What about requiring healer's tools, thief's tools, etc., being used in both hands, turns Battle Medicine into a non-valid combat activity? Nothing.
Action cost.
Fighter: "Oh god, the cleric is down! I've got Battle Medicine. Right. I (1) move over to them, drop my sword and shield, (2) retrieve my backpack (3) pull out my healer's kit."
GM: "Alright, we'll get back to you."
Fighter, a turn later: "Then I (4) use Battle Medicine (5) put away my kit (6) put away my backpack"
GM: "Cool."
Fighter, turn three: "And (7) pick up my sword and (8) shield."
And I realize yes, a bandolier saves a few actions off that because of the cost to pull things out of a backpack is kind of ridiculous, but this is the default state. Even *with* a bandolier, this entire sequence only shortens down to FOUR actions.
What about Battle Medicine makes it worth the same total number of actions AoE Heal?
Nothing.
I think the ultimate issue is that Battle Medicine IS Blood Money for 2e. It warps any discussion about handedness or efficient healing into an argument about it. I can’t wait for this to actually be settled. As it stands, I consider it a dead Feat.
This skill use is never going to be absurd as the snare rules no matter what happens.
What about requiring healer's tools, thief's tools, etc., being used in both hands, turns Battle Medicine into a non-valid combat activity? Nothing.Action cost.
Fighter: "Oh god, the cleric is down! I've got Battle Medicine. Right. I (1) move over to them, drop my sword and shield, (2) retrieve my backpack (3) pull out my healer's kit."
GM: "Alright, we'll get back to you."
Fighter, a turn later: "Then I (4) use Battle Medicine (5) put away my kit (6) put away my backpack"
GM: "Cool."
Fighter, turn three: "And (7) pick up my sword and (8) shield."And I realize yes, a bandolier saves a few actions off that because of the cost to pull things out of a backpack is kind of ridiculous, but this is the default state. Even *with* a bandolier, this entire sequence only shortens down to FOUR actions.
What about Battle Medicine makes it worth the same total number of actions AoE Heal?
Nothing.
Let's focus on the imperative thing here, which is being able to use Battle Medicine. If the Fighter is adjacent to the Cleric, he can just drop items, use Battle Medicine, drop kit (useless for Battle Medicine now), and if by items, go and pick up items, with an action left to strike if they so choose. Or, a lenient GM would permit Quick Draw on the dropped items if they are in accessible spaces.
The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1. If the Fighter has to move, it's no different than having to move to strike an enemy; coincidental to the situation and not an actual part of the Battle Medicine process, which is utilizing Healer's tools to patch up a person mid-combat.
To which I say, that's the nature of the game. You're trying to do too many things with your hands too fast and circumventing order of operations to make things work the way you want. It's no different than wanting to use a Greatsword and armor spikes a Bastard Sword on an enemy; hands are a limitation, and for good reason. You'd need a feat like Juggler to be able to maintain 3 weapons out to use at the same time, no different than needing, well, something, just to alter the order of operations in some way.
The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1.
That is disingenuous, due to the "all the other actions" involved generating free hands.
Which, again, are not listed in the feat's action block.
Of course a different fighter dealing with a requirement of 2 hands might have:
1) move to the cleric (if needed)
Free) drop their 1 weapon
2) Perform Battle medicine with tools kept in a bandolier
3) Pick their weapon back up
And on their next turn
Possibly 4) getting back into a stance.
Weapon+shield and healers kit kept in a backpack is the worst case, not a default case.
Of course, is that competitive with 3-action Heal?
The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1.That is disingenuous, due to the "all the other actions" involved generating free hands.
Which, again, are not listed in the feat's action block.
This is like me saying it takes 3 actions to strike an enemy because I have to move to them and draw my weapon because it's not drawn. It's one action to strike. Just like how it's one action to Battle Medicine as long as you meet the requirements of having a Healer's Tools and being able to use them (because otherwise them being a requirement makes no sense).
Stop using crap situations that you don't plan for as a reason to munchkin your Armless Medic/Burglar/Artisan Fallacy into RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then there's the bandolier (my least-favorite piece of rules writing in the entire CRB), which does imply that they're held on use:
Totally agree with the bandolier weirdness. It either is another point for actually using tools when listed as having them being required, or is a useless bit of verbage that got added for some reason to make the community go nuts later.
As opposed to the feats which have Manipulate and no free hand? And ignoring downtime activities for the above stated reason. I'd like to see the rational for how some of these innately require a free hand to attempt (as, according to you, manipulate implies a free hand is required, if that is so, then ALL of these need to be explained, not just some of them).
Palm an Object
Steal
First, explaining how all of them require a free hand is not necessary. The manipulate trait makes each one unique as it says "suitable appendage" to physically manipulate (*note - it uses must) an item OR make gestures. So it's an either or. Either you are manipulating an item or you're not. You either need a hand or other graspy appendage to steal an item from someone, or you need to be able to whirl your appendage thru the air to make some gesture to widen a spell. You can ignore this either or in three threads now if you like, or acknowledge that not all of the manipulate tagged feats have the same appendage requirements.
As for Battle Medicine, it has the manipulate tag, and requires healer's tools. Camp A says you're manipulating the tools, Camp B says you're making gestures or whatever. Camp A is making a constructive argument, Camp B is making a selective strict reading argument.
We won't know who's right until the powers that be say anything else, so lets just move on. They obviously know there's some division in the community about it.
The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1.That is disingenuous, due to the "all the other actions" involved generating free hands.
Which, again, are not listed in the feat's action block.
This is like me saying it takes 3 actions to strike an enemy because I have to move to them and draw my weapon because it's not drawn. It's one action to strike. Just like how it's one action to Battle Medicine as long as you meet the requirements of having a Healer's Tools and being able to use them (because otherwise them being a requirement makes no sense).
Stop using crap situations that you don't plan for as a reason to munchkin your Armless Medic/Burglar/Artisan Fallacy into RAW.
Seriously could you quite with the armless claims. Thats not what anyone is saying and you know it. You're either trying to make other people jump on your bandwagon by presenting a strawman, or you know you can't actually argue with the no "Free" hands argument so you drop the free to make it look like your fighting this absurd munchkining.
Seriously could you quite with the armless claims. Thats not what anyone is saying and you know it. You're either trying to make other people jump on your bandwagon by presenting a strawman, or you know you can't actually argue with the no "Free" hands argument so you drop the free to make it look like your fighting this absurd munchkining.The Fighter is still using the same amount of actions to heal the Cleric with Battle Medicine, which is 1.That is disingenuous, due to the "all the other actions" involved generating free hands.
Which, again, are not listed in the feat's action block.
This is like me saying it takes 3 actions to strike an enemy because I have to move to them and draw my weapon because it's not drawn. It's one action to strike. Just like how it's one action to Battle Medicine as long as you meet the requirements of having a Healer's Tools and being able to use them (because otherwise them being a requirement makes no sense).
Stop using crap situations that you don't plan for as a reason to munchkin your Armless Medic/Burglar/Artisan Fallacy into RAW.
It's more like arguing the implications of what being required means and bringing the other side's argument to the levels of reducto ad absurdum, as well as the value of hand listings in item descriptions when we can just ignore them to suit your interpretation, which leads to the conclusion that the hand listings are, in fact, useless and misleading.
But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
as well as the value of hand listings in item descriptions when we can just ignore them to suit your interpretation
Page 272 covers this:
You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.
But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.
Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.
And some of the rest of us are using the actual rules that actually exist without requiring interpretation. "This says 'have healers tools' and does not have 'requires: free hand' and according to this rule, if something is required, then its listed in the requirements, and if it is not, then it is not and this other rule defines what 'have an item' means. Therefor, Q"
as well as the value of hand listings in item descriptions when we can just ignore them to suit your interpretationPage 272 covers this:
You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.
Here we go again.
All this tells me is that use = wield, and therefore, because you don't wield Healer's tools, you don't use them. Why are they a requirement again if it's not being used or wielded? It's a flawed line of reasoning, even if it's RAW. It was actually the very reason behind the "Healer's tools aren't actually required" argument. This isn't the first time Paizo made RAW that doesn't match up to other parts of the book (remember Sunder and Overrun rules in PF1?), and it certainly isn't the last, either. Hell, just last week I saw a spell on a Necromancy staff in the CRB that didn't exist until the APG was released. Why is an APG spell on a CRB staff when APG was never released and the spell didn't even exist at that time?
All I'm saying is that we're putting way, way, way too much stock in RAW. Hence why the armless medic/burglar/artisan interpretation is being proposed. Hands aren't a requirement, right? I don't have to use or wield it, just possess it, right? Ergo, no hands required, made possible by the very same RAW you hold so damn high on the pedestal that is apparently infallible and can't ever possibly be wrong.
But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.
Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.
Maybe don't claim to speak for "everyone else"? Or resort to name-calling?
Because I don't see a strawman; I see someone pointing out the inevitable (and yes, utterly absurd) endpoint of the "no free hands" argument. People are arguing that healer's tools can be used with both hands occupied (despite the fact that their use explicitly requires 2 hands). I really don't see how that materially differs from being entirely hand-less in this context (though I'm all ears).
Anyway, I really like the
- Bandolier + Healer kit
- Free hand requirementThe balance is real.
That's what I plan to go with when GMing PFS -- barring official clarification, of course -- because I prefer to be as permissive as possible there without crossing over into the manifestly ridiculous.
In a home game, I'll stick to the explicit two-hands-to-wield requirement of Healer's Tools.
I wonder about Nimble Shield Hand feat
You are so used to wielding a shield that you can do so even while using the hand that's holding it for other purposes. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. You can also hold another object in this hand (but you still can't use it to wield a weapon). This benefit doesn't apply to tower shields, which are still too cumbersome.If you can hold any other object, you would be also able to take whatever you plan to use with your battle medicine.
Battle Medicine has the manipulate trait
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions.Which is covered by the Nimble Shield Hand feat.
What do you think?
My $.02? Yes, I think that feat would apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.
Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.
Don't get mad because I prefer a conservative approach to things. Let's just say that hands are somehow required in some manner for this ability, even though there is nothing that says or even implies as such in the RAW.
What does this hand have to do to let players be able to use this feat? Does it even have to do something? Would either of your hands being occupied by, say, wielding a weapon or other item, make it not possible for you to perform the feat? If so, why? If not, why not?
Because per RAW, the hand has no clear means of application, which can mean it doesn't have to do anything. Which defeats the purpose of it even having any bearing to begin with. Ergo, armless medics, burglars, and whatever else.
So then the new Feats that state 1 Free hand are they unusable? Since we need 2 hands for the kit? Or does them stating 1 Free hand cover that and we are assuming that anything that doesn't always requires maximum listed hands?
And Darksol No it doesn't being able to use a hand to do something even while it has something in it is not the same thing as not needing said limb. Hell even if someone tried to make that illogical leap the rules say you need a suitable appendage. So that rules out armless folks.
But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.
Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.
Maybe don't claim to speak for "everyone else"? Or resort to name-calling?
Because I don't see a strawman; I see someone pointing out the inevitable (and yes, utterly absurd) endpoint of the "no free hands" argument. People are arguing that healer's tools can be used with both hands occupied (despite the fact that their use explicitly requires 2 hands). I really don't see how that materially differs from being entirely hand-less in this context (though I'm all ears).
The suitable appendage rule. A hand holding something can still grip or move or hold something in place. Your shoulder really can't so yeah I would sy the rules do prevent handless usage of said feats.
So then the new Feats that state 1 Free hand are they unusable? Since we need 2 hands for the kit? Or does them stating 1 Free hand cover that and we are assuming that anything that doesn't always requires maximum listed hands?
And Darksol No it doesn't being able to use a hand to do something even while it has something in it is not the same thing as not needing said limb. Hell even if someone tried to make that illogical leap the rules say you need a suitable appendage. So that rules out armless folks.
If we are talking a feat like Treat Condition, it has two requirements.
1. You are holding healer's tools. This requires one free hand to do regardless, though if the implication is that we are using the healer's tools, then it should require two to actually use the feat. Unless you want to argue I can hold and use healer's tools and swing two-handed weapons at the same time. Totally possible I suppose.
2. You are wearing them (via bandolier or similar) and have a free hand. This is mentioned as this is probably supposed to let players who have tools stashed in bandoliers be able to draw them and use them as part of the feat's action. But per RAW, you wouldn't even have to draw the healer's tools out for this feat, merely have a hand free, a non-sensible requirement if healer's tools aren't ever being used.
Regardless of personal feelings on the matter, in both Treat Condition and Battle Medicine, nothing is said about using or wielding healer's tools, which means you don't need hands on healer's tools to begin with. In fact, the stipulation of free hands is pointless with that logic, which means it's arbitrary and overly punishing for no reason other than because Paizo said so.
Furthermore, "suitable appendage" is ambiguous (on purpose), and could refer to anything. It might mean a hand. It could also mean a leg, a nose, a finger, a toe, or even genitals, if we are using dictionary definitions. I'll just be a Grippli and lick the hand clean, why not? It also has reach, shouldn't I be able to use Battle Medicine at the reach my tongue can get to? Point is, if we can argue people with hands being occupied by wielding weapons is a "suitable appendage," so could probably any of these things. You can use your hands. But probably don't have to.
All this tells me is that use = wield, and therefore, because you don't wield Healer's tools, you don't use them. Why are they a requirement again if it's not being used or wielded? It's a flawed line of reasoning, even if it's RAW.
Because the feat says "Have healer's tools" not "Use or weild healer's tools."
Regardless of personal feelings on the matter, in both Treat Condition and Battle Medicine, [b]nothing is said about using or wielding healer's tools[b/], which means you don't need hands on healer's tools to begin with.
Oh, you just recognized that very thing.
In fact, the stipulation of free hands is pointless with that logic, which means it's arbitrary and overly punishing for no reason other than because Paizo said so.
For Treat Condition? Perhaps.
All this tells me is that use = wield, and therefore, because you don't wield Healer's tools, you don't use them. Why are they a requirement again if it's not being used or wielded? It's a flawed line of reasoning, even if it's RAW.Because the feat says "Have healer's tools" not "Use or weild healer's tools."
Regardless of personal feelings on the matter, in both Treat Condition and Battle Medicine, [b]nothing is said about using or wielding healer's tools[b/], which means you don't need hands on healer's tools to begin with.Oh, you just recognized that very thing.
In fact, the stipulation of free hands is pointless with that logic, which means it's arbitrary and overly punishing for no reason other than because Paizo said so.For Treat Condition? Perhaps.
So then that raises the next question: Why the hell not, when the ultimate implication of possessing an item being a requirement is that you're using it? There's nothing in the feat text that says you're using or applying healer's tools in some manner, or that it's otherwise being occupied, meaning it shouldn't have ever been a requirement to begin with. Furthermore, why the manipulate trait, when you aren't actually manipulating anything, since you aren't using an appendage to manipulate anything?
I've recognized it since the discussion was initially brought up, which is precisely why there are Armless Medics and Thieves running around healing people and breaking into stuff. I highly doubt this is what the developers intended, and considering everyone is being "outraged" at me taking RAW to this conclusion, it should really put into perspective how poorly written the rules for this are.
So then that raises the next question: Why the hell not, when the ultimate implication of possessing an item being a requirement is that you're using it?
Abstraction.
Because Paizo said so.Armless Medics and Thieves running around
Again with the straw man. The feat does still have the Manipulate tag.
The suitable appendage rule. A hand holding something can still grip or move or hold something in place. Your shoulder really can't so yeah I would sy the rules do prevent handless usage of said feats.But hey, I guess everything I say is a strawman because nobody wants to put in the effort to connect the dots.
No, your argument is a strawman because it is an appeal to the absurd, and an attempt to make anyone who doesn't agree with your interpretation of the wording look like a brainless moron.
Stop it. All you're doing is making yourself look like a fool, and irritating everyone else.
Maybe don't claim to speak for "everyone else"? Or resort to name-calling?
Because I don't see a strawman; I see someone pointing out the inevitable (and yes, utterly absurd) endpoint of the "no free hands" argument. People are arguing that healer's tools can be used with both hands occupied (despite the fact that their use explicitly requires 2 hands). I really don't see how that materially differs from being entirely hand-less in this context (though I'm all ears).
Yet a stump could likely move or hold something in place; hence, hand-less.
The rules don't explicitly say you need to use your hands to pick locks or treat wounds for the same reason they don't explicitly say that you need to use your legs in order to walk, or your lungs in order to breath: Because those things are self evident.
Likewise, if a character drops a rock in pathfinder, it falls...even if there is no rule which explicitly says that it does. As it turns out, the game world working the same way as our world does -- unless there is a specific reason that it doesn't -- is the foundation of verisimilitude.
Nor does it follow that, simply because no set of RPG rules ever could accurately model the complexity of the real world, no logic whatsoever applies. (And for the love of all that is holy, please don't trot out the "because magic!" canard. That isn't how suspension of disbelief works. At all.)
So then that raises the next question: Why the hell not, when the ultimate implication of possessing an item being a requirement is that you're using it?Abstraction.
Because Paizo said so.
Paizo didn't say so; you did. Paizo has been unclear (which I sincerely wish they would address).
Armless Medics and Thieves running aroundAgain with the straw man. The feat does still have the Manipulate tag.
As has been demonstrated, this is not a strawman. It is instead a direct corollary of the argument being made that using a healer's kit doesn't require the use of one's hands.
As much as we all may wish otherwise, this simply won't be cleared up by anything but errata.
The rules don't explicitly say you need to use your hands to pick locks or treat wounds for the same reason they don't explicitly say that you need to use your legs in order to walk, or your lungs in order to breath: Because those things are self evident.
Likewise, if a character drops a rock in pathfinder, it falls...even if there is no rule which explicitly says that it does. As it turns out, the game world working the same way as our world does -- unless there is a specific reason that it doesn't -- is the foundation of verisimilitude.
Actually, that's covered:
Someone missing a foot or leg might take a small
penalty to Speed, but can typically acquire a prosthetic
to compensate. If they have no legs, they might use a
wheelchair, a dependable mount, or levitation or flight magic.
Falling Objects
A dropped object takes damage just like a falling
creature. If the object lands on a creature, that creature
can attempt a Reflex save using the same rules as for a
creature falling on a creature. Hazards and spells that
involve falling objects, such as a rock slide, have their
own rules about how they interact with creatures and
the damage they deal.
The rules don't explicitly say you need to use your hands to pick locks or treat wounds for the same reason they don't explicitly say that you need to use your legs in order to walk, or your lungs in order to breath: Because those things are self evident.
Likewise, if a character drops a rock in pathfinder, it falls...even if there is no rule which explicitly says that it does. As it turns out, the game world working the same way as our world does -- unless there is a specific reason that it doesn't -- is the foundation of verisimilitude.
Actually, that's covered:
Someone missing a foot or leg might take a small
penalty to Speed, but can typically acquire a prosthetic
to compensate. If they have no legs, they might use a
wheelchair, a dependable mount, or levitation or flight magic.Falling Objects
A dropped object takes damage just like a falling
creature. If the object lands on a creature, that creature
can attempt a Reflex save using the same rules as for a
creature falling on a creature. Hazards and spells that
involve falling objects, such as a rock slide, have their
own rules about how they interact with creatures and
the damage they deal.
And...you completely missed the point. I even bolded it and everything. :P
I didn't claim there were (or weren't) rules for dropping a rock...I pointed out that such rules are unnecessary. As it happens, a careful reading of the quoted text reveals that the rules never explicitly state that a dropped object falls, because they don't have to. We all just know that's how things work. And that is the whole point: The argument that "one doesn't to use one's need hands to treat wounds because the rules don't explicitly say that one does" seems every bit as ridiculous as "a dropped rock doesn't fall because the rules don't explicitly say that it does."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In which case.
Fine.
The rules explicitly state when a hand not otherwise occupied is required to perform an action and how to go about determining that. Explicitly, regardless of "working the same way as our world does" (which, by the way, I can do a lot of things that require my hands without having to have my hands empty. See also: opening doors while carrying four bags of groceries).
NO ONE is arguing in favor that you don't USE your hands, just that your HANDS need not be EMPTY.
This has been pointed out like SIX times, even calling the "armless medic" a strawman FOUR times.
In which case.
Fine.The rules explicitly state when a hand not otherwise occupied is required to perform an action and how to go about determining that.
NO ONE is arguing in favor that you don't USE your hands, just that your HANDS need not be EMPTY.
Perhaps not; but what is explicitly being argued is that a hand currently grasping a @#$@$ sword is more useful for providing medical treatment than is a hand-less stump. Even if you ignore the prospect of accidentally stabbing someone with said sword, that seems....debatable at best.
This has been pointed out like SIX times, even calling the "armless medic" a strawman FOUR times.
Almost like repetition isn't persuasive. But in case I'm wrong: It's not a strawman, it's an inevitable corollary of the argument being made.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that repetition didn't change your mind, either. ;-)
as well as the value of hand listings in item descriptions when we can just ignore them to suit your interpretationPage 272 covers this:
You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it
around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might
require you to merely carry or have an item. These apply
as long as you have the item on your person; you don’t
have to wield it.
So with the errata Battle medicine has changed to "Held or worn" healer's tools. The requirement means we have to look at the rules on items. This is governed by pg 535. The requirement follows the language for Usage of an item, without specifically calling it out as such. If you look at activating (aka using) items, there are several components they might have: Command, Envision, Interact, Cast a Spell. Three of those apply to magical items. Interact can apply to all items. If the activation component of an item is interact, activating the item gains the manipulate trait (Oh hey, doesn't Battle Medicine have the manipulate trait?) and requires you to use your hands, just like with any other interact action. If you're curious how many hands, this is covered on page 532, where the requirement for held is "wielding" or for other types of items (aka worn), touching it with a free hand.
This explains why the medic feats specify the free hand requirement. It was always in the rules, it's just now explicit. It also means that the medic feats aren't behaving differently than Battle Medicine. These rules are entirely in line with pg 272 and are not contradictory. You don't have to wield it, but you do need a free hand to interact with them.
Interact is its own action. The Battle Medicine feat is a separate action that bypasses whatever Interact does.
It's not a strawman, it's an inevitable corollary of the argument being made.
The main argument being made is that it explicitly requires a "suitable appendage" (presumably hands or non-humanoid equivalent) but that these hands are not required to be empty (for example, I can slap on a sticky-plaster with a couple of my fingers even though I'm simultaneously holding a sword).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a strawman, it's an inevitable corollary of the argument being made.The main argument being made is that it explicitly requires a "suitable appendage" (presumably hands or non-humanoid equivalent) but that these hands are not required to be empty (for example, I can slap on a sticky-plaster with a couple of my fingers even though I'm simultaneously holding a sword).
But can't you see man if we got that route then suddenly armless guys will become the norm, or everyone will be a jedi cuz don't you know everyone will either assume or just try to munchkin that they don't need hands at all. So like if they are restrained they can still pick the lock on the manacles cuz no free hands clearly means no hands can't you see how much munchkiny gouda fondue you guys want this to be. Gods if players would just know that its not realistic to be able to hold something in your hand while you still do things with that hand then the game would be a much better place.
Ah, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.
Pretty sure he's just mocking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.Pretty sure he's just mocking.
yep
yepAh, so now you're going to invoke the slippery slope. Cool.Pretty sure he's just mocking.
Poe's Law:
Without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
Your mockery was not sufficiency indicated as to be parody, so I mistook it for a true expression of a view that HAS been faithfully argued in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry figured the Man's and Like's and fondue was enought.
The words themselves are insufficient, that's why Poe's Law exists.
Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.
Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The words themselves are insufficient, that's why Poe's Law exists.
Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.
Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.
Are you serious? :-)
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TLDR: "Suitable appendage" is vague, subjective, and situational. Clarification required.
Which I'm 100% sure was the case before this thread existed...
|
|
The words themselves are insufficient, that's why Poe's Law exists.
Avoid sarcasm and facetious remarks.
Without the voice inflection and body language of personal communication these are easily misinterpreted. A sideways smile, :-), has become widely accepted on the net as an indication that "I'm only kidding". If you submit a satiric item without this symbol, no matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if people take it seriously.
They are, if you can read the words within their context. Which is obviously something not many users of the Rules forum can do :-)
So then that raises the next question: Why the hell not, when the ultimate implication of possessing an item being a requirement is that you're using it?Abstraction.
Because Paizo said so.Armless Medics and Thieves running aroundAgain with the straw man. The feat does still have the Manipulate tag.
Abstraction works just as much for it as against it. In fact, the abstraction here is precisely why this debacle has begun.
Paizo has totally never ever made rules that don't make sense or add up in the grand scheme of things. Overrun rules from PF1 are still broken to this day.
It can have the manipulate trait all it wants. I'll just use my elongated tongue or toes or tail to patch someone up. No big deal. Still means I don't need hands or arms to do it. Isn't this such a fun game?
It's not a strawman, it's an inevitable corollary of the argument being made.The main argument being made is that it explicitly requires a "suitable appendage" (presumably hands or non-humanoid equivalent) but that these hands are not required to be empty (for example, I can slap on a sticky-plaster with a couple of my fingers even though I'm simultaneously holding a sword).
And that appendage could be anything, including, you know, not hands at all. It doesn't matter if my feet are occupied with the floor and gravity, I'll just reach my toes up, yank a scalpel out, and slice the clotted wound open so the bad blood can drain out. Easy. Because based on both RAW text and your argument bases, this is totally possible and feasible. Ergo, armless medics and burglars are afoot.
Or more likely, "suitable appendage" is GM FIAT and we'll never escape the table variation of this, as there will be people saying hands occupied with wielding weapons are or are not suitable for the feat.
It can have the manipulate trait all it wants. I'll just use my elongated tongue or toes or tail to patch someone up. No big deal. Still means I don't need hands or arms to do it. Isn't this such a fun game?
No, it really isn't. ;-)
Because based on both RAW text and your argument bases, this is totally possible and feasible.
Lol No not even close, you want it to be that way, you want to twist what you know to be a reasonable interpretation into this abomination that you know would never be RAI. But if you want to play that kind of game sure.
You asked earlier why a healers kit is needed if your not weilding it and that takes two hands. Then Quick alchemy can't work as written at least not for 2 handed races. It requires you to have (same wording) Alchemist tools (require 2 hands just like a healers kit) and a free hand. So I'm clearly using a kit that needs 2 hands so no free hand availible. Must have been future proofing for the 3 handed races/class features that we will obviously get later.