|
So the text of the Chirugeon Research Field says:
"As long as your proficiency rank in Medicine is trained or better, you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses."
By my reading on this, this ability only allows Chirugeons to use a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for untrained and train uses only. This would mean you could not use it for Medicine checks that have Expert, Master or Legendary requirements, such as voluntarily taking a higher DC to heal more damage. This would be true even if you were an Expert, Master or Legendary in Medicine. By the wording, you would have to use your Medicine check to do this, not your Crafting skill, which kind of defeats the purpose. This therefor mostly becomes useless at higher levels. This is very disappointing for the only other dedicated healer in the game outside of Cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree (both that you are reading it correctly and that it is disappointing).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree, the wording on the whole Skill formatting for "Trained and Untrained Uses" in the Skills chapter includes the following:
Anyone can use a skill’s untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill. A circumstance, condition, or effect might bar you from a skill action regardless of your proficiency rank, and sometimes using a skill in a specific situation might require you to have a
higher proficiency rank than what is listed on the table.
So basically what it's saying is that you need to be at LEAST trained to use the Skill uses that are covered in the Table itself but it also includes wording to support the argument that the "Trained" wording requirement as it relates to Skills doesn't actually limit it to the Trained Prof.
Since the circumstances that are prescribed in the Treat Wounds Skill Use (Which is labeled only as Trained) includes specific rules as to how you can use it in another way if you have a higher than normal Training prof then you should by all accounts be able to use Crafting for this since the Treat Wounds Skill Use is a "Trained Use" regardless of the effects that the rules dictate how it functions and options you can choose if you have a higher level of training.
The Trained and Untrained Uses verbiage exists in that form only because they were not going to print "Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary Proficiency restricted Uses."
At least that's how I interpret it.
The way I would run it is that unless the medicine check requires a proficiency higher than trained to do (there are no such activities currently, but some things in the future could require expert or better) you can treat your crafting proficiency as your medicine proficiency.
So "Treat Wounds" is a trained medicine activity, but if you have expert crafting you can attempt a DC 20 craft check to increase the HP regained by 10.
Anyone can use a skill’s untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill.
ALL this is saying is that you don't require trained only: IE it's like a prerequisite of 16 requiring 16 or more not an exact 16 only. This completely differnt from the wording of "instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses" which limits it to just those two used: untrained and trained.
So I agree with Ravingdork and trollbill : it's limited to trained only and above that you need to raise medicine. This makes the ability pretty useless but a lot of us have been complaining about that since the game came out.
I believe Ravingdork and Graystone are correct, both about what the rule is and about the rule being a problem. I would not recommend running this ability as written, as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this is one of those cases where I want to be wrong.
I'm with Themetricsystem. In the skill section actions are separated by as Untrained or Trained. The chirugeon language is referring to these distinctions only. The way I read it, if you are trained in Medicine, you replace all references to Medicine with Craft when attempting a Trained Medicine activity.
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose)...
The Crafting check DC is usually 15, though the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances, such as treating a patient outside in a storm, or treating magically cursed wounds. If you’re an expert in Crafting, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Crafting, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50. The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.
Anyone can use a skill’s untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill.ALL this is saying is that you don't require trained only: IE it's like a prerequisite of 16 requiring 16 or more not an exact 16 only.
What if the prerequisite was 16 and had a bonus effect at 20; would you get the bonus effect?
What if the prerequisite was 16 and had a bonus effect at 20; would you get the bonus effect?Anyone can use a skill’s untrained actions, but you can use trained actions only if you have a proficiency rank of trained or better in that skill.ALL this is saying is that you don't require trained only: IE it's like a prerequisite of 16 requiring 16 or more not an exact 16 only.
The issue we have here is that we only HAVE 2 options in effect: untrained or trained actions. So your question isn't possible. It'd be no stat needed or 16 as there are NO other tiers on skill action access. Being granted access is different than other requirement. It could matter if they ever make expert+ actions.
So the '16' allows you to "attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses." It allows you to use the modifiers for your rolls/check based on craft: that's it. It never says it counts for non-roll things.
"If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50. The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same."
Allowing you to use your craft modifiers doesn't make you an expert+ in medicine. In a similar way, this ability doesn't get rid of the Requirements 'You have healer’s tools' meaning you never get a bonus from tools on your rolls.
Allowing you to use your craft modifiers doesn't make you an expert+ in medicine. In a similar way, this ability doesn't get rid of the Requirements 'You have healer’s tools' meaning you never get a bonus from tools on your rolls.
There we go.
So the answer to my question was "no"
Allowing you to use your craft modifiers doesn't make you an expert+ in medicine. In a similar way, this ability doesn't get rid of the Requirements 'You have healer’s tools' meaning you never get a bonus from tools on your rolls.There we go.
So the answer to my question was "no"
That wasn't the question as I understood it though as a 16 or 20 would still allow you to use the modifiers on the exact same actions. Qualifying to roll craft for actions is different from the restrictions of individual actions: being able to roll craft is a different requirement check* from the setting dc check* or tool check*.
* for clarity, when I say check here, I don't mean a die roll but a check for access/prerequisites.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
|
Another rule I see ignored quite a bit (A sidebar in running the game chapter) that applies to this situation.
Specific Overrides General
A core principle of Pathfinder is that specific rules override general ones. If two rules conflict, the more specific one takes precedence. If there’s still ambiguity the GM determines which rule to use.
I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.
That's not very helpful outside an individual group so it's not mentioned much as it's not too useful in a 'how does this actually work as written' environment. That'd be more 'how can we change it to make it work better' discussion. The fact that something can be houseruled doesn't really change how it's written.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.That's not very helpful outside an individual group so it's not mentioned much as it's not too useful in a 'how does this actually work as written' environment. That'd be more 'how can we change it to make it work better' discussion. The fact that something can be houseruled doesn't really change how it's written.
Except that isn't a houserule. It's literally a rule in the book telling people to play the rules as intended.
It's like having a warning on a GPS that tells you when the GPS says to turn left, it means at the next street, not into the lake.
Except that isn't a houserule. It's literally a rule in the book telling people to play the rules as intended.
The rule is that you can make a houserule if it's not working for your group... "work with your group to find a good solution" is LITERALLY telling you it's a group solution and not a overall game solution. It can't help you outside your individual group.
It's like having a warning on a GPS that tells you when the GPS says to turn left, it means at the next street, not into the lake.
No, it's like the GPS is taking you down a windy road and one of the passengers gets motion sickness so you can ignore the GPS and take a straighter route: so it's like saying you can ignore the GPS if you know a better route and saying that doesn't mean you aren't ignoring the GPS if you do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That wasn't the question as I understood it though as a 16 or 20 would still allow you to use the modifiers on the exact same actions.
That isn't what I said.
Assume that random ability #24 says "prerequisite: 16 strength, allows you to do X. If you have 20 strength, also do Y."
Assume that random ability #47 says, "when using random ability #24, you may use your dexterity instead of strength for its prerequist."
Do you get to use your 20 dexterity for whether or not you can do Y? Or can you only do X without also 20 strength?
s/dexterity/crafting
That wasn't the question as I understood it though as a 16 or 20 would still allow you to use the modifiers on the exact same actions.That isn't what I said.
Assume that random ability #24 says "prerequisite: 16 strength, allows you to do X. If you have 20 strength, also do Y."
Assume that random ability #47 says, "when using random ability #24, you may use your dexterity instead of strength for its prerequist."Do you get to use your 20 dexterity for whether or not you can do Y? Or can you only do X without also 20 strength?
** spoiler omitted **
I still don't think it's equivalent: you are NOT using a "dexterity instead of strength" type substitution: that'd be easier. It's a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check. The stat shift has no other implication as it's a simple substitution. A check on the other hand brings along everything that modifies and alters those rolls: for instance, you need an expanded alchemist’s lab gives a +1 item bonus while healer's tools doesn't. Along with this, you are just checking for the roll/check and ranks aren't that.
For the ability in question it's pretty much like an ability that said 'if you have a 14 str, you can you dex when you roll for skill y.' Now if skill y said 'if you have str 20, you can do z' then you are out of luck unless you have that str because you only get your dex for rolls/checks.
For it to be a true substitution it's need to say "If your Medicine is trained or better, you can use Crafting instead of Medicine for all purposes including tools used." this would allow ranks to count and tools that actually apply to the rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Determine if the ability is Trained or Untrained. This is a binary choice clearly defined in the book on page 235.
2. If it's Trained or Untrained, which 100% of abilities are, you replace the word Medicine with the word Crafting in the ability.
Thus, the Trained use action Treat Wounds reads:
TREAT WOUNDS
EXPLORATION HEALING MANIPULATE
Requirements You have healer’s tools (page 290).You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour, but this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating (so a patient can be treated once per hour, not once per 70 minutes).The Crafting check DC is usually 15, though the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances, such as treating a patient outside in a storm, or treating magically cursed wounds. If you’re an expert in Crafting, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Crafting, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50. The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.The result of your Crafting check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.Critical Success The target regains 4d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed. Success The target regains 2d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed. Critical Failure The target takes 1d8 damage.
I truly do not see how this could be interpreted any other way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recant my first post, not because I feel it was wrong, but because I somehow convinced myself that this was a rehash of the old Natural Medicine debate. (Getting old is fun!)
As I clearly have no idea what anyone is even talking about, I shall henceforth obstain from the conversation.
1. Determine if the ability is Trained or Untrained. This is a binary choice clearly defined in the book on page 235.
2. If it's Trained or Untrained, which 100% of abilities are, you replace the word Medicine with the word Crafting in the ability.
Except that "Trained" is not "Expert." It's a separate rank.
Now see where things break down? There are "expert uses" for skill ranks beyond being "trained."
Disabling traps and getting extra healing out of Treat Wounds are two examples of such.
For it to be a true substitution it's need to say "If your Medicine is trained or better, you can use Crafting instead of Medicine for all purposes including tools used." this would allow ranks to count and tools that actually apply to the rolls.
Oh, I definitely agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does capitalization matter?
In situations where we see "untrained vs trained" in the context of meaning "are you wholly untrained or do you have at least SOME level of training i.e. Trained or better", we always see it lower cased, excluding when it is the first word in an actual sentence.
In situations where we see "Trained", capitalized, in the context of "a specific level of training i.e. specifically Trained vs. Expert", it always appears to be capitalized, even when appearing mid-sentence.
The wording in the Chirurgeon entry does not capitalize it. Also, conceptually, it makes sense; once you have a foundation of Medical knowledge, your healing oriented Alchemical studies allow your Crafting skills to carry you going forward. I think it's intended to mean you can use your Crafting skill in place of Medicine for any use, untrained or trained i.e. Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Determine if the ability is Trained or Untrained. This is a binary choice clearly defined in the book on page 235.
2. If it's Trained or Untrained, which 100% of abilities are, you replace the word Medicine with the word Crafting in the ability.
Except that "Trained" is not "Expert." It's a separate rank.
Now see where things break down? There are "expert uses" for skill ranks beyond being "trained."
Disabling traps and getting extra healing out of Treat Wounds are two examples of such.
For it to be a true substitution it's need to say "If your Medicine is trained or better, you can use Crafting instead of Medicine for all purposes including tools used." this would allow ranks to count and tools that actually apply to the rolls.Oh, I definitely agree.
No, there aren't. That is effect text of a trained use. There are only trained and untrained categories of skill actions.
I recant my first post, not because I feel it was wrong, but because I somehow convinced myself that this was a rehash of the old Natural Medicine debate. (Getting old is fun!)
As I clearly have no idea what anyone is even talking about, I shall henceforth obstain from the conversation.
Tell me about it, I remember Natural Medicine and it's massive mess of bullcrap. The playtest days were dark times indeed Raving, and this seems almost as bad. I wish they just used the text of the current Nat Med and then no one would have to care anymore!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like whenever a question like this comes up, there are some people who ignore this rule because they find it more fun to argue for an overly strict and obviously not intended interpretation.
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
Aratorin,
I agree with you, and if the was a Home Game issue, I wouldn't have even posted it. But I also run PFS, which requires running the rules by RAW in order to avoid table variation. Nothing like building an effective healer only to play under another GM and have them rule you are only a mediocre one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trained or untrained use refers to a specific quality of the action. Trained actions require you to have training or better, untrained actions can be attempted by anyone. Recall Knowledge is an untrained check. Earn an Income is a trained check. It's a binary choice.
The Chirurgeon ability is referencing that, so yes, you can use Crafting whenever.
However, Chirurgeon doesn't replace prerequisites. So you'd still need to be an Expert in medicine to qualify for things that require Expert in Medicine, even if you use Craft for the check.
2. If it's Trained or Untrained, which 100% of abilities are, you replace the word Medicine with the word Crafting in the ability.
I don't see how you can do so: "you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check" doesn't say you can use crafting ranks for medicine ranks but instead just has you check ranks for action access. Your roll doesn't involve your rank, it might affect your DC or you ability to roll but it doesn't change your actual roll.
Checks: Core Rulebook pg. 443
#1 Roll a d20 and identify the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties that apply.
#2 Calculate the result.
#3 Compare the result to the difficulty class (DC).
#4 Determine the degree of success and the effect.
Nothing in a check includes setting the DC, which is what increased healing for medicine is. You need special wording to have it included in the ability. #3 only compares your roll to a DC, not setting it.
I truly do not see how this could be interpreted any other way.
I see it the other way: I can't see how you can read it your way: I'd LIKE it to read that way, but it just doesn't.
Compare this to things like "You have that muse for all purposes, allowing you to take that muse’s feats, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants." It's easy to make it clear if something counts for "all purposes" but instead the alchemist ability made it only for you to "attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check for any of Medicine’s untrained and trained uses" only. Just for the checks and not for "all purposes". A check is a roll vs a dc, that's it.
|
|
Wouldn't the higher DCs to attempt to use Treat Wounds STILL be themselves considered a Medicine check for a Trained Usage case of the skill?
The way I read the Treat Wounds entry I see is working like the following:
Trained in Medicine > Added Skill Uses
Treat Disease DC varies
Treat Poison DC varies
Treat Wounds DC 15 (plus or minus at GM discretion)
Expert in Medicine > Added Skill Uses
Treat Wounds DC 20 (plus or minus at GM discretion) for +10 HP regained
Master in Medicine > Added Skill Uses
Treat Wounds DC 30 (plus or minus at GM discretion) for +30 HP regained
Legendary in Medicine > Added Skill Uses
Treat Wounds DC 40 (plus or minus at GM discretion) for +50 HP regained
To me all of the different wording there exists to state that at different training levels you get different and distinct new Skill Uses since none of those options "overwrite/replace" the previous Skill Use which I think we all more or less agree that the initial DC 15 Treat Wounds qualifies as.
If you can replace the Crafting Check for the initial Skill Use granted at Trained, I think it's appropriate and logical to assume that the other optional ways to "ratchet up" the check and result should also be considered specific Skill Uses of the Medicine Skill and function to allow the Crafting check in its place.
Perhaps it's because "Skill Use" isn't codified strongly enough in the rules that this is all a bit murky and vague.
Wouldn't the higher DCs to attempt to use Treat Wounds STILL be themselves considered a Medicine check for a Trained Usage case of the skill?
Nope: I put up the numbered steps for a check: NONE of those are 'set the DC': it's done before the check or you could roll and change the dc based on the highest DC you rolled under...
The skill action has an option to increase the DC with if you have a higher rank but that's a prerequisite that the ability doesn't give: it's not something that's part of the check. The ability also doesn't bypass the need for healer's tools...
|
|
Hmm, troubling indeed. It seems that Alchemist just keeps getting the short end of the stick :( Nothing in there includes treating Crafting in place of Medicine for Pre-Reqs that's true.
At least they can still take the Training in Medicine to gain access to those higher DC attempts with more ease since they're Int based.
The wording is a bit ambiguous. In this case I would argue to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the PC, particularly since the Chirugeon is already not super strong. Throwing them this bone doesn't unbalance the game in any way. I could even see a GM not allowing for bonuses from say a crafter's eye or Specialty Crafting feat to apply. This helps to keep them in line with bonuses for a Medicine Cleric.
In my home game, I would allow the Chirugeon to qualify for higher level Medicine feats with Crafting, again because it doesn't really hurt the game balance. Trained in Medicine and Expert in Crafting gets access to Expert Medicine feats. Expert in Medicine and Master in Crafting master Medicine feats (none currently but that could easily change). Shouldn't get legendary medicine feats but otherwise I am ok.
I am reasonably confident that the Chirugeon is supposed to be able to, as effectively as anyone via crafting, treat wounds, cure diseases, neutralize poisons etc.- basically anything that can be treated via "here, drink this".
But the Chirugeon, with only trained medicine, is not able to perform more impressive feats of medicine- transplant a kidney, for example. For that, you would need medicine more than trained.
Hmm, troubling indeed. It seems that Alchemist just keeps getting the short end of the stick :(
I agree completely.
The wording is a bit ambiguous.
I can't agree with that as it's insanely easy to make to clear if it's meant to count for "all purposes". To me it seems pretty clear it's just for checks.
I could even see a GM not allowing for bonuses from say a crafter's eye or Specialty Crafting feat to apply.
I'm not sure how as they directly modify your craft roll unless you are talking about houseruling it. By the rules it's seems pretty clear that those would count as they modify Crafting checks and you're rolling Crafting checks...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it'd be reasonable just to let the path sub Crafting for Medicine completely. As pointed out, it's not a very strong subclass to begin with and it really just ends up amounting to a small bonus to medicine checks on a worse attribute.
I am reasonably confident that the Chirugeon is supposed to be able to, as effectively as anyone via crafting, treat wounds, cure diseases, neutralize poisons etc.- basically anything that can be treated via "here, drink this".
But the Chirugeon, with only trained medicine, is not able to perform more impressive feats of medicine- transplant a kidney, for example.
I think there's something kind of funny about arguing that the specialization literally called chirurgeon should be able to fix cuts and bruises but not actually be any good at chirurgery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MAYBE THE ABILITY COULD USE ERRATA
Not errata necessarily, but maybe an FAQ clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to argue that it is enough or even the intent, but the Chiurgeon ability does give a clear benefit: By using crafting instead of medicine, you can use INT for your rolls, even if you do need to be advancing your medicine skill simultaneously.
It is possible that the developers intended this to be the benefit.
Yeah, I'm not sure there's a clarification needed, the ability works as written. It's pretty damn underwhelming, but so is the ability to turn off splash damage or recycling a mutagen once per day. So... par for the course, as much as I'd like to see it (and the entire Alchemist class) get some much needed improvements.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to argue that it is enough or even the intent, but the Chiurgeon ability does give a clear benefit: By using crafting instead of medicine, you can use INT for your rolls, even if you do need to be advancing your medicine skill simultaneously.
It is possible that the developers intended this to be the benefit.
While you do gain Int to rolls you lose bonuses to the roll for tools healer's tools need 2 hands. As people don't usually tank a save stat and with the generous spread of stat upgrades as you level it's ends up being not as great as it sounds as you level. In practice a simple +1 or +2 would end up being as good and would have less people asking questions about it.
Yeah, I'm not sure there's a clarification needed, the ability works as written. It's pretty damn underwhelming, but so is the ability to turn off splash damage or recycling a mutagen once per day. So... par for the course, as much as I'd like to see it (and the entire Alchemist class) get some much needed improvements.
So much this: "pretty damn underwhelming" could be the tag line for the entire class. It's the only class that get the privilege of buying back the ability to use their own class DC and then only for Quick Alchemy for the low, low cost of an 8th level class feat! Yep, "pretty damn underwhelming"...
"You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds" This wording implies that increases to Nature let you try the higher DC/healing checks that Treat Wounds has available, with nearly no ambiguity what-so-ever. Are we saying that a SKILL FEAT has less limitations and more power/flexibility than a BAKED IN CLASS FEATURE?!? Good grief I feel bad for the guy who type-set the Chirugen's section, because his mookness has causes the forums GREAT SUFFERING!
People make the same lame argument that Natural Medicine requires high ranks in Medicine to raise the DC too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People make the same lame argument that Natural Medicine requires high ranks in Medicine to raise the DC too.
I just checked the wording between the two.
Natural Medicine says "You can use Nature instead of Medicine"Chirurgeon says "you can attempt a Crafting check instead of a Medicine check."
Natural Medicine does not use the word "check" whereas Chirurgeon does. So I'm not so sure that Natural Medicine suffers the same problem. That is, I think Natural Medicine does replace all instances of the word "Medicine" with "Nature" (including increased DCs), but Chirurgeon does not (because the DC is based on your Medicine skill, then you use your Craft check to beat that DC).
Could the language on both be improved to make it unambiguous? Yes. Certainly.
People make the same lame argument that Natural Medicine requires high ranks in Medicine to raise the DC too.
I lot less do though. There is a MAJOR difference between substituting a skill and substituting a check.