New Errata?

[Draco18s]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Here's the deal breaker for me. If the feat wasn't tied to medicine and healer's tools, then I would be fine with being just doing some vague thing while adjacent to the target.

That's pretty much what it was before the errata. You had to make a skill check, which yes was Medicine, and did refer to the Treat Wounds entry, but didn't require tools.

[SuperBidi]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

This one is a bit stretching DMW. One thing is to jump really high and fall from any height, but another is breaking the game's own internal rules. So you need to use your hands and tools to heal someone slowly and without pressure but you don't need either despite doing the same thing but faster and under pressure?

Here's the deal breaker for me. If the feat wasn't tied to medicine and healer's tools, then I would be fine with being just doing some vague thing while adjacent to the target.

Technically speaking, Treat Wounds doesn't require you to wield Healer's Tools either, merely to have them. In fact, at the moment, nothing requires wielding Healer's Tools. Now, given that Treat Wounds takes 10 minutes, that matters verging on 0% of the time, but it's a true statement by the rules.

Which is to say, I don't think Battle Medicine is violating the game's internal rules by not requiring that.

Now, is this whole issue in need of an errata in general? Probably yes. Right now very few things have language making the number of hands tools take relevant, and something probably needs to be written to clarify that on things like Pick Lock (which I very much suspect is intended to require wielding)...but I wouldn't inherently assume that Battle Medicine will fall on the 'requires wielding' side of any such errata. It might, but it also might not.

So, when it says "you have", it doesn't mean you use it.

You lock pick without thieves tools, you treat wounds without a medkit, you quick alchemy without your alchemy tools. What is cool is that these tools give you bonuses without being magical and without being used. And you can break your thieves tools without even using them.
Ho, and Swim does say you need limbs. And Climb doesn't state you need legs. With Combat Climber, I can Climb with one hand!

Nice, I love that reading of the rules. I can't wait for the errata stating that you need to have a weapon or shield in hand to use it :D

I think RAI is quite clear. You have implies you use.

[Lightning Raven]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

This one is a bit stretching DMW. One thing is to jump really high and fall from any height, but another is breaking the game's own internal rules. So you need to use your hands and tools to heal someone slowly and without pressure but you don't need either despite doing the same thing but faster and under pressure?

Here's the deal breaker for me. If the feat wasn't tied to medicine and healer's tools, then I would be fine with being just doing some vague thing while adjacent to the target.

Technically speaking, Treat Wounds doesn't require you to wield Healer's Tools either, merely to have them. In fact, at the moment, nothing requires wielding Healer's Tools. Now, given that Treat Wounds takes 10 minutes, that matters verging on 0% of the time, but it's a true statement by the rules.

Which is to say, I don't think Battle Medicine is violating the game's internal rules by not requiring that.

Now, is this whole issue in need of an errata in general? Probably yes. Right now very few things have language making the number of hands tools take relevant, and something probably needs to be written to clarify that on things like Pick Lock (which I very much suspect is intended to require wielding)...but I wouldn't inherently assume that Battle Medicine will fall on the 'requires wielding' side of any such errata. It might, but it also might not.

I didn't mean it was breaking the mechanical rules of the game, but what the game was trying to represent, the act of healing through medicinal procedures, even if the results are insanely effective and borderline miraculous, the main goal of this whole line of medicine was to make mundane healing better, if standing by someone's side and farting in their general direction and managing to heal them was what they were going for, might as well make it become magic already and we might as well go back to using wands and having an useless skill to ignore.

[Deadmanwalking]

SuperBidi wrote:

So, when it says "you have", it doesn't mean you use it.

Not by the rules, no. And it shouldn't always. There are in fact situations where that's the intended and logical result.

SuperBidi wrote:

You lock pick without thieves tools, you treat wounds without a medkit, you quick alchemy without your alchemy tools. What is cool is that these tools give you bonuses without being magical and without being used. And you can break your thieves tools without even using them.

Ho, and Swim does say you need limbs. And Climb doesn't state you need legs. With Combat Climber, I can Climb with one hand!
Nice, I love that reading of the rules. I can't wait for the errata stating that you need to have a weapon or shield in hand to use it :D

Obviously not. But the rules currently make very few references to wielding tools making which actions require doing so ambiguous in terms of rules. For actions with an obvious consensus among players, that's not a problem, but for Battle Medicine it very much is.

SuperBidi wrote:

I think RAI is quite clear. You have implies you use.

The thing is that doesn't always make sense either, and directly contradicts the RAW. I agree it's the clear RAI on actual Treat Wounds and Pick Lock, but I am not at all sure about every other single reference to it, and you probably shouldn't be either. I'm certainly not convinced it's the intent on Battle Medicine.

Lightning Raven wrote:

I didn't mean it was breaking the mechanical rules of the game, but what the game was trying to represent, the act of healing through medicinal procedures, even if the results are insanely effective and borderline miraculous, the main goal of this whole line of medicine was to make mundane healing better, if standing by someone's side and farting in their general direction and managing to heal them was what they were going for, might as well make it become magic already and we might as well go back to using wands and having an useless skill to ignore.

Skill Feats include the ability to survive naked in outer space until you die of old age if you have a way to breathe, as a non-magical ability, or to ignore major portions of the laws of physics while fighting underwater. Battle Medicine not requiring both hands free (or, in fictional terms, allowing you to pull out the necessary tools, use them, then put them away all in an action) is not much of a stretch comparatively.

[Gisher]

Vlorax wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Rules lawyers are silly. Of course you need a bandage to treat a wound, and of course you need two hands to apply a bandage. Use some common sense.

Lol, common sense has no place here. I've seen arguments about the placement of a comma go on for pages on these boards...

Comma sense is very important to those of us who frequent the Rules Forum.

[SuperBidi]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

I think RAI is quite clear. You have implies you use.

The thing is that doesn't always make sense either, and directly contradicts the RAW. I agree it's the clear RAI on actual Treat Wounds and Pick Lock, but I am not at all sure about every other single reference to it, and you probably shouldn't be either. I'm certainly not convinced it's the intent on Battle Medicine.

When you have 2 readings of a rule and, let's say, absolutely no way to choose one over the other. If one reading follows common sense, don't you think it's a good reason to choose it?

[Midnightoker]

Doesn't new errata drop soon or did they decide to do a double release with the APG?

[The Raven Black]

It seems pretty obvious that needing 2 hands has a strong mechanical impact. As such, I expect actions that need 2 hands to be very clear about it. Since this is not the case on Battle Medicine AFTER the new change, I consider that the devs do not intend this action to have the mechanical impact of needing 2 hands.

Which is in line with the feat's power, requirements and limitations.

So no hand specifically needed, purely mechanically and RAW speaking.

Common sense as well as what actually happens is a completely different beast.

[Blave]

Midnightoker wrote:

Doesn't new errata drop soon or did they decide to do a double release with the APG?

No word either way, unfortunately. That was the whole reason for this topic before it got ... slightly derailed.

With the APG only 4 work days away, it seems like the errata might not be released before the APG - if at all this week - if we're unlucky.

[Temperans]

Reading the small part of the debate of "why are you arguing" reminded me.

The only reason PF1 had the wonky handedness rule(s) was because people wanted to use Two-Weapon Fighting using 2-handed weapons and various weapons that did not use a "hand".

[Lightning Raven]

The Raven Black wrote:

It seems pretty obvious that needing 2 hands has a strong mechanical impact. As such, I expect actions that need 2 hands to be very clear about it. Since this is not the case on Battle Medicine AFTER the new change, I consider that the devs do not intend this action to have the mechanical impact of needing 2 hands.

Which is in line with the feat's power, requirements and limitations.

So no hand specifically needed, purely mechanically and RAW speaking.

Common sense as well as what actually happens is a completely different beast.

So. Describe to me what the scene would look like. One character approaches the other mid battle, he doesn't have any magic neither is using healing potions or elixirs of life, how the healing happens?

Keep in mind that Battle Medicine, is an aspect of healing someone through medicine, using tools. Doing it in battle and achieve rapid success is quite miraculous, I get it, but as a mundane healer you still need to do something, with the tools that you are "wearing" (since the feat somehow doesn't specify you need to use them and if you don't use them, wearing them will not make any actual difference).

[Deadmanwalking]

Lightning Raven wrote:

So. Describe to me what the scene would look like. One character approaches the other mid battle, he doesn't have any magic neither is using healing potions or elixirs of life, how the healing happens?

Keep in mind that Battle Medicine, is an aspect of healing someone through medicine, using tools. Doing it in battle and achieve rapid success is quite miraculous, I get it, but as a mundane healer you still need to do something, with the tools that you are "wearing" (since the feat somehow doesn't specify you need to use them and if you don't use them, wearing them will not make any actual difference).

From my perspective? It's a suped-up quickdraw thematically. They drop their weapon, pull out bandages use them, then pick up their weapon all in an action. That's impressive, but not outside the realm of other action economy enhancers. Really, since you need to be wearing them and dropping a weapon is free, it only gives you two extra actions if looked at that way (one each to put away your tools and pick up the weapon).

[Captain Morgan]

I still prefer the "stab them with a shot of adrenaline" explanation. Works fine with only one hand free, helps explain why it can't be used more than once per day, and gets some cool Pulp Fiction imagery to boot.

[Ravingdork]

The errata needs errata. It needs to say "Add the Requirements entry" not "change."

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”

There is no Requirements entry in the Battle Medicine feat. Therefore, as written, there is nothing to change and the errata does nothing.

[Aratorin]

Ravingdork wrote:

The errata needs errata. It needs to say "Add the Requirements entry" not "change."

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”

There is no Requirements entry in the Battle Medicine feat. Therefore, as written, there is nothing to change and the errata does nothing.

Pg 18 Shows that all Feats have a Requirements entry. They just don't print it if it's blank. Just because a variable doesn't have a value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Ravingdork]

Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but no more than the one I'm making. :P

[Temperans]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

So. Describe to me what the scene would look like. One character approaches the other mid battle, he doesn't have any magic neither is using healing potions or elixirs of life, how the healing happens?

Keep in mind that Battle Medicine, is an aspect of healing someone through medicine, using tools. Doing it in battle and achieve rapid success is quite miraculous, I get it, but as a mundane healer you still need to do something, with the tools that you are "wearing" (since the feat somehow doesn't specify you need to use them and if you don't use them, wearing them will not make any actual difference).

From my perspective? It's a suped-up quickdraw thematically. They drop their weapon, pull out bandages use them, then pick up their weapon all in an action. That's impressive, but not outside the realm of other action economy enhancers. Really, since you need to be wearing them and dropping a weapon is free, it only gives you two extra actions if looked at that way (one each to put away your tools and pick up the weapon).

A suped up quick draw is an understatement.

1 free action drop weapon.
1 manipulate pull out healer's tool.
1 action use healer's tool.
1 manipulate put away healer's tool.
1 manipulate pick up weapon.

All in one action and no AoO.

[Unicore]

There really is another thread for discussing how the skill feat battle medicine works. It is interesting that at least one new Errata has snuck into the game, it is too bad that it doesn't seem to resolve the largest issues people were having with the thing that got Errata'd.

[Draco18s]

Temperans wrote:

A suped up quick draw is an understatement.

1 free action drop weapon.
1 manipulate pull out healer's tool.
1 action use healer's tool.
1 manipulate put away healer's tool.
1 manipulate pick up weapon.

All in one action and no AoO.

Struck-out ones don't count. We already know that storing the kit in a bandolier allows you to use stow/retrieve as part of the action involved in whatever you're doing with them.

Which means for 1 action you get 2 actions worth of stuff.

[Temperans]

Draco18s wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A suped up quick draw is an understatement.

1 free action drop weapon.
1 manipulate pull out healer's tool.
1 action use healer's tool.
1 manipulate put away healer's tool.
1 manipulate pick up weapon.

All in one action and no AoO.

Struck-out ones don't count. We already know that storing the kit in a bandolier allows you to use stow/retrieve as part of the action involved in whatever you're doing with them.

Which means for 1 action you get 2 actions worth of stuff.

Ah but technically the feat does not say you use your healers tools. You just have it. Which is again the wierd part.

You are not using the tools according to the feat. But according to the narrative you are using it. So the feat contradicts itself.

[Temperans]

Btw people imagine this.

"You must have or carry your weapon to Strike".

You have your weapon in its scabbard in easy reach.

How is this resolved?

[thenobledrake]

The feat doesn't have to say you use the tools because the general rule for Hands (found on page 287 of the core rulebook), the equipment table listing a number in the hands column for the tools instead of a dash, and the description of the tools are what tell you that you have to use the tools when they are necessary for an action.

There is no contradiction because "you have to have the tools" and "you also have to use the tools" aren't actually exclusive of each other; if you are using the tools, you also have them.

Because of how "specific trumps general" works, the feat would actually have to specifically state you don't have to use the tools, or don't have to have your hands free to use them, or something that actually does contradict the general Hands rules for item usage.

[Deadmanwalking]

Temperans wrote:

Draco18s wrote:

Temperans wrote:

A suped up quick draw is an understatement.

1 free action drop weapon.
1 manipulate pull out healer's tool.
1 action use healer's tool.
1 manipulate put away healer's tool.
1 manipulate pick up weapon.

All in one action and no AoO.

Struck-out ones don't count. We already know that storing the kit in a bandolier allows you to use stow/retrieve as part of the action involved in whatever you're doing with them.

Which means for 1 action you get 2 actions worth of stuff.

Ah but technically the feat does not say you use your healers tools. You just have it. Which is again the wierd part.

You are not using the tools according to the feat. But according to the narrative you are using it. So the feat contradicts itself.

Actually, the Feat says 'holding or wearing' so either they're already in your hands, or they're in a bandolier, since a bandolier is the only way to wear a set of tools.

So...yeah, two actions worth of stuff as one action. Seems reasonable to me. And it has the Manipulate Trait so it does provoke AoO. Really pretty reasonable when examined.

[Bast L.]

thenobledrake wrote:

The feat doesn't have to say you use the tools because the general rule for Hands (found on page 287 of the core rulebook), the equipment table listing a number in the hands column for the tools instead of a dash, and the description of the tools are what tell you that you have to use the tools when they are necessary for an action.

There is no contradiction because "you have to have the tools" and "you also have to use the tools" aren't actually exclusive of each other; if you are using the tools, you also have them.

Because of how "specific trumps general" works, the feat would actually have to specifically state you don't have to use the tools, or don't have to have your hands free to use them, or something that actually does contradict the general Hands rules for item usage.

Except that neither battle medicine, nor treat wounds, nor healers tools say that you use the tools. Treat wounds says you have them, and the text on 272 explicitly says that you don't have to wield an item to satisfy a "have" requirement, just that you have it on you. Battle medicine says you're wearing or holding them (presumably wearing in a bandolier).

This interpretation, as far as I can tell, is RAW, and makes quick alchemy (and maybe something new from APG?) consistent, while your interpretation requires further errata.

As for making sense of it, there is none. You can't treat someone's wounds in 2 seconds (1/3 of a turn). What would that even mean?

[thenobledrake]

Bast L. wrote:

Except that neither battle medicine, nor treat wounds, nor healers tools say that you use the tools.

General rule don't have to be repeated every time they apply.

They have to be directly contradicted in order not to apply.

Page 287 (the "Hands" paragraph) continues to apply. Again, I'll point to the "tack" entry having a "-" for hands to illustrate how the game lists an item that you absolutely do use your hands when using narratively but mechanically don't have to dedicate hands to the use of.

Bast L. wrote:

This interpretation, as far as I can tell, is RAW, and makes quick alchemy (and maybe something new from APG?) consistent, while your interpretation requires further errata.

My interpretation needs an errata of removing the "and a free hand" part of Quick Alchemy. The other interpretation in discussion means entire paragraphs are either a waste of space because they don't do anything at all, or need to be re-written so that their impact is clear to those that thing they don't currently apply, depending on what the actual intent of the authors was.

[Cyouni]

Temperans wrote:

Btw people imagine this.

"You must have or carry your weapon to Strike".

You have your weapon in its scabbard in easy reach.

How is this resolved?

The actual answer would be "you must be wielding your weapon to Strike", which is not true of Battle Medicine.

[Temperans]

Cyouni wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Btw people imagine this.

"You must have or carry your weapon to Strike".

You have your weapon in its scabbard in easy reach.

How is this resolved?

The actual answer would be "you must be wielding your weapon to Strike", which is not true of Battle Medicine.

I said imagine.

Use your imagination to see how you use something without using it. Of course the actual rules say "wield your weapon". But imagine if it said "you must have or carry your weapon".

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Btw people imagine this.

"You must have or carry your weapon to Strike".

You have your weapon in its scabbard in easy reach.

How is this resolved?

The actual answer would be "you must be wielding your weapon to Strike", which is not true of Battle Medicine.

I said imagine.

Use your imagination to see how you use something without using it. Of course the actual rules say "wield your weapon". But imagine if it said "you must have or carry your weapon".

Sounds like the devs actually thought long and hard about how abilities should be worded.

But I am glad to see that we found an equivalent to the old issue of "what is the mechanical impact of being dead?" ;-)

[Cyouni]

Temperans wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Btw people imagine this.

"You must have or carry your weapon to Strike".

You have your weapon in its scabbard in easy reach.

How is this resolved?

The actual answer would be "you must be wielding your weapon to Strike", which is not true of Battle Medicine.

I said imagine.

Use your imagination to see how you use something without using it. Of course the actual rules say "wield your weapon". But imagine if it said "you must have or carry your weapon".

Would you also like to imagine then, in turn, what would happen if it said "you must have vocal cords to use a verbal component" and you were gagged?

Turns out that doesn't matter in the slightest, because that's not actually what the text says.

[Malk_Content]

So when I perform first aid at work I absolutely 'have' the kit but I'm not wielding it. I've retrieved what I need from the kit. If I had the kit on me in a chandelier, well organized I'd only need to get out the appropriate items.

So in my mind, with Battle Medicine, I've got some sort of rejuvenating poultice in one of those pouches.

[Andy Brown]

Malk_Content wrote:

If I had the kit on me in a chandelier

You'd be making light work of the problem?

(sorry-ish)

[Malk_Content]

Andy Brown wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

If I had the kit on me in a chandelier

You'd be making light work of the problem?

(sorry-ish)

According to my phone I use the word chandelier more than bandolier.

[thenobledrake]

Malk_Content wrote:

So in my mind, with Battle Medicine, I've got some sort of rejuvenating poultice in one of those pouches.

But are you envisioning that meaning they somehow transfer from said pouch to their proper place on your patient without your hands being involved, or that your hands are going to need to get involved in the process?

You have it, you're not wielding it (cue mental image of first aid box gripped in both hands being swung at a wounded ally like a chair shot in a WWE game, but reskinned)... but you are using it?

[Midnightoker]

Malk_Content wrote:

So when I perform first aid at work I absolutely 'have' the kit but I'm not wielding it. I've retrieved what I need from the kit. If I had the kit on me in a chandelier, well organized I'd only need to get out the appropriate items.

So in my mind, with Battle Medicine, I've got some sort of rejuvenating poultice in one of those pouches.

Honestly I like this interpretation a lot.

I’m also of the mind that using tools and using weapons don’t require the same level of “use” necessarily in terms of action cost.

Tool based actions in every edition but this one are really punitive. If battle medicine requires two hands, drawing tools, dropping weapon, putting tools away, just to use it then it’s really not that valuable.

But then I’m also fine with thieves tools and any other toolset being on a bandolier and not requiring actions or being “wielded”.

Tool (skill) actions need to be less punitive simply for the fact that they are most of the time utility in nature and I do want my PCs taking the actions over striking or demoralizing every turn.

Is it really that hard to accept that characters know how to wield tools in such a way to allow it? It isn’t for me, and it allows the above so idk that I want to change it just because “but you need two hands for a bandage!!”

[The Raven Black]

How I envision Battle Medicine (when wearing a bandolier) : I have every needed tool in easy access. For the few seconds needed by the action, I quickly free one of my hands enough to use the required tools and quickly take back whatever I was wielding when I am finished.

[thenobledrake]

Midnightoker wrote:

...I do want my PCs taking the actions over striking or demoralizing every turn.

I think this comes down to a play-style thing.

Since basically everything a character might do requires one or more actions and "freebies" tend to be few and far between (by freebies I am referring to things like how storing a tool kit in a bandolier specifically removes the Draw action that would normally be present, or otherwise having an item in a bandolier or belt pouch prevents having to have your hands free, spend an action taking off your pack, and then Draw the item) that means one of two things:

1) The designers think that these actions are worth taking even if you have to use some other actions to set-up, just like having to Stride into place, Raise Shield, and so forth rather than just Demoralize and Strike twice or whatever every round, and people that are averse to actually doing all the "set-up" stuff are having mismatched expectations.

2) The designers know the set-up costs are going to be viewed as "punitive" and have placed them there deliberately, so people that are averse to actually doing all the "set-up" stuff have matching expectations but are deliberately being encouraged to avoid these, for lack of a better term, traps.

But it seems wildly unlikely to me that the designers took the time to assign all those how many hands it takes to use numbers and also intended that they not actually matter except for in some hypothetical case like someone using healer's tools but not for any of the established actions that healer's tools are, to quote the book again "necessary" for. Even though yeah, it'd be real nice to never have to spend any actions on anything except "the good stuff."

Lastly, a large part of why prior edition's tool-based actions seem punitive is because - unlike this edition - they didn't just require set up, they also didn't do much. A few actions set-up for significant healing is actually worth the effort.

[Ravingdork]

I've always envisioned it as gruffly telling the patient to "rub some dirt on it" or something like that. XD

[AnimatedPaper]

thenobledrake wrote:

But it seems wildly unlikely to me that the designers took the time to assign all those how many hands it takes to use numbers and also intended that they not actually matter except for in some hypothetical case like someone using healer's tools but not for any of the established actions that healer's tools are, to quote the book again "necessary" for. Even though yeah, it'd be real nice to never have to spend any actions on anything except "the good stuff."

It's more plausible than you might think. Easiest explanation is different people wrote the Skill section versus the gear section.

However Marvelous Medicine is definitely suggestive that literally taking both hand to make medicine checks was at some point the intended interpretation. So an even MORE plausible explanation is that this was, in fact, their original intention, but they tacked back when it was deemed overly putative in actual play, except that while they changed the skills they did not change the gear section to be consistent.

Compare the Medicine actions/activities versus Craft. The two Craft exploration activities specifically mention using the crafting tools in their entries, while none of the Medicine ones do, nor do the Medicine actions (I'll give a pass to the downtime activities; it makes sense that you could at some point put tools down for a few minutes during an 8 hour day).

[Lightning Raven]

Here's how the Skill Feat should work after clarifications, at least for me:

You need one or two hands free (keeping in line with other similar feats such as climbing with one hand only, which is pretty hard but makes sense in the context of the game), then if you have a bandolier with the tools, you use Battle Medicine and you're good to go.

Basically, the cost is hands free and having the tools readily available. Nothing broken, nothing unreasonable. You're medic,you use your tools to patch someone up. If, by some random reason, you don't have your tools in a bandolier then you need to make then available (this obviously will incur more actions, but the burden is on the player not the system).

This is how the feat is run at our table, where none of the players are trying to game the system for every possible advantage. Only our Wizard has it and he often has hands free, but sometimes he just drops his Staff/Wand and there's no cost beyond the 1-action that Battle Med costs. This has been really fine for over 11 levels now.

[Saedar]

Cool... So we've figured out what the other thread actually on this topic figured out: there's no agreement. Soooo... Do what is best for your table.

As for actual errata... Can't wait. The team should take whatever time they need, though.

[Ravingdork]

Saedar wrote:

The team should take whatever time they need, though.

Agreed. Take your time Paizo! Everything is so finely-tuned in its specific wording now that one miss-step in errata would cause more problems than it would solve.

[kaid]

I guess I am missing why people are still assuming extra hands needed. The revision and how it is stated in the APG seems pretty straight forward have the kit in your hands OR one hand free and wear the kit. PF2 is specific about such things if it required other actions or more hands than the one free hand it would state such.

[ikarinokami]

kaid wrote:

I guess I am missing why people are still assuming extra hands needed. The revision and how it is stated in the APG seems pretty straight forward have the kit in your hands OR one hand free and wear the kit. PF2 is specific about such things if it required other actions or more hands than the one free hand it would state such.

it is very straightforward. man i would hate to be a game designer. I've even seen the suggestion that pick locks doesn't need a lock pick. the core rule book it would take to satisfy some of the comments ive seen in this thread would be well over 10,000 pages long.

[Angel Hunter D]

Ravingdork wrote:

Saedar wrote:

The team should take whatever time they need, though.

Agreed. Take your time Paizo! Everything is so finely-tuned in its specific wording now that one miss-step in errata would cause more problems than it would solve.

I'd rather they actually get it done. "taking their time" hasn't always given us their best work, and just gives them permission to push it off.

[Saedar]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Saedar wrote:

The team should take whatever time they need, though.

Agreed. Take your time Paizo! Everything is so finely-tuned in its specific wording now that one miss-step in errata would cause more problems than it would solve.

I'd rather they actually get it done. "taking their time" hasn't always given us their best work, and just gives them permission to push it off.

That's fine. The game is a complete game. Errata is just nice to have, as they are able.

[Ezekieru]

I would definitely prefer to have the next errata before GenCon, just so most of the balancing issues can be dealt with, and I can focus more of my attention on the APG and the other books without worrying how that new content will clash with current issues.

But I also understand our current situation in the US, especially with Seattle still struggling. I'd be fine with a delay. I just wish they'd tell us there'll be delays instead of making us wait with baited breath.

[Jader7777]

Did PF2e solve the problem in 1e where no one knew how to jump over a 10ft pit?

[TOZ]

That problem never existed.

[Ezekieru]

Jader7777 wrote:

Did PF2e solve the problem in 1e where no one knew how to jump over a 10ft pit?

Gosh, that was fun to read.

But yeah, the "Leap" and "Long Jump" Athletic actions do a good job of explaining how it works.

[Angel Hunter D]

Saedar wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Saedar wrote:

The team should take whatever time they need, though.

Agreed. Take your time Paizo! Everything is so finely-tuned in its specific wording now that one miss-step in errata would cause more problems than it would solve.

I'd rather they actually get it done. "taking their time" hasn't always given us their best work, and just gives them permission to push it off.

That's fine. The game is a complete game. Errata is just nice to have, as they are able.

If it was complete they wouldn't publish new material. But they do, and it often builds on old material. They need to get stuff errata'd relatively quickly before they print stuff resulting in cascading changes - because technical debt can really take the wind out of the edition's sails.