Battle Medicine


Rules Discussion

451 to 467 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Exton Land wrote:
Draco18s wrote:
Exton Land wrote:
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.

"Effectively" and "Are" are two different things. As such, because they are not the same, the requirements from one does not apply to the other.

See also: string equality


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
the raw is clear

Only -- as has been exhaustively demonstrated in this thread and others -- it isn't.

What is the point of repeatedly declaring otherwise?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Djinn71 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@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 don't find it absurd if someone drops their weapon(s) (free action), performs Battle Medicine (1 action with free hands and stowed in bandolier), re-stow healer's tools (1 action), and picks up a weapon (1 action). In fact, that's exactly how I run it in my game. If a player had Quick Draw, I'd even let them use that feat for weapons on the ground in their square or in an adjacent square, even though that feat only works on sheathed weapons per RAW.

But other people find that absurd because they dislike having to waste actions dropping, stowing, and picking items up when they have designated their hands elsewhere. It's really no worse a problem than if you chose to utilize a different weapon on an enemy, realize it's not effective, and then decide to go back to your other weapon because it's your most effective one and you have no other weapons to try. Sometimes you have to waste your turn to do something that would prevent PC death. It sucks. But it's part of the game, you just gotta play it out or accept the consequences.

As for players being able to put their weapon up by their armpit to "stow" it to free their hands, that's not really permissible by the rules simply because there's no action for it. In fact, per rules, the GM would have to ad hoc something there. I, as GM, would prefer to keep rules conservative if possible. For that reason, I'd rule that stowing weapons in your armpit is similar to putting weapons away in a sheathe, which take an action to do per the Interact rules, and re-grabbing your weapon from your armpit is similar to drawing a weapon from a sheathe, picking up a weapon from the ground or other adjacent surface, and/or gripping a weapon with both hands. All that ruling really does is remove the need for a weapon sheathe to be on your person, which I'm not particularly concerned with until it comes time for it to take place. Which won't be until well after this gets resolved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

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.

There are plenty of things that are done in game balance concerns. Magic mostly deals with this, because you don't really need to explain how magic works that way, but why magic works that way. Mundane options not only have to explain the why, but the how, too, because their reasoning isn't as handwaveable as magic, and that's where everything falls apart.

In PF1, we've had a player who consistently complained that you couldn't "Move and Drink a potion at the same time," because he can move and drink something in real life. While feats and other options tried to remedy this, at the end of the day, we literally used the "Because the game says so" excuse, simply due that there is no other explanation. And I am certain that, to this very day, they complain about it. Granted, potions and other consumables in this game are just as last-ditch-effort as (if not moreso than) Battle Medicine. And don't get me wrong, this isn't the only mundane gripe I have with the game. Leaping and Long/High Jumps being overtly constricting, in terms of permitting a flowing environment and cool/flashy cinematic action, is probably the next branch on this Tree of Shenanigans that I'm trying to cut down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I don't find it absurd if someone drops their weapon(s) (free action), performs Battle Medicine (1 action with free hands and stowed in bandolier), re-stow healer's tools (1 action), and picks up a weapon (1 action). In fact, that's exactly how I run it in my game. If a player had Quick Draw, I'd even let them use that feat for weapons on the ground in their square or in an adjacent square, even though that feat only works on sheathed weapons per RAW.

But other people find that absurd because they dislike having to waste actions dropping, stowing, and picking items up when they have designated their hands elsewhere. It's really no worse a problem than if you chose to utilize a different weapon on an enemy, realize it's not effective, and then decide to go back to your other weapon because it's your most effective one and you have no other weapons to try. Sometimes you have to waste your turn to do something that would prevent PC death. It sucks. But it's part of the game, you just gotta play it out or accept the consequences.

As for players being able to put their weapon up by their armpit to "stow" it to free their hands, that's not really permissible by the rules simply because there's no action for it. In fact, per rules, the GM would have to ad hoc something there. I, as GM, would prefer to keep rules conservative if possible. For that reason, I'd rule that stowing weapons in your armpit is similar to putting weapons away in a sheathe, which take an action to do per the Interact rules, and re-grabbing your weapon from your armpit is similar to drawing a weapon from a sheathe, picking up a weapon from the ground or other adjacent surface, and/or gripping a weapon with both hands. All that ruling really does is remove the need for a weapon sheathe to be on your person, which I'm not particularly concerned with until it comes time for it to take place. Which won't be until well after this gets resolved.

It really sounds like you're running this as a simulation, and not as a game.

Battle Medicine requires only the action it specifies to use, and only the resources listed under Requirements. There are references elsewhere in the rules to support all that, but they aren't really needed - the feat itself tells you its own costs in actions and opportunity costs.

By inventing all these other requirements for a gameplay mechanic, you're essentially removing the feat from play indirectly by houseruling it into uselessness. If you dislike non-magical healing that much, just houserule it out entirely.

Quote:
Mundane options not only have to explain the why, but the how, too, because their reasoning isn't as handwaveable as magic, and that's where everything falls apart.

Actually, they don't. Its a game. This right here is the issue - you're running it like its a simulation, as opposed to a grand abstraction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In fact, that's exactly how I run it in my game.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
at the end of the day, we literally used the "Because the game says so" excuse, simply due that there is no other explanation

On the one hand, you've added extra requirements because you don't like it, on the other you said "because the game says so" even though you don't like it.

Uh...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.

And as I've said previously, "I can open doors with my hands full, I don't see the problem."


KrispyXIV wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I don't find it absurd if someone drops their weapon(s) (free action), performs Battle Medicine (1 action with free hands and stowed in bandolier), re-stow healer's tools (1 action), and picks up a weapon (1 action). In fact, that's exactly how I run it in my game. If a player had Quick Draw, I'd even let them use that feat for weapons on the ground in their square or in an adjacent square, even though that feat only works on sheathed weapons per RAW.

But other people find that absurd because they dislike having to waste actions dropping, stowing, and picking items up when they have designated their hands elsewhere. It's really no worse a problem than if you chose to utilize a different weapon on an enemy, realize it's not effective, and then decide to go back to your other weapon because it's your most effective one and you have no other weapons to try. Sometimes you have to waste your turn to do something that would prevent PC death. It sucks. But it's part of the game, you just gotta play it out or accept the consequences.

As for players being able to put their weapon up by their armpit to "stow" it to free their hands, that's not really permissible by the rules simply because there's no action for it. In fact, per rules, the GM would have to ad hoc something there. I, as GM, would prefer to keep rules conservative if possible. For that reason, I'd rule that stowing weapons in your armpit is similar to putting weapons away in a sheathe, which take an action to do per the Interact rules, and re-grabbing your weapon from your armpit is similar to drawing a weapon from a sheathe, picking up a weapon from the ground or other adjacent surface, and/or gripping a weapon with both hands. All that ruling really does is remove the need for a weapon sheathe to be on your person, which I'm not particularly concerned with until it comes time for it to take place. Which won't be until well after this gets resolved.

It really sounds like you're running this as a...

The game is still somewhat simulationist, even if you disagree. It's abstract in some areas, but enriched in others. The gravity in this game isn't particularly accurate, but it's simulationist enough with basic rules that I'm not bothered by it.

Suggesting you can't ever be simulationist, especially when rules are unclear, is essentially a case of being labeled badwrongfun.


Draco18s wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In fact, that's exactly how I run it in my game.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
at the end of the day, we literally used the "Because the game says so" excuse, simply due that there is no other explanation

On the one hand, you've added extra requirements because you don't like it, on the other you said "because the game says so" even though you don't like it.

Uh...

Adding extra requirements, or using different ones from another area of a book that is actually outdated and not ever used or referenced anywhere in any book? I'll chalk it up to buying into false advertisement at this point and fully embrace the armless medic fallacy, since that is RAW.

Also, I like it when people take my words out of context to extract a meaning that is not intended. I'll also point out that the second quote was from a game that I wasn't even a GM of, nor was I arguing for or against anything. All I did was state the RAW and let the two argue it out, because consumables are so dang useless anyway that I didn't care how it was ruled.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Suggesting you can't ever be simulationist, especially when rules are unclear, is essentially a case of being labeled badwrongfun.

Inventing restrictions that don't exist to reduce the viable options available to your players is under my definition of anti-fun.

If your table doesn't like Battle Medicine, then by all means Houserule it away. I can't tell you or yours how to have fun.

But trying to convince others to run it as more restrictive than it is, at their tables, when the restrictions are clearly enumerated as is is another story.

In general, Battle Medicine having fewer restrictions makes it more widely available at a larger number of tables, helps those parties fulfill their need for healing, and makes the game more fun and accessible from a game perspective, which PF2 by design puts ahead of simulation concerns.

Imposing more restrictions than the designers explicitly intent does not serve the design of the game in any way, and certainly does not serve the people playing the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Adding extra requirements, or using different ones from another area of a book that is actually outdated and not ever used or referenced anywhere in any book?
page 18 wrote:

Requirements Sometimes you must have a certain item or be

in a certain circumstance to use an ability. If so, it’s listed
in this section

I don't see a "requirements" line on Battle Medicine that refers to free hands, language that is present on all other actions that require free hands during combat.

Also, look, again a reference to the language "HAVE an item."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Draco18s wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Like I said Rules As My View of Reality Dictates. RAMVORD, neither RAW or RAI instead a collection of beliefs on how anything non-magical should function regardless of the actual rules on the subject but instead based in how the GM views the real world interactions.
And as I've said previously, "I can open doors with my hands full, I don't see the problem."

I should have quoted the point I was replying to sorry for that. I was talking about Sol's "Mundane options not only have to explain the why, but the how, too, because their reasoning isn't as handwaveable as magic, and that's where everything falls apart."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KrispyXIV wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Suggesting you can't ever be simulationist, especially when rules are unclear, is essentially a case of being labeled badwrongfun.

Inventing restrictions that don't exist to reduce the viable options available to your players is under my definition of anti-fun.

If your table doesn't like Battle Medicine, then by all means Houserule it away. I can't tell you or yours how to have fun.

But trying to convince others to run it as more restrictive than it is, at their tables, when the restrictions are clearly enumerated as is is another story.

In general, Battle Medicine having fewer restrictions makes it more widely available at a larger number of tables, helps those parties fulfill their need for healing, and makes the game more fun and accessible from a game perspective, which PF2 by design puts ahead of simulation concerns.

Imposing more restrictions than the designers explicitly intent does not serve the design of the game in any way, and certainly does not serve the people playing the game.

This implies my arbitrary restrictions make Battle Medicine no longer viable. I have gameplay at two separate tables past 10th level proving otherwise. But hey, because I don't conform to armless medics running amok in my campaigns, I'm the badwrongfun guy here.

I'm not convincing anyone to run anything. If I am, I'm doing a bad job of it. But really, it's an insurmountable task when we'd rather believe hands aren't required for anything unless it outright says so. Don't mind me, I'll just use jedi mind tricks to open locks, disable hazards, and heal wounds and stabilize people with no RAW telling me that's what happens. And if you ever state that hands are needed, you're doing the same badwrongfun simulationist crap I'm doing, because no mention of hands or feet or anything in the description. Pot meet kettle.

Remember when this was supposed to be an edition where nobody needed to be a dedicated (in-combat) healer? Gotta love false advertising. And people thought CLW wands were bad? They were just tedious to track all the time. At least they were consistent and did what they were meant to do, fairly, I might add.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
KrispyXIV wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Suggesting you can't ever be simulationist, especially when rules are unclear, is essentially a case of being labeled badwrongfun.

Inventing restrictions that don't exist to reduce the viable options available to your players is under my definition of anti-fun.

If your table doesn't like Battle Medicine, then by all means Houserule it away. I can't tell you or yours how to have fun.

But trying to convince others to run it as more restrictive than it is, at their tables, when the restrictions are clearly enumerated as is is another story.

In general, Battle Medicine having fewer restrictions makes it more widely available at a larger number of tables, helps those parties fulfill their need for healing, and makes the game more fun and accessible from a game perspective, which PF2 by design puts ahead of simulation concerns.

Imposing more restrictions than the designers explicitly intent does not serve the design of the game in any way, and certainly does not serve the people playing the game.

This implies my arbitrary restrictions make Battle Medicine no longer viable. I have gameplay at two separate tables past 10th level proving otherwise. But hey, because I don't conform to armless medics running amok in my campaigns, I'm the badwrongfun guy here.

I'm not convincing anyone to run anything. If I am, I'm doing a bad job of it. But really, it's an insurmountable task when we'd rather believe hands aren't required for anything unless it outright says so. Don't mind me, I'll just use jedi mind tricks to open locks, disable hazards, and heal wounds and stabilize people with no RAW telling me that's what happens. And if you ever state that hands are needed, you're doing the same badwrongfun simulationist crap I'm doing, because no mention of hands or feet or anything in the description. Pot meet kettle.

Remember when this was supposed to be an edition where nobody needed to be a dedicated (in-combat) healer?...

Again - please stop misrepresenting your opposition.

No one is suggesting that hands and tools are not in use while performing these actions.

We are suggesting that the particulars are handwaved for gameplay reasons, and that the particulars are left to the particular GM and players involved, who can justify it how they like.

That does not result in handless telepaths opening doors - that's a slippery slope fallacy to the extreme.

It simply means that there's no action cost associated with anything but the single action for Battle Medicine. If a free hand was required or the ability changed your current gear layout or usage, the feat would say so.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I read this thread with a high degree of interest, as I have a champion with the battle medicine feat due to background. It's a thematic fit.

After watching the back and forth, I do think RAW is, as many people say, handwaving the "equipment use by hand" logic. The following is not to change anyone's mind, but to be informative, so you can rule or play the way you feel is best for your table.

I asked my dad, who trained as a combat medic with the US Army in the 1960s, what he learned. He didn't get deployed to Vietnam, but he did do a lot of work stateside. So, here's some takeaway.

A battlefield medic's first job is to assess the safety situation, ensure personal safety (if the medic is dead, so is the rifleman), keep weapon available, then diagnose, then stabilize the person enough to get them to a MASH unit. Obviously, not all of this may apply, especially with healing magic.

Things you can do without hands: assess situation and make an initial diagnosis.

Things you can do with one hand, in his view: staunch bleeding through pressure and cloth, feel for pulse, grab more first aid kit, feel for injury.

Things you need two hands for: set bones, make a tourniquet or similar advanced bandage, perform a carry.

So, let's assume that in the moment, the situation is already assessed, and it's now a question of what you consider healing to be. To me, being trained as a battlefield medic, in any fantasy setting, is not to recreate real life, but rather to create the basis for a character's application of their skillset that they already have. A battlefield medic can do a lot of the above actions extremely quickly because they're trained to do so. In my view, the handwaving of the "use of hands" is representative of the training the character has, not the actual use of hands. Of course a character would really need hands to do most of the actions, but I don't think that's really what Paizo is attempting to relate in not specifically mentioning use of hands. It's a little bit like doing something very skillfully because you have been doing it for years versus a relative novice doing so. The same actions require less *time*, not less hands, but from a game perspective, Paizo seems to be saying, RAW, your training lets you do this without the hands because that's how we're showing action economy for trained people.

I'm not taking sides here, I hope everyone has fun and roleplays at a table that suits them. I thought the perspective from someone who did that before might be germane information for us all. It is an interesting discussion, and I got a nice hour long conversation with my dad, who's 82. :)

My best wishes for health to all of you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

After over a year of mystery:
Battle Medicine now officially requires one free hand (if you're wearing the tools).

451 to 467 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Battle Medicine All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.