something means you take every general rule that could be (and should be) related to that something, and throw it out the window.
At best, you can argue "But they can take a hand off of the Greatsword at the end of the activity as a free action!" And I wouldn't have a problem with that, because as a result, the player wouldn't be able to make further attacks with the weapon as per the general rules of wielding. In fact, they could then proceed to draw out an agile weapon with another Quick Draw, creating some switch-hitting and optimizing MAP. But if a player ever argued "I can just draw it with one hand and let gravity take care of the rest," I would not allow it, full stop, because you aren't considered effectively wielding it for the purposes of the activity, meaning no strike takes place.
Expanding on this, if I have a player wanting to unlock a chest, I would require both hands free to appropriately use the Thief's Tools on the chest, because similar to Battle Medicine and Treat Wounds, you're using the Thief's Tools to open the lock on the chest. I wouldn't let the player have their weapons out, even if they're daggers, because the diminutive size of the locks, picks, and the entrypoint to any keys and stuff, would be awkward and not very feasible with your hands being mostly taken up by properly wielding weapons.
Arguing against what your ruling creates isn't really strawmanning. For it to be strawmanning, I'd have to be arguing against what you aren't really saying in an attempt to better my argument's validity. I know what you're saying. That just because it doesn't require free hands that it doesn't mean no hands are required at all. But as written, with your interpretation, it doesn't require hands or interaction whatsoever, which is why I'm drawing the line of "it should still require something." Otherwise we're left with the Armless Medic fallacy running rampant, which at this point we (presumably) both agree is something we don't want.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're saying that the action cost associated with disarming and using the tools, if they're involved in the activity, is being 100% handwaved for gameplay purposes.
Clearly, the tools are being used - they provide bonuses, are required to be available, etc. Its just from a gameplay perspective, you don't need a gameplay relevant free hand.
Quite right!
People are conflating mechanically abstract rules with realistic conceptualism of events.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an analogous example, I have a Greatsword, and the Quick Draw feat. As an action, I can interact to draw out a weapon and attack with it, which is what Quick Draw does. I would never allow a player to just betray the laws of gravity/game mechanics and draw it with one hand, or perform silly Jedi shenanigans and just mentally propel his sword from their sheath into the gullet of an enemy (at least without something like Telekinetic Projectile, which is cool, but a whole separate thing), because the feat doesn't say you need hands to use your weapons. To me, this is precisely what you're arguing, that the absence of something means you take every general rule that could be (and should be) related to that something, and throw it out the window.
Yes, I would not allow this either as the Strike action referenced in Quick Draw specifies you must perform it with a weapon you are wielding, and because of the entry on 272 we know exactly what that means. The Hands entry on 279 for weapons further explains how many hands are required. This is not even remotely comparable.
It would only be comparable if Strike did not include the requirement to be Wielding the weapon and it absolutely does include that requirement.
All you've done here is provide another in-rules example of the system working - Strike tells you to refer to Wielding, and Wielding tells you need hands for the item since you were told you had to wield it.
You can't just ignore the rules that explicitly say "Some abilities will require you to merely have tools, but not wield them." Just because it completely...
The hands listing for equipment is what you need to "use the item effectively" (CRB pg 287). The hands listing makes no reference to "wielding" other than it may take less to carry them at GM's discretion. Pg 272 saying you don't have to wield it, is NOT saying you don't have to use said item that is a requirement. Effectively the errata for battle medicine from "Have healers tools" to "Be holding or wearing" is making pg 272 explicit.
I'm not ignoring pg 272, quite to the contrary. It simply doesn't apply to the argument we're making that the requirement to Have the tool, means you also have to Use the tool. If anything you're still ignoring the text of the mainpulate trait. "You must physically manipulate an item ... to use an action with this trait." For battle medicine, said item is the healer's tools. Which require 2 hands to use effectively.
As others have pointed out, no ability requires you to "use" the tools. It's baked into the assumptions of the manipulate trait requiring you to manipulate an item.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Expanding on this, if I have a player wanting to unlock a chest, I would require both hands free to appropriately use the Thief's Tools on the chest, because similar to Battle Medicine and Treat Wounds, you're using the Thief's Tools to open the lock on the chest. I wouldn't let the player have their weapons out, even if they're daggers, because the diminutive size of the locks, picks, and the entrypoint to any keys and stuff, would be awkward and not very feasible with your hands being mostly taken up by properly wielding weapons.
I'm with you on most of it, but this one in particular is apples and oranges. You cannot compare Pick a Lock, which is a standard use of Thievery with Battle Medicine which is a special action that is similar to, but not the same as Treat Wounds. I would agree that the basic activity of Pick a Lock should require the use of thieves' tools, just like the basic use of Treat Wounds should require the use of healer's tools. The latter is a bit easier to adjudicate since its an exploration activity and therefore we don't really care as much about hand utilization.
Pick a Lock, OTOH is a bit more tricky given that its an encounter activity. If we require two-hands to use the tools, it makes it almost impossible to do during an encounter when weapons are being drawn/stowed, movement, etc. So, we almost force it into an exploration activity. I do not believe that is what the designer's had in mind. Not to mention if your tools are not actually required to perform the activity, then how are the picks broken on a critical failure?
But, I digress. Battle Medicine is more akin to Quick Unlock. Both are a feat that essentially allow you to perform an activity with one action that normally takes more. Perhaps the visualization is the thief being so good that they can rap the hilt of their weapon on the lock at just the right place to disrupt the tumblers and unlock it? Or maybe they are able to slip a blade, or some other "in hand" item between the seams and trip the latch kinda like opening a window using a credit card?
We can use similar methodology to resolve the Battle Medicine thing. As has been stated a number of times, hit points may be more abstract that simply physical health. Maybe it includes a bit of morale, stamina, etc. and when the BM is "applied" it is like a boxer going to the corner, getting a quick rest, and a pep talk from the trainer. Maybe they get a smelling salt which while a tangible item is a bit different than employing a first aid kit to tend to the many wounds. Then they jump back in re-energized. Does it make it easier to envision how BM works with that perspective?
That being said, I prefer a tad bit more realism than that. While I agree that if you require an item be in your possession, then logically you need to use it for the activity. However, as the rules are, it does not seem to be the way it works. Course the big question is, is this the intention of the designers? And is probably the exact reason why they have been unable/unwilling to provide a simple answer. Any one they give is likely to throw the entire manipulate/interact system into question. I was led to believe that this is why they have yet to clarify this issue and why my belief is growing that we will never get an official answer. Its simply too deep in the rules, affecting too many other rules that the only way they can "fix" it is a major re-write akin to a v2.5 or have a (or a few) activities that simply break normal protocols (ie BM require no free hands, no use of the medicine tools, hell not even touch the target)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@KrispyXIV: Except a player would argue that it doesn't need to meet that requirement because it's all done "in the same motion," according to the feat text. Meaning they go from undrawn and unwielded to having made an attack with it in the same activity, without needing to do anything other than utilize the feat. So by all means, keep trying to add stuff that general rules should cover, but technically don't because specifics of the feat overwrite them.
@TwilightKnight: Quick Unlock specifically reduces the number of actions Pick a Lock requires by 1, to 1 action. You are still otherwise using the same activity, which means you are still limited by the same rules. As for your other examples, those would fall under shoddy thief's tools at best (so a -2 applies), and just be outright denied at worst (because they aren't at all effective, and are more in like with other actions, like the Break an Object activity).
As others will tell you, you are adding more to Battle Medicine than what's already there. There is no talking, hence no Auditory traits. There is no movement from squares. There is no morale adjustments (which would fall under an Emotion trait, similar to Demoralize and such). Nothing. The fact magic is easier to explain really demonstrates how silly and broken this feat is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@KrispyXIV: Except a player would argue that it doesn't need to meet that requirement because it's all done "in the same motion," according to the feat text. Meaning they go from undrawn and unwielded to having made an attack with it in the same activity, without needing to do anything other than utilize the feat. So by all means, keep trying to add stuff that general rules should cover, but technically don't because specifics of the feat overwrite them.
Uh, no. It says you use the actual Strike action, therefore you're absolutely limited by the restrictions on Strike. Its not ambiguous.
If it said, "Deal damage as per the Strike action." you'd have a comparison - but it does not say that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@KrispyXIV: Except a player would argue that it doesn't need to meet that requirement because it's all done "in the same motion," according to the feat text. Meaning they go from undrawn and unwielded to having made an attack with it in the same activity, without needing to do anything other than utilize the feat. So by all means, keep trying to add stuff that general rules should cover, but technically don't because specifics of the feat overwrite them.
@TwilightKnight: Quick Unlock specifically reduces the number of actions Pick a Lock requires by 1, to 1 action. You are still otherwise using the same activity, which means you are still limited by the same rules. As for your other examples, those would fall under shoddy thief's tools at best (so a -2 applies), and just be outright denied at worst (because they aren't at all effective, and are more in like with other actions, like the Break an Object activity).
As others will tell you, you are adding more to Battle Medicine than what's already there. There is no talking, hence no Auditory traits. There is no movement from squares. There is no morale adjustments (which would fall under an Emotion trait, similar to Demoralize and such). Nothing. The fact magic is easier to explain really demonstrates how silly and broken this feat is.
What's absurd about putting your weapon down, healing, then picking it up again? That's the simplest way to deal with it lacking a free hand requirement but sensibly requiring Healer's Tools and a manipulate action. I mean if you're literally taking two seconds to patch them up then taking the time to hold your sword under your arm while you do it isn't exactly unreasonable.
If you're willing to accept you can meaningfully patch someone up with Medicine in a single action what would usually take 10 minutes (and it not being due to the abstraction of what hit points actually are, i.e morale or whatever) then surely regripping your weapon in that time isn't out of the realm of possibility?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@KrispyXIV: Except a player would argue that it doesn't need to meet that requirement because it's all done "in the same motion," according to the feat text. Meaning they go from undrawn and unwielded to having made an attack with it in the same activity, without needing to do anything other than utilize the feat. So by all means, keep trying to add stuff that general rules should cover, but technically don't because specifics of the feat overwrite them.
@TwilightKnight: Quick Unlock specifically reduces the number of actions Pick a Lock requires by 1, to 1 action. You are still otherwise using the same activity, which means you are still limited by the same rules. As for your other examples, those would fall under shoddy thief's tools at best (so a -2 applies), and just be outright denied at worst (because they aren't at all effective, and are more in like with other actions, like the Break an Object activity).
As others will tell you, you are adding more to Battle Medicine than what's already there. There is no talking, hence no Auditory traits. There is no movement from squares. There is no morale adjustments (which would fall under an Emotion trait, similar to Demoralize and such). Nothing. The fact magic is easier to explain really demonstrates how silly and broken this feat is.
What's absurd about putting your weapon down, healing, then picking it up again? That's the simplest way to deal with it lacking a free hand requirement but sensibly requiring Healer's Tools and a manipulate action. I mean if you're literally taking two seconds to patch them up then taking the time to hold your sword under your arm while you do it isn't exactly unreasonable.
If you're willing to accept you can meaningfully patch someone up with Medicine in a single action what would usually take 10 minutes (and it not being due to the abstraction of what hit points actually are, i.e morale or whatever) then surely regripping your weapon in that time isn't out of the realm of...
I agree with this position, however the core issue for some people is that it feels like the rules have to be consistent to the physics of the world and could not possibly be based off of game balance concerns. Thus if opening a door requires a free hand, then there is no way that performing battle medicine could escape that requirement.
Edit: Personally, I don't really understand why a lot of people don't just house rule battle medicine out of the game. If the verisimilitude issue of number of hands makes you upset enough to spend hours arguing about this feat online, then even the existence of a feat that allows you to perform meaningful non-magical healing in seconds is something that you probably should just not allow in your game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Personally, I don't really understand why a lot of people don't just house rule battle medicine out of the game. If the verisimilitude issue of number of hands makes you upset enough to spend hours arguing about this feat online, then even the existence of a feat that allows you to perform meaningful non-magical healing in seconds is something that you probably should just not allow in your game.
Something, something, "we asked for it and Paizo delivered and now we hate it."
Yep.|
|
The number of hand needed:
This is partly in reply to Exton-Land
There is a very interesting item - the ordinary sack - that can allow us to learn a lot about number of hands as it is likely the most explicit one.
Page 288 - general table - 1 hand
Description:
Worn (on a belt) - 0 hands
Carrying it - 1 hand
Taking something out of it - 2 hands
Sack: A sack can hold up to 8 Bulk worth of items. A sack containing 2 Bulk or less can be worn on the body, usually tucked into a belt. You can carry a sack with one hand, but must use two hands to transfer items in and out.
The sack shows that hand use can be variable - depending on what you do. It also tends to list the main hands needed for the main use. Worn items (like a sheaths, a backpack, clothes, a bandolier) tend to have zero as we wear these.
I'm in the camp - if you use the healer tools, then you need hands to use them. These hands are either free (pre-use) or have the tools in hand.
That leads to number of hands:
Healers tools has a 2 on page 288. This assumes you carry them / have them in your hand. End of story? No.
The sack says - 2 hands needed if you take something out of it. But I would argue if you place the sack on a stable surface or if someone holds it, then only 1 hand is needed.
And this is were the bandolier comes in. The bandolier never mentions hands - but I would argue you need 1 to get something out of it - but not 2 like for the sack.
The same logic is why I allow one hand less using the healer's tools as long as a) you have a bandolier of b) you place them on a sturdy surface in reach
I don't expect b) to happen very often - but I wanted to ensure to be self consistent. And yes - I would also allow 1 hand if someone else is holding up the tools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thod - you mention logic in your post.
Thats part of the entire problem here - people keep trying to apply "logic" to one specific aspect of this feat, while ignoring the fact that if You apply real world logic that no part of this feat works at all.
Suspend real world logic. Apply game mechanic logic.
Game mechanic logic says consult the Requirements line - do not apply any additional Requirements beyond those or those inherent.
Requiring a player to have free hands to wield/use the tools contradicts 272, which makes it clear that having/wearing them is sufficient for any ability that doesn't tell you otherwise.
I'm with you on most of it, but this one in particular is apples and oranges. You cannot compare Pick a Lock, which is a standard use of Thievery with Battle Medicine which is a special action that is similar to, but not the same as Treat Wounds. I would agree that the basic activity of Pick a Lock should require the use of thieves' tools, just like the basic use of Treat Wounds should require the use of healer's tools. The latter is a bit easier to adjudicate since its an exploration activity and therefore we don't really care as much about hand utilization.
The requirement wording and action traits are/were the same for both actions. The rules would have to be consistent in their interpretation for both actions. Just because one thing is a skill feat, and the other is a basic action doesn't change anything in regards to how they function, mechanically they have the same constraints. Otherwise we might as well just hand-wave everything and it's always GM fiat.
I'll grant that the only difference is that the description of Thief's tools say they are "necessary" to Pick a lock. But Healer's tools are silent on battle medicine but say they same thing about Treat Wounds, which I argue is essentially inherited by Battle medicine effectively doing treat wounds in a single action. It's the same DC, it's the same HP recovered, and even inherits the increasing DC for more HP recovered.
And this is were the bandolier comes in. The bandolier never mentions hands - but I would argue you need 1 to get something out of it - but not 2 like for the sack.The same logic is why I allow one hand less using the healer's tools as long as a) you have a bandolier of b) you place them on a sturdy surface in reach
I used to think about the bandolier the same way, but the only thing the bandolier explicitly does is reduce the number of actions it takes to get the items out (aka don't need to interact to get tools out when needed). As it stands, the errata makes bandoliers functionally do nothing for Battle Medicine and Pick a Lock as you simply have to "wear them" which includes pockets for healer's tools. You don't need to interact to get them out, they simply have to be on your person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Healer's tools are silent on battle medicine but say they same thing about Treat Wounds, which I argue is essentially inherited by Battle medicine effectively doing treat wounds in a single action.
Except it's not. It does not say "you can Treat Wounds in one action." It says "refer to Treat Wounds for a DC and Success outcome."
Unlike Quick Unlock:
QUICK UNLOCK FEAT 7
GENERAL SKILL
Prerequisites master in Thievery
You can Pick a Lock using 1 action instead of 2.
But Healer's tools are silent on battle medicine but say they same thing about Treat Wounds, which I argue is essentially inherited by Battle medicine effectively doing treat wounds in a single action.Except it's not. It does not say "you can Treat Wounds in one action." It says "refer to Treat Wounds for a DC and Success outcome."
Please note I said effectively. There's at least one rule/feature interaction which would make this 'broken', Ward Medic which would've allowed you to treat two (or more) people with one action. Also the design they went with puts Battle Medicine and Treat wounds to on different timers for how long a character is immune to them.
And if you're going to go out and say that the CRB Healer's Tools don't mention them being necessary for Battle Medicine, well yes. But neither did Battle Medicine mention healer's in the first printing before errata. Maybe they'll go back and edit the healer's tools description as well and add in Battle Medicine and Treat Condition etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they'll go back and edit the healer's tools description as well and add in Battle Medicine and Treat Condition etc.
Maybe they will - the Requirements for Treat Condition are exactly what the Requirements for Battle Medicine would look like if a free hand were required.
That is exactly what is being said here. We know what it looks like when a free hand is required, and Battle Medicine does not currently read that way.
It might be a bummer if it is errataed that way, but no one is going to argue if it does.
But until then, the raw is clear - the Requirements for Treat Condition and Battle Medicine are different, and that difference is literally that one requires a free hand and the other does not.