|
Battle Medicine does take two hands, because using a Healer's Kit requires two hands, and you use a Healer's Kit to Treat Wounds, which is what you're doing when you use Battle Medicine.
Sidenote: my -2001 uses Battle Medicine in conjunction with Quickdraw to make the action economy not hurt so much.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this is another place of ambiguity.
"You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day."
There is no listed hand or tool requirement. You are not doing a Treat Wounds action in combat. You are doing a Medicine check (which has no hand/tool requirements) with the same DC as Treat Wounds, and the same success conditions.
The strictest ruling is what you listed.
The most permissive is no hand/tools required, just the adjacency requirement if used on an ally.
There have been long threads and I don't think its settled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sidenote: my -2001 uses Battle Medicine in conjunction with Quickdraw to make the action economy not hurt so much.
Under the interpretation that Battle Medicine needs a Healer's tools (not weighting in on that one either way), you can just put the Healer's Tools in a Bandolier that you are wearing, and draw them as part of the Battle Medicine action.
A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self
I wouldn't be surprised to find table variation on that one. Meaning, some GMs may agree with you, and others may not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sidenote: my -2001 uses Battle Medicine in conjunction with Quickdraw to make the action economy not hurt so much.Under the interpretation that Battle Medicine needs a Healer's tools (not weighting in on that one either way), you can just put the Healer's Tools in a Bandolier that you are wearing, and draw them as part of the Battle Medicine action.
A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.
That's exactly what he does ^_^
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self
There is no such thing as "Rules as Written". Reading is an interpretive activity. Indeed, two different people can read the same text and come to different conclusions.
It's much more sensible to look at this with degrees of certainty. Does it make any sense to just "wiggle your fingers" and perform miracle treatments? Or should we use the framework for Treat Wounds?
When I look at the Medicine skill, I see that every action requires the use of Healer's Tools (including Treat Wounds, which Battle Medicine references). When I look at Healer's Tools, I see they require two hands to use.
*Could* it be as you describe? Sure. But I don't think that's the stronger, more sensible conclusion when taking everything into consideration.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medicine does take two hands, because using a Healer's Kit requires two hands, and you use a Healer's Kit to Treat Wounds, which is what you're doing when you use Battle Medicine.
You are not using Treat Wounds when you preform Battle Medicine, you are simply using the same DCs and results. This is sometimes a benefit (not needing to use a Healers Kit) and sometimes a drawback (you can't use Practiced Medic with it).
|
|
but in a PFS game as the GM i have to accept the stupid finger waggle i heal?
No, you do not.
There is no statement in any iteration of the Roleplaying Guild Guide (or its predecessor, the Guide to Organized Play) that even suggests your hands are tied by outlier interpretations.
It's your table. They are your players. Acknowledge it's a grey area, tell them this is how you're going to run it, and move on.
If they disagree, tell them that is the official stance of Organized Play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.
Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.
Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a PFS GM you're bound to play by the rules. That's easy if the rules are clear. If the rules are unclear, then you have to use your own best judgement to make a fair and reasonable ruling.
This is a case where the rules are legitimately unclear. There are several theories about how Battle Medicine is supposed to work:
A) It doesn't require hands or a healer's kit because they're not listed in the requirements.
B) It does require them because it's mimicking Treat Wounds, and Paizo either forgot to say that (which happens sometimes) or thought it was obvious (turns out, it wasn't that obvious).
Until we get a FAQ, we don't know which of these theories is correct. There are arguments to be made in good faith for both of them. In long discussions, no one side has been able to sway the other.
You have a lot of people saying that obviously their interpretation is correct, that the issue isn't confusing or ambiguous at all. But that leaves you with the big question: then why are so many people disagreeing? Are they all stupid or malicious? I think the more likely reason is that the issue is just unclear.
So, as a GM, what are you to do? Until Paizo gives us an FAQ to settle things, you just have to make up your own mind. Tell your players that after thinking the issue over and looking at the different arguments, for now your ruling is [x]. You can freely admit that you're not certain, but that you have to decide something, and this is the best judgement you can make. Try to communicate this to them before the middle of combat where it can be a matter of life and death :P
That's exactly what he does ^_^
Ahh, okay. The way you capitalized Quickdraw made it sound like an actual game feature, not a use of the Bandolier. Though now that I think about it the Rogue's quickdraw only works with weapons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have a lot of people saying that obviously their interpretation is correct, that the issue isn't confusing or ambiguous at all. But that leaves you with the big question: then why are so many people disagreeing? Are they all stupid or malicious? I think the more likely reason is that the issue is just unclear.
Its because a large percentage of the tabletop community can't accept that hit points are an abstraction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly what he does ^_^Ahh, okay. The way you capitalized Quickdraw made it sound like an actual game feature, not a use of the Bandolier. Though now that I think about it the Rogue's quickdraw only works with weapons.
We're just reading the thread differently. I do mean Quickdraw, as in the Rogue Feat.
The OP was complaining that they "have to drop thier weapon to heal people".
I replied with "my -2001 uses Battle Medicine in conjunction with Quickdraw to make the action economy not hurt so much".
The context being that, with Quickdraw, I am less likely to have to drop my weapon in order to utilize Battle Medicine.
|
|
Emphasis on "less likely" and "not hurt so much".
So, today for example, my character was ambushed by a wolf that crit and tripped him.
On my turn I was able to Battle Medicine, Stand and Quickdraw/Strike.
Without the Bandolier, I would have needed an action to draw my tools. Without Quickdraw, I would have needed an action to draw my weapon.
Action economy is a spectrum. Every little bit helps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah but by RAW for Society games I can just wiggle my fingers and heal my self
If that's how you choose to flavour the mechanics then by all means go ahead. If this was the fiction my GM was creating I would probably find myself a new GM.
I do believe you are right in that separate actions are not required to stow whatever you are holding, make the check and then pull it out again. I personally prefer to use a different fiction to describe this. You do what makes you and your players happy though.
The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.
Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.
Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.
See the section on table variation, namely:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources."Please stop with the statements that you don't need to run an adventure as written, GMs don't need to follow the rules, or there "are no rules as written". This is pretty clearly spelled out in the guide to organized play.
Except there is no consensus on this rule, as the thread shows.
Your interpretation seems to focus on the bare minimum, which leads to some aberrant situations which per RAW (in the CRB) the GM is supposed to account for and override. (Which is to say, by RAW, RAW defers to the GM if there are counter-intuitive implications.)Setting that aside, there is also an interpretation of Battle Medicine that reads "patch up" (which is RAW) as doing what a person does when they patch up somebody: apply a patch by hand, presumably to wounds.
IMO, that's the most straightforward reading. Saying one can apply a patch via their weapon, shield, or anything else borders on ridiculous (though I can see esoteric abilities & magic allowing for it!).
Not that I'd argue this at the table since it's a minor issue to let ruin a game session. But I think until there is clarity, a GM is right to go by their intuition on this (as long as they aren't intentionally trying to subvert clear rules or FAQs, which I'll assert this feat does not have.)
Cheers.
My head-canon of battle medic is less bandaging someone, which to me makes no sense in that time, and more quickly jabbing them with a painkiller, a shot of adrenaline, a quick pre-made salve of dried plants over a cut, or in the case of my goblin in Age of Ashes applying a liberal coat of his specially prepared medicinal pickle juice to the wound. Manipulate trait works fine for my mental image.
Yeah, this is my own solution. An injection also makes more sense with only being able to use it once per day; multiple doses could really mess you up.
The CRB quite clearly has the written rule that GMs are the final arbiters of how a rule is meant to be interpreted and quite clearly advises the GM to use the rules as intended (however the GM interprets the intention) instead of the rules as written whenever there is doubt. In any hypothetical disagreement about a rules interpretation between a player and the GM, the GM wins by default, that is part of the RAW. The player is entitled to have a different opinion but that opinion has no effect on game play.
Since that is part of the core rules, and there are no specific society rulings against it, this "GM is the ultimate arbiter on the rules" principle holds true in society play just as much.
Unless the society comes up with a specific ruling for this particular case, just go with your best interpretation, and you will always be in the right for your table.
See the section on table variation, namely:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources."Please stop with the statements that you don't need to run an adventure as written, GMs don't need to follow the rules, or there "are no rules as written". This is pretty clearly spelled out in the guide to organized play.
I really don't see where you get from this quote the feeling that I'm saying that "there are no rules as written". There definitely are. However, as you yourself have pointed out a few posts later, and as many, MANY, posts on these forums demonstrate, the rules as written are very often subject to interpretation and are very rarely universally understood to mean the same thing. Language is a complicated thing and cases that may be obvious to you might look completely different to me. And we might both be wrong, obviously.
And in those cases, where it boils down to interpretation, if there is a difference in interpretation between the GM and one or more players, it is the job of the GM to decide what the "correct" interpretation for this game and this table is. Sadly, I have had to make the experience of players quite belligerently "demanding" that they were entitled to something or other based on their personal interpretation of the rules, and thus I'm merely pointing out that fortunately it is part of the rules as written that the GM's interpretation trumps all others at that table (with the possible exception of sitting at a table with paizo-executive players...). And really, that is just codifying good common sense.
Nowhere am I advocating to just randomly break or replace rules. But if a rule or text passage requires interpretation, the GM decides what it was meant to say in his opinon and runs the game accordingly. He should use his best judgement and use available resources but ultimately, it's his call. And yes, that is just as true for Society scenarios. And the guide2play does not oppose that at all. These judgement calls are only ever needed if a rule or text passage as written is unclear, in which case the GM clarifies it for his table and his game. Not doing that would actually violate the rules as written about adjudicating unclear rules cases. Clarifying an unclear rule and playing according to the clarified rule is not at all breaking said rule, even if a player holds a different opinion. So no problem for Society regulations at all.
So hence, even if RAW is clear for me, it's not for everyone, which makes, unfortunately, RAW ambiguous
See, we actually agree. All I'm adding is that the solution to this problem is already written into the RAW: GM adjudication.
Now, back to battle medicine!
|
|
As close as we're going to get to official until an FAQ or errata is issued.
Good enough for Society, and more lenient than the previous requirement of two hands.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the Roll for Combat video doesn't say anything about hands, only actions. And since it claims you're using healer's tools (in a bondolier) to use it, that says something about hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the Roll for Combat video doesn't say anything about hands, only actions. And since it claims you're using healer's tools (in a bondolier) to use it, that says something about hands.
Yep, by the rules it actually CAN'T work as explained in the video without errata changing the rules: "takes one action, and you need a free hand to pull materials from your healing kit out of your pouch as a second action." The issue is that ANY use of a healer's Tools requires 2 hands to use [Core Rulebook pg. 290, "Hands 2"] so it contradicts itself right from the start. Another issue is that Healer's Tools do 100% NOTHING for a generic Medicine check as only "Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison, or Treat Wounds" checks gain any benefit from them so since Battle Medicine isn't any of those the kit doesn't add bonuses for superior kits [or penalties for lack of kit]: so another point that needs errata if it's meant to work the way the video says.
The only way to play it that doesn't run afoul of other rules is no kit or hand required...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since that post it's been revealed that you only need one hand, and if you also use a Bandolier, then the entire usage is only one action.
I didn't hear anything saying you only need one hand:
It is actually possible to use Battle Medicine using one action. That's right. If you have a bandolier you can pull out your toolkit and use it as part of one action. If you don't have a bandolier you need to use one Interact to pull out your toolkit, your healing kit, and then you need to use another action to actually use Battle Medicine.