Battle Medicine


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

After much discussion I came to accept battle medicine doesn't require you to touch the target, just be adjacent or use a healer's kit. I was wondering if this was the intent of the feat and if it will get errata to clarify that you make a medicine check using the DC AND REQUIREMENTS of Treat wounds.

Bold empasis on what need to be added to make this skill somewhat vaguely resemble first aid rather than someone wiggling thier fingers so they dont have to drop thier weapon to heal people.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

(I'm assuming you didn't mean to post this in the PFS Forum, so I flagged it for General Discussion? Rules Discussion?)

Sidenote: my -2001 uses Battle Medicine in conjunction with Quickdraw to make the action economy not hurt so much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

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.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Archives of Nethys wrote:
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


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Carog the Fat wrote:
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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Archives of Nethys wrote:
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 ^_^

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Carog the Fat wrote:
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.


yeah i was under this following impression you make a medicine check, to heal wounds medicine checks require a healers kit, a healers kit requires 2 hands to use. once per day per person you can do this in combat

The problem is the feat battle medicine doesnt say you make a Treat wounds check, if it did the above would apply. My concern is having some player arguing at my table "oh but i rub my head with the back of my hand and use battle medicine to feel better." because the feat states

Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing.

Not make a treat wounds roll, I assume the intent is that it works even within 1 hour of using treat wounds on the target before. Now in a home game I can rule how i like but in a society game i have to work with the rule framework more strictly? I assume! I dont know how much leeway a GM gets in Society games, as i am new to the role.

Some clarification on what i can rule in a society game as the GM would be great.

The reason being I had this arguement with a bunch of players on a discord clearly staing thier intention to use the skill as a finger waggle/rub my shoulder etc to heal in combat.


Nefreet wrote:

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).


Yeah it has the manipulate tag which is back to I wiggle my fingers and heal I understand how the feat is written (badly in my opinion) but in a PFS game as the GM i have to accept the stupid finger waggle i heal?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've never required the kit to be used & the 2 hands for it when I've ran it (both in org play & outside). I don't think I've ever ran into a battle medic without having the kit cause they all want to heal outside combat, so I'm not worried by that, but the suggestion you need 2 hands free to use the kit doesn't seem right to me - neither from a what it says, what it suggests, or what is the most fun outcome perspective. It essentially prohibits anyone using weapons from doing it as the action economy to sheathe all your weapons to do it and redraw them is prohibitive.

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.

If someone tried to say they did it through wiggly fingers rather than actually doing anything & tried to argue RAW at me I'd point out how it allows the GM to adjust DC by circumstances & that not touching the person you're healing is a very difficult circumstance to successfully heal them.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Carog the Fat wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

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.

Sovereign Court

6 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


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Nefreet wrote:
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.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:

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.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
First World Bard wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages

Quick Draw doesn’t allow you the sheath a weapon, does it? So wouldn’t you still have to drop/spend an action to sheath a weapon in hand if you need the hand free?

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Scarab Sages

All of that is true, and helpful to using it more often, but has nothing to do with having to drop a weapon to use it. Just pointing out it doesn’t solve that problem.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ok.


Carog the Fat wrote:
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.


If we consider that the world sees dragons, magic and similar stuff, then a 2 second first ad action shouldn't have to be seen as a issue at all.

Since it is something which can be used 1x day, then think about is as something a player could inhale to Regain Vigor.

But really, it is just something meant to give any character a free consumable with an internal cd.

"Omg, the warrior patted his friend on the back and he got renewed!"

Said the wizard, morphed into a giant, waggling his Flaming sword, while he was riding his ancient dragon.

Cmon


This is one where I feel the written rules are pretty clear. There's no requirements for the skill to use multiple hands, and it is called out as using the same DC as Treat Wounds, not being a Treat Wounds attempt. There's definite disagreement if this was the intent (I think it was, Healer's Kits become a lot more tedious with shields...), but that's a separate discussion. I do think there's an argument that the object you're manipulating is the person... so touch might be required.


albadeon wrote:

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.

Actually this isn't true

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.

EDIT: Also, can you spell out where it states that GMs are the final arbiters... I'm seeing a section on "Ambiguous Rules", but even that states it's up to the group to decide. The Game Master section in the opening states it's your responsibility to "adjudicate the rules".


tivadar27 wrote:
albadeon wrote:

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.

Actually this isn't true

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.


Tim Schneider 908 wrote:


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.


Castilliano wrote:

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.

Sorry, let me clarify a bit. I'd agree that there are definitely parts of this rule that are at least potentially ambiguous, and I wouldn't fault someone for ruling the other way on this. I think, personally, that RAW is pretty clear on this, but don't think it's "beyond reasonable doubt".

I'm also not arguing you don't need a free hand (the manipulate trait covers that), merely you don't need a healer's kit. If you're arguing there's no possible way to apply first aid without a medical kit... then I'd say pretty clearly, in the real world, that's not right. I'm not sure if that's what you're trying to say is "ridiculous" or not?

I take issue of the repeated statements of "there are no rules as written". This is patently not true, and a GM, particularly in Society, must follow them.


Actually, another question: For those who are interpreting this as a use of Treat Wounds, I'm assuming you apply all the *other* restrictions of treat wounds to its usage, namely that you can't use Battle Medicine if you've used Treat Wounds within the last hour?

Sovereign Court

If Battle Medicine carries all the limitations of Treat Wounds, does it also have the benefit of removing the Wounded condition?


Captain Morgan wrote:
Tim Schneider 908 wrote:


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.

Yep me too. My alchemist's uses quick binding goop fluff. Its basically using duct tape or superglue as triage. but more alchemy like and less biologically endangering


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Imo, the most middle ground, is requiring 1 hand free for the manipulate action (which no longer does) but no kit and certainly no 2 free hands.

I can't ever imagine that they intended for a quick, 100% in combat healing, to require you dropping both shield and weapon, or requiring like 2 full rounds of sheathing and unsheathing.

It can be styled in a myriad different, not immersion breaking, ways than "wiggling fingers". From combat tourniquet, to injections, to pastes, and etc.


shroudb wrote:

Imo, the most middle ground, is requiring 1 hand free for the manipulate action (which no longer does) but no kit and certainly no 2 free hands.

I can't ever imagine that they intended for a quick, 100% in combat healing, to require you dropping both shield and weapon, or requiring like 2 full rounds of sheathing and unsheathing.

It can be styled in a myriad different, not immersion breaking, ways than "wiggling fingers". From combat tourniquet, to injections, to pastes, and etc.

That's the point.

It is simply a free combat healing which:

- costs 1 action and has a 1/day cd.

- has melee range.

- requires you to invest in a skill and take a skill feat.

- can't stack with other players because of its cd.

I also think that free hands are not required, since the feat doesn't say a thing, and the manipulate trait could also be some gesture. And because it will advantage classes with no weapons or shields.

About its manifestation, as you also said, it could be described as anything.


Ahh sorry, it's the interact action that requires the free hand, not the manipulate trait explicitly... Still, I'd probably assume this does require a free hand (though not two, and you couldn't use a healer's kit with it even if you wanted to...).


You don't really have to presume.
Rules here are clear.

As DM you could homerule in a different way, or even imagine that the feat is somehow explained in the wrong way, but until an errata will come out, apart from arguing, the choice is between following what the feat and manipulate trait say or just interpretate all of this as you wish.


K1 wrote:

You don't really have to presume.

Rules here are clear.

As DM you could homerule in a different way, or even imagine that the feat is somehow explained in the wrong way, but until an errata will come out, apart from arguing, the choice is between following what the feat and manipulate trait say or just interpretate all of this as you wish.

So, as a *player*, I'll assume one free hand will fly in most places. As a GM, I agree, I actually think RAW is clear here and I'll run my games that way. However, as a person, I also realize that a lot of people don't agree... So hence, even if RAW is clear for me, it's not for everyone, which makes, unfortunately, RAW ambiguous. I've outlined the differences in how I play things in another thread, as it gets too much in the weeds.


So a fireball seems reasonable, like fixing an almost dead person in 1 hour of medications, but patting him on the back in order to let him recover some of his Vital strength seems somehow unacceptable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
albadeon wrote:

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.

Actually this isn't true

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.

tivadar27 wrote:
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!


@albadeon: Yeah, sorry, I feel like I may have grabbed the wrong post. There had been some stronger posts regarding RAW earlier, and I think I picked yours up and, in fairness, didn't do a good job of reading the specifics. Sorry about that :).


K1 wrote:

So a fireball seems reasonable, like fixing an almost dead person in 1 hour of medications, but patting him on the back in order to let him recover some of his Vital strength seems somehow unacceptable.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Battle Medicine All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.