I know that Battle Medicine is not Treat Wounds, but it does say:
Does this mean you can hurt someone on a critical failure? Or does that never happen in the case of Battle Medicine, since it only mentions "healing?"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that Battle Medicine is not Treate Wounds, but it does say:
Does this mean you can hurt someone on a critical failure? Or does that never happen in the case of Battle Medicine, since it only mentions "healing?"
I think I would say it has all the same effects as a Treat Wounds check, healing and harm if you roll poorly enough. I can't imagine they would allow damage on a crit fail when you are not under any pressure and remove that penalty in the heat of battle!
The difference could be how drastic the medical attention you are applying is in the heat of battle. There is a difference between throwing a bandage around an arrow wound and carefully trying to extract the arrow after all.
The Battle Medicine feat does only mention healing as though it is Treat wounds though, which leads me to believe that it can't do damage. So maybe a failure is just a failure with no other repercussions.
The most likely reason I can think of for that is to make it competitive with magical healing options in combat. After all, if Battle Medicine could kill your friend, why not wait until after combat to try the heal check anyway and not take the chance? Or carry around a few potions to use in those circumstances? Much safer option.
After all, if Battle Medicine could kill your friend, why not wait until after combat to try the heal check anyway and not take the chance? Or carry around a few potions to use in those circumstances? Much safer option.
Because you may not have those options and if it is the difference between dropping or not you would have to take the chance. It heals as Treat Wounds, which IMO means that it suffers from any critical failure results as well (i suspect that you would allow the effects of a critical success after all).
After all, if Battle Medicine could kill your friend, why not wait until after combat to try the heal check anyway and not take the chance? Or carry around a few potions to use in those circumstances? Much safer option.Because you may not have those options and if it is the difference between dropping or not you would have to take the chance. It heals as Treat Wounds, which IMO means that it suffers from any critical failure results as well (i suspect that you would allow the effects of a critical success after all).
You would allow for the Critical Success as the Feat tells you to apply the corresponding amount of healing. However Battle Medicine is not Treat Wounds. It is basically Treat Wounds lite (Patent Pending).
And it sort of makes sense. In battle medicine is going to be necessarily different than out of combat medicine. You would take fewer risks as you are acting under pressure, but because of that pressure would be doing things quick and dirty. I feel like this should mean that it is only capable of the "success" amount of healing, but I agree with the idea that you also cannot Crit Fail and deal damage to your friend. If for no other reason than to be a reasonable substitute for Magical healing of any type which notably has no chance to kill your patient.
Also note, I do not agree with the idea that Battle medicine operates exactly as Treat Wounds because then you are removing your allies "Wounded" condition if any, which is very strong, especially if that ally is still in danger. Again battle medicine is going to be quick and dirty. You aren't stitching wounds, your shoving gauze in them. This doesn't feel like taking away a wound, more just making the ally ambulatory enough to continue the fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doing a negative amount of healing (a.k.a. damage) is in lines with what's written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doing a negative amount of healing (a.k.a. damage) is in lines with what's written.
From one point of view, if you consider damage as healing, sure. I don't. Heh. Your name is perfect for that comment.
Why wouldn't Battle Medicine remove the wounded condition? The feat says you get the same "healing" not the same hit points, and removing wounded is certainly healing.
Why wouldn't Battle Medicine remove the wounded condition? The feat says you get the same "healing" not the same hit points, and removing wounded is certainly healing.
My supporting argument for this is tenuous, I will admit, but here it goes:
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.
Emphasis mine. First, Battle Medicine is described as a "patch up" job. Treat Wounds is described as treatment, a much more involved process, incurring more possible risk as you perform complicated surgeries or procedures etc... (or if you use nature you slap some herbs on it or something.) This is the most tenuous and reaching part of my argument.
Second Battle Medicine provides the corresponding amount of healing. Amount implies a numerical amount of healing. You can refer to the removal of a condition as healing it, but Pathfinder tends to call it removing said condition, not healing it.
Third the Battle Medicine Feat does not ever refer to using Treat Wounds. It states that you make a Medicine Check, similar to Treat Wounds, with the same DC as Treat Wounds. It states that you apply the corresponding amount of healing that treat wounds would based on the result of that check. It states that you can increase the DC and healing based on training. However behaving Like an ability is not the same as Being that ability.
If the intention was to have Battle Medicine be combat Treat Wounds, why would the designer not have simply written Battle Medicine to say something to the effect of, "Use Treat Wounds. Instead of 10 minutes it takes 1 action. Your ally is then immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day." and be done with it? Instead they took time to word Battle Medicine very carefully to operate like Treat Wounds, but not exactly.
That is essentially the core of my argument.
Edit: To address the no damage aspect: Damage. Is. Not. Healing. :)