Interact is its own action. The Battle Medicine feat is a separate action that bypasses whatever Interact does.
It very much does not bypass it. The reason the feat has the manipulate trait is because you're interacting with your healer's tools. The rules are self consistent, and the APG Medic feats are making the way worn items function explicit. You must have a free hand, as per the rules with how to use items that are worn.
As it stands, the Battle Medicine feat doesn't go this far, and you can still be obstinate about it until the errata brings it into line with the Medic feats; but it's going to happen eventually. I expect they'll do the same with Pick a Lock and other actions that mention "held or worn" items.
Interact is its own action. The Battle Medicine feat is a separate action that bypasses whatever Interact does.It very much does not bypass it. The reason the feat has the manipulate trait is because you're interacting with your healer's tools. The rules are self consistent, and the APG Medic feats are making the way worn items function explicit. You must have a free hand, as per the rules with how to use items that are worn.
As it stands, the Battle Medicine feat doesn't go this far, and you can still be obstinate about it until the errata brings it into line with the Medic feats; but it's going to happen eventually. I expect they'll do the same with Pick a Lock and other actions that mention "held or worn" items.
Just to clarify are you saying that any [manipulate] action is also the Interact action?
Interact is its own action. The Battle Medicine feat is a separate action that bypasses whatever Interact does.It very much does not bypass it. The reason the feat has the manipulate trait is because you're interacting with your healer's tools.
No, no you're not. Battle Medicine does not say "perform an Interact Action with your Healer's Kit" it says "perform a Medicine Check (refer to Treat Wounds for scaling, DC, and results").
Compare to Flurry of Blows, "Make two unarmed Strikes" (note the capitalized "Strike" which refers to the basic action) with Battle Medicine: "Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing."
It does not use the word "Interact" in any capacity and therefor cannot be referring to the Interact Action.
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.
Funny that you say that, because that's exactly how I see the "no hands free" interpretation of Battle Medicine: An unreasonable abomination. But if you want to play that king of game, sure.
Or perhaps people can simply disagree in good faith, and we should all stop telling other people what they "know to be reasonable"?
Nah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
To be fair, I don't find either of these to be a reasonable interpretation at all. And it's not so much what I want, but what can ultimately become of it if taken to its inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the reducto ad absurdum that arises from your interpretation, too bad.
Not to mention ignoring things like hands being occupied wielding weapons just to make a feat work just because we want it to.
A necromancy staff from the CRB mentions a spell from a book not released yet (APG). Players with a CRB but not APG would have a dead spell. Surely, the item wasn't just a screw up and is merely goading people to purchase more PF2 products that weren't released yet. Poorly written stuff is poorly written. It's not the first time this crap has happened. It won't be the last, either.
So to verify your position is any feat that requires a kit must require use of the kit even if it just says have the kit. And if that feat then also requires a free hand it its use and the kit is 2 hands the feat is currently unusable. Just wanting to verify your postion before i launch a deep dive into the things this will be effecting.
To be fair, I don't find either of these to be a reasonable interpretation at all. And it's not so much what I want, but what can ultimately become of it if taken to its inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the reducto ad absurdum that arises from your interpretation, too bad.
Not to mention ignoring things like hands being occupied wielding weapons just to make a feat work just because we want it to.
A necromancy staff from the CRB mentions a spell from a book not released yet (APG). Players with a CRB but not APG would have a dead spell. Surely, the item wasn't just a screw up and is merely goading people to purchase more PF2 products that weren't released yet. Poorly written stuff is poorly written. It's not the first time this crap has happened. It won't be the last, either.
EXACTLY. It seems clear to me that some folks are relying on an assumption which is demonstrably false (the rules are perfect and consistent) solely to support their preferred interpretation...no matter how manifestly illogical that interpretation (or its clear corollaries!) may be.
But worse, they are then openly accusing those who refuse to accept their interpretations of acting in bad faith. FFS, people...this is a game.
So yeah, time to exit this discussion. If I have any sense, for good this time.
To be fair, I don't find either of these to be a reasonable interpretation at all. And it's not so much what I want, but what can ultimately become of it if taken to its inevitable conclusion. If you don't like the reducto ad absurdum that arises from your interpretation, too bad.
Not to mention ignoring things like hands being occupied wielding weapons just to make a feat work just because we want it to.
A necromancy staff from the CRB mentions a spell from a book not released yet (APG). Players with a CRB but not APG would have a dead spell. Surely, the item wasn't just a screw up and is merely goading people to purchase more PF2 products that weren't released yet. Poorly written stuff is poorly written. It's not the first time this crap has happened. It won't be the last, either.
EXACTLY. It seems clear to me that some folks are relying on an assumption which is demonstrably false (the rules are perfect and consistent) solely to support their preferred interpretation...no matter how manifestly illogical that interpretation (or its clear corollaries!) may be.
But worse, they are then accusing those who refuse to accept their interpretations of acting in bad faith. FFS, people...this is a game.
So yeah, time to exit this discussion. If I have any sense for good this time.
No we know the rules aren't perfect, or consistant. If they were consistant and perfect these questions wouldn't exist. But I will consider someone arguing an interpertation that they know would never be supported by the devs even if people made the arguement to be in bad faith. Because people will always have memebers in the group that try to abuse the system. That doesn't mean that anything that isn't itself abuse but could potentially lead to attempts at abuse are inherently wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EXACTLY. It seems clear to me that some folks are relying on an assumption which is demonstrably false (the rules are perfect and consistent) solely to support their preferred interpretation...
Nothing precludes Paizo from adjusting the rules.
But adding your own text ("because it obviously should be there") is irrational: the text is not there, it does not exist, and therefor does not constitute "what the rules say."The rules DO say the following:
(1) Things that are required are listed in the requirements
(2) Having and Wielding an item are different and only Wielding consumes a number of hands
(3) The Manipulate tag requires that you "own some sort of appropriate limb" (in this case it can be reasonably assumed that Battle Medicine requires some sort of grasping appendage) and says nothing about whether or not that hand needs to be empty.
(4) Battle Medicine does require having* a healing kit
(5) Battle Medicine does not require an empty hand.
All of these are things that are directly stated by the text (except #5, which is text that does not exist, non-existent text implies the inverse of fact 1) and are not contradictory. Page references have previously been offered (eg. 272).
Any attempt to argue that Battle Medicine requires a free hand involves some sort of violation of one of these five facts, either by inserting text (violating either 3 or 5) or outright ignoring 2 or by mutating the meaning of 4.*
* "Holding" clearly means that you're wielding it (no argument there), but it also offers the alternative "wearing" which is not defined elsewhere in the text, but which can be reasonably interpreted as 'on your person'** or 'have', potentially restricting the location to the bandolier, but nothing about "wearing" stipulates free hands.
** Wear: to have on one's body or a part of one's body as clothing, decoration, protection, or for some other purpose.
So to verify your position is any feat that requires a kit must require use of the kit even if it just says have the kit. And if that feat then also requires a free hand it its use and the kit is 2 hands the feat is currently unusable. Just wanting to verify your postion before i launch a deep dive into the things this will be effecting.
I'm of the opinion that the rules aren't exactly consistent in regards to this, though honestly, there can very easily be an easy fix, and it's right in the thread title: Tools should just require 1 hand to use. If tools required just one hand, then players having their hand occupied to use the tools and the free hand is at least possible, and not prone to shenanigans (such as requiring Mage Hand cantrip).
If we have to follow the ramifications of the current RAW, then yes: If you are expected to use something, then you should be expected to use it appropriately unless you have an ability or effect making you able to use it in a different manner. For example, Giant Barbarians using oversized weapons, or having the ability to use a weapon two-handed instead of one-handed, which alters the way players can fulfill the Strike action requirements (which is wielding the weapon). Nothing in Battle Medicine would make it able to do that compared to Treat Wounds, so I imagine it would be prone to the same restrictions.
I imagine the reason hands are "waved" in regards to Treat Wounds is because it's done during downtime and it takes an exorbitant amount of time with nothing else happening in between. Compared to combat, where there are numerous activities requiring hands simultaneously, and the time between which your hands being occupied/available matters, I'm of the opinion that Battle Medicine can't really accept that kind of handwaving.
Just to clarify are you saying that any [manipulate] action is also the Interact action?
Items when activated can have interact as the action. This gives them manipulate.
It's inductive logic that you're interacting with the tools in battle medicine because of the manipulate trait.
Items can have their use tied to being held or worn, same as the requirement for battle medicine after the FAQ errata.
It occurs to me that the idea that you merely need to 'have' a kit, not 'wear' or 'wield' a kit might not be as ridiculous as it sounds. Instead of thinking of it as, "I have a first aid kit in the bottom of my backpack and it somehow radiates healing energy through my fists when I'm treating my patients," we could say, "During downtime I always take some adhesive alchemical bandages from my medkit and clip/pin/stick them to accessible parts of my clothes/armor/shield so I can grab them easily during battle".
(I feel like I'm having to do a lot of heavy mental lifting here. Paizo, if convenient mundane combat healing really is intended, it would be good to have some flavor text that makes sense of it.)
Just to clarify are you saying that any [manipulate] action is also the Interact action?Items when activated can have interact as the action. This gives them manipulate.
It's inductive logic that you're interacting with the tools in battle medicine because of the manipulate trait.
Items can have their use tied to being held or worn, same as the requirement for battle medicine after the FAQ errata.
But are you saying that Interact is always the rule for manipulate?
It does not use the word "Interact" in any capacity and therefor cannot be referring to the Interact Action.
I'm not saying there is an additional action to interact with the tools. I'm saying that functionally the manipulate tag is there because Battle Medicine is like a special 'activation' of the healer's tools as per the item rules.
I get it, you take the rules literally. They do exactly what they say they do, the requirements are the only requirements, and you're not budging from that, and you're stretching 272 too far. That section of rules don't say you don't use items when worn, they're silent on that point. So just answer me this, why the requirement for the tools at all if you're not using them during the action? Why say they have to be held or worn? If the requirement was solely that they be held, then it'd be obvious that you were using them. But why just because you could also wear them does this change the thinking about the necessity of using the tools in performing the action the feat provides? Why bother having the requirement at all? They obviously changed it from the first printing with the errata to require the item. And once you say you are using the item during the action, then you need to figure out how to use items when worn. For that you can claim, that it takes no hands (which is ludicrous) or you could look to the item itself to see how many hands to "properly use" or you could look to the only other place in the rules worn items are mentioned on pg 532.
But are you saying that Interact is always the rule for manipulate?
You're putting the cart before the horse here. The manipulate trait when you're talking about items implies you're interacting with the item. Not adding a capital I Interact action as an addition to said action.
Think of it this way. When I goto pick a lock, it takes two actions. These two actions represent my character using the lock picks (aka interacting with them) to perform the lock picking. I don't just bang on the lock with elbow to get the tumblers to line up.
I'm not saying there is an additional action to interact with the tools. I'm saying that functionally the manipulate tag is there because Battle Medicine is like a special 'activation' of the healer's tools as per the item rules.
It does not use the word "Interact" in any capacity and therefor cannot be referring to the Interact Action.
So in other words, you're inserting an Interact into it.
Because this weird roundabout way of saying "yes, but no, but yes, but no" with the manipulate means activate, and Activate says you need a free hand is complete b+$~!##~.
Think of it this way. When I goto pick a lock, it takes two actions. These two actions represent my character using the lock picks (aka interacting with them) to perform the lock picking. I don't just bang on the lock with elbow to get the tumblers to line up.
Well, if your skill is high enough, you can just bang on it and it opens. :-)
/cevah
|
Think of it this way. When I goto pick a lock, it takes two actions. These two actions represent my character using the lock picks (aka interacting with them) to perform the lock picking. I don't just bang on the lock with elbow to get the tumblers to line up.Well, if your skill is high enough, you can just bang on it and it opens. :-)
/cevah
Does that work with jukeboxes too?
I'm not saying there is an additional action to interact with the tools. I'm saying that functionally the manipulate tag is there because Battle Medicine is like a special 'activation' of the healer's tools as per the item rules.
It does not use the word "Interact" in any capacity and therefor cannot be referring to the Interact Action.So in other words, you're inserting an Interact into it.
Because this weird roundabout way of saying "yes, but no, but yes, but no" with the manipulate means activate, and Activate says you need a free hand is complete b&~~!#%~.
I'm not inserting an interact action into it, no matter how much you say otherwise. I'm explaining where the manipulate trait comes from and saying based on other rules what it means vis a vis the tool's use. This skill use as special activation of the tools interpretation by the way completely jibes with the Medic feats which also require healer's tools to be held or worn and its newly stipulated requirement that you have to have a free hand for those special skill uses.
You still refuse to think that you're actually using the healer's tools, and are refusing to explore what that means with respect to a free hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm explaining where the manipulate trait comes from and saying based on other rules what it means vis a vis the tool's use.
Look, here's a logic diagram for you:
Using the syntax:
"A ⇒ B" (A implies B)
"A ⇏ B" (A does not imply B)
The givens:
(1) Battle Medicine ⇒ Manipulate
(2) Interact ⇒ Manipulate and Free Hand
(3) Activate an Item ⇒ Wielding or Free Hand
(4) Activate an Item ⇒ Manipulate
Your assertion:
Because (1) and (3), therefor Battle Medicine ⇒ Wielding or Free Hand.
Except that this does not follow, because "A ⇒ B" ⇏ "B ⇒ A"
And I do mean that that is your conclusion, you're telling me that Battle Medicine requires a free hand because a completely unrelated skill use does just because they both share the Manipulate tag. You want to change my mind? Use rigorous proof logic.
|
|
The givens:
(1) Battle Medicine ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
(2) Interact ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage and Free Hand
(3) Activate an Item ⇒ Wielding or Free Hand
(4) Activate an Item ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
Filled in a missing bit.
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait"
Could this be read to mean that if an item is listed as required (healers tools, thieves tools) you must be able to manipulate the listed item to do the skill?
Filled in a missing bit.The givens:
(1) Battle Medicine ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
(2) Interact ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage and Free Hand
(3) Activate an Item ⇒ Wielding or Free Hand
(4) Activate an Item ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
Really all you needed was "Manipulate => suitable appendage"
But it wasn't really needed, as requirements/restrictions don't propagate backwards, and that particular constraint was already tagged on all three actions anyway.
Could this be read to mean that if an item is listed as required (healers tools, thieves tools) you must be able to manipulate the listed item to do the skill?
Nothing in the rules states as such.
Additionally a Healer's Kit does not have an Activate or Interact operation in its statblock, all of its uses are via other more specific actions.
The givens:
(1) Battle Medicine ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
(2) Interact ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage and Free Hand
(3) Activate an Item ⇒ Wielding or Free Hand
(4) Activate an Item ⇒ Manipulate with a a suitable appendage
Filled in a missing bit.
You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait"Could this be read to mean that if an item is listed as required (healers tools, thieves tools) you must be able to manipulate the listed item to do the skill?
That is my contention. And I'm using inductive logic to show how many hands it takes. Draco is making Bertie proud though with his insistence only using deductive logic. A suitable appendage for anything that is a tool you're not wielding is a free hand.
As for evidence that you actually need to use the tool, here's another instance where the rules discuss drawing and using tools. This time "as if you were wearing them" in yet another indication that you have to use the tools when wearing them, which would necessitate at a minimum a free hand.
"Your familiar can carry a set of tools of up to light Bulk. So long as your familiar is adjacent to you, you can draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them as if you were wearing them. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity ability to select this."
Even if your idea of Battle Medicine relies on you having a hand free, that DOES NOT mean the action requires your hand to be free. You can easily assume that as part of the action for Battle Medicine you temporarily free your hand and then regrip whatever was in it afterwards.
Regardless, the game already allows for people to use interact actions with their hands full. The Nimble Shield Hand feat allows you to take interact actions while your hands are full. Given Battle Medicine has no free-hand requirement, and the game already allows some characters to do ANY action that requires a free-hand while their hands are full, there really is no reason to dispute being able to Battle Medicine without a free hand except from a balance perspective, which is its own discussion.
Why specify some characters can do actions with no free hands if anyone can do it?
Not anyone, anyone with access to an action that doesn't require free hands. So, in this case, people who have taken the Battle Medicine feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for evidence that you actually need to use the tool, here's another instance where the rules discuss drawing and using tools. This time "as if you were wearing them" in yet another indication that you have to use the tools when wearing them, which would necessitate at a minimum a free hand.
"Your familiar can carry a set of tools of up to light Bulk. So long as your familiar is adjacent to you, you can draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them as if you were wearing them. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity ability to select this."
That familiar ability is the same language as bandoliers, nothing new there. Oh, and again, doesn't alter how many free hands you need, its merely the action savings of not having to retrieve the kit from your backpack.
Also the familiar ability is borderline useless, here's all of the "tools and kits" the familiar can hold:
Smokestick
Sunrod
Tindertwig
Philosopher’s Stone
Silversheen
Snake Oil
Thieves’ tools
Infiltrator thieves’ tools
Skeleton Key
Ring of Maniacal Devices
Disguise Kit
Writing Set
Artist's tools, alchemist's tools, healer's tools, fishing tackle, repair kit, and snare kit are all 1 or 2 bulk.
Even if your idea of Battle Medicine relies on you having a hand free, that DOES NOT mean the action requires your hand to be free. You can easily assume that as part of the action for Battle Medicine you temporarily free your hand and then regrip whatever was in it afterwards.
Regardless, the game already allows for people to use interact actions with their hands full. The Nimble Shield Hand feat allows you to take interact actions while your hands are full. Given Battle Medicine has no free-hand requirement, and the game already allows some characters to do ANY action that requires a free-hand while their hands are full, there really is no reason to dispute being able to Battle Medicine without a free hand except from a balance perspective, which is its own discussion.
You're firmly in the, if the action's requirements don't explicitly specify that you need something, then you don't need it camp. Which isn't entirely true, as other rules can come into play, such as those around the manipulate trait.
As for your Bastion feat, I actually see that as evidence that you're looking at it the wrong way. That feat allows for you to use your otherwise occupied hand for Interact actions, which seems really great, until you think of its implications vis a vis bandoliers and the Toolbearer familiars. Both of those very clearly specify you can draw and use tools with the same action that requires their use. Like you know Battle Medicine or Pick a Lock. Emphasis on draw. Meaning you're doing what amounts to a free action interact, meaning you need a free hand to use the tools at a minimum.
Other feats have language that does what you say, Poison weapon for instance: "You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action..." Given your literalist construction, the fact we have an example of another feat where it specifically allows for what you're arguing is inherent to Battle Medicine, but isn't in Battle Medicine, means that you don't get to just throw that language in because you feel like it. If it were true, it would've been in the battle medicine feat. Even here it's telling you, that you need a free hand to draw the item.
That familiar ability is the same language as bandoliers, nothing new there. Oh, and again, doesn't alter how many free hands you need, its merely the action savings of not having to retrieve the kit from your backpack.
Both the familiar ability and the bandolier are telling you explicitly that when you need a tool for an action, it is being used, and requires you to draw it from wherever it's stored on your person. So ask yourself this, if I didn't have the familiar or bandolier, would I still need a free hand to draw my tools to use them? Of course, the bandolier is how you "wear" tool kits.
What about a Master Crafter with Quick Repair feat. They can repair an item in three actions. The requirement there is "Have a repair kit". You mean to tell me that since the requirements are only that I have a repair kit. I don't have to have free hands if I'm wearing the kit to use it, even though the feat specifies that I'm using it. In your construction, I don't have to have free hands to repair an item using that kit.
There are too many instances in the book which circumscribe what you argue. You think the absence of a statement about the necessity of a free hand means you don't need one, but there's mounds of evidence to the contrary. Your strict construction is just too good to be true, I have to use the tools, but don't need a hand to use them with. In which case pg 444 would apply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both the familiar ability and the bandolier are telling you explicitly that when you need a tool for an action, it is being used, and requires you to draw it from wherever it's stored on your person. So ask yourself this, if I didn't have the familiar or bandolier, would I still need a free hand to draw my tools to use them? Of course, the bandolier is how you "wear" tool kits.That familiar ability is the same language as bandoliers, nothing new there. Oh, and again, doesn't alter how many free hands you need, its merely the action savings of not having to retrieve the kit from your backpack.
I'm saying that the actions and hands needed are abstracted away as part of the Action that you are performing. I'm not saying they're not utilized I'm saying that they don't take monopoly of my hands.
What about a Master Crafter with Quick Repair feat. They can repair an item in three actions. The requirement there is "Have a repair kit". You mean to tell me that since the requirements are only that I have a repair kit. I don't have to have free hands if I'm wearing the kit to use it, even though the feat specifies that I'm using it. In your construction, I don't have to have free hands to repair an item using that kit.
Sure, lets take a look at Quick Repair. It says "you Repair using 3 (or 1) Actions." So it has explicitly invoked Repair (the activity) which we then go look at.
...placing the item on a stable surface and using the repair kit with both hands.
Oh look at that, how many hands are explicitly called out in the activity. Plus you have to unequip whatever item (likely your shield) that you're repairing too.
No one has yet provided a single instance of the book indicating that manipulate actions imply free hands. There's two feats that call out needing free hands (and are manipulate) and a dozen that do NOT need free hands (and are manipulate).
The only even vaguely associated argument is that downtime/exploration activities "require hands" and don't have the requirements actually spelled out, and my stated opinion on that is "yeah, they probably do, but its not listed, because downtime/exploration is measured in 10 minute increments (or longer) and such restrictions aren't important enough to list because you have the time-flexibility to do whatever you need to." Not that Battle Medicine invokes a downtime/exploration activity anyway...**
Does that cause a problem with the feats that "do [exploration activity] in combat"? Yes, they kind of do (as such, I consider Quick Repair to be an utterly useless feat*). Can the wording and language be improved? Sure. Has it been improved with regards to Battle Medicine? No, it has not.
And it hasn't been improved even though errata was added to the FAQ after the publication of the Medic's Treat Condition feat so Paizo is both aware of the lack of hand language and has published a similar feat with that language, and yet they have not applied it to Battle Medicine.
*Quick Repair comments:
As soon as you need empty hands, need to re-equip the shield, fetch your tools, or are only a Master (and need 3 actions to repair), its a net loss even after assuming the monster misses half the time.
Quick Repair is objectively not an in-combat sort of option. Its merely a "I can repair equipment to full between fights, even if we only have a few moments."
**Battle Medicine is not Treat Wounds. Battle Medicine says "refer to Treat Wounds for DC and success outcome" not "you Treat Wounds as one action" the way Quick Repair does.
I'm saying that the actions and hands needed are abstracted away as part of the Action that you are performing. I'm not saying they're not utilized I'm saying that they don't take monopoly of my hands.
But they very much do. Pg. 271 - Carrying and Using items tell us you have two hands. If you're changing how you're carrying or holding an item you look to table 6-2 pg 273. There is a general rule about drawing an item and how many hands it takes. Bandoliers change the action to be free, but do not change the hands. And since Battle Medicine doesn't specify that it changes this requirement, then the general rule applies. (pg 444).
Sure, lets take a look at Quick Repair. It says "you Repair using 3 (or 1) Actions." So it has explicitly invoked Repair (the activity) which we then go look at.
...placing the item on a stable surface and using the repair kit with both hands.
Because the repair kit is a two-handed item. They're making it explicit how many hands you need to use. None of the medicine skill uses actually tell you how many hands you need to use the Healer's Tools. Because it's in the item stats.
No one has yet provided a single instance of the book indicating that manipulate actions imply free hands. There's two feats that call out needing free hands (and are manipulate) and a dozen that do NOT need free hands (and are manipulate)
See above with table 6-2.
Pg 282 for definition of Free-Hand weapons - "You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on."
Pg 301 under Polymorph, "Unless otherwise noted the battle form prevents you from casting spells speaking and using most manipulate actions that require hands." - Note this is differentiating between somatic components with gestures and other actions that require hands.
Pg 303 under Material spell components. "The spell gains the mainpulate trait and requires you to have a free hand to retrieve and manipulate a material component". - The otherwise 'free' interact action to draw a material component used during the spell requires a free hand.
Pg 303 under Focus spell component. "The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to either have a free hand to retrieve the focus listed in the spell or already be holding the focus in your hand" (This sounds familiar) - As above.
Pg 470 - Interact definition. "You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object open a door or produce some similar effect." - You need hands to manipulate objects or the terrain. You can't use your hands if they are otherwise occupied. Pg 271.
Pg 218 - Manual dexterity familiar ability. "It can use up to two of its limbs as if they were hands to use manipulate actions". - Some manipulate tagged actions require hands.
The reason those feats don't call out the requirement for "free hands" is because some manipulate tagged actions require you to interact with an object/item. When they do, you must have hands. It's in the definition of the Manipulate trait.
If all usages of kits/tools always require the number of listed hands then as i stated earlier quick alchemy for one doesn't work for any current player character I know of. Kit takes 2 hands and you still need a free hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they very much do. Pg. 271 - Carrying and Using items tell us you have two hands. If you're changing how you're carrying or holding an item you look to table 6-2 pg 273.
I'm saying that the actions and hands needed are abstracted away as part of the Action that you are performing. I'm not saying they're not utilized I'm saying that they don't take monopoly of my hands.
You conveniently skipped over 272.
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 they very much do. Pg. 271 - Carrying and Using items tell us you have two hands. If you're changing how you're carrying or holding an item you look to table 6-2 pg 273.
I'm saying that the actions and hands needed are abstracted away as part of the Action that you are performing. I'm not saying they're not utilized I'm saying that they don't take monopoly of my hands.You conveniently skipped over 272.
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.
SSSSSSSSHHHHH!!! We can't talk about 272, I mean how are we to know which abilities work using it or don't its not like we have abilities that say things like "have or wearing a ________ Ki......" carry on.
You could have said this earlier. This makes it clear as day you don't need free hands. I'm not sure what you're doing in universe, but this seems RAI
...Seriously!?
You could have said this earlier. This makes it clear as day you don't need free hands. I'm not sure what you're doing in universe, but this seems RAI...Seriously!?
Ah, humble post 28.
You see, this is why graphic design, layout, and textual hierarchy and formatting are so important.
People don't often read walls of text, but they will read a nicely laid out page with twice as much information if it has clearly defined headers/sections, call outs, and other points of interest.
You could have said this earlier. This makes it clear as day you don't need free hands. I'm not sure what you're doing in universe, but this seems RAI...Seriously!?
I mean it what I've come to expect everytime a new challenger joins the fray. Repeat all previous arguments no matter how many times you've used them already because they might not have read them.
I mean it what I've come to expect everytime a new challenger joins the fray. Repeat all previous arguments no matter how many times you've used them already because they might not have read them.You could have said this earlier. This makes it clear as day you don't need free hands. I'm not sure what you're doing in universe, but this seems RAI...Seriously!?
Pg 272 says only that you don't have to wield an item when the requirements say have the item. Which means you don't have to spend actions to get it into your hands. Precisely what the bandolier does and says, and the little familiar ability too. It does not say, that you don't need free hands, nor does it say that you are not using the item. It's simply saying there's no extra interact action to get the item out. That's it.
If you look at the bandolier it very explicitly says 'draw' the tools as part of the action which requires them. Draw... which has a hands requirement (Table 6-2). Which then refers to Gear statistics which say "How many hands it takes to use an item effectively".
Draw... which has a hands requirement
Let me know when you figure out if Battle Medicine requires you to draw healers tools.
I have some crayons to help you drawing them.
/cevah
Draw... which has a hands requirementLet me know when you figure out if Battle Medicine requires you to draw healers tools.
I'd say it does because it was used as an argument for it not requiring free hands to make hand-occupied (as well as handless) characters more viable to provide in-combat healing.
But really, this "using it but not really using it" argument is precisely what leads to the armless medic fallacy becoming reality. Don't need hands because you don't need to draw or use Healer's tools. So why is someone without arms being able to do just that such a problem that you get all uppity when I posit that it is exactly what the rules permit?
My point is that if you're going to hinge off a word in the rules implying certain things, then you need to show where in the rules those things are actually defined.
The argument about "drawing as part of the action" argument comes from "its been abstracted, you also put down your sword and pick it up again as part of the action cost for the feat." You can't just take that argument, cut it in half, and then argue the exact opposite thing using the half as your supporting evidence.
So why is someone without arms being able to do just that such a problem
Because that's forbidden by one of the few clear and explicit rules we have. It doesn't matter if some other combination of rules imply you can do it without arms, because the 'suitable appendage' rule takes precedence.
My point is that if you're going to hinge off a word in the rules implying certain things, then you need to show where in the rules those things are actually defined.
The argument about "drawing as part of the action" argument comes from "its been abstracted, you also put down your sword and pick it up again as part of the action cost for the feat." You can't just take that argument, cut it in half, and then argue the exact opposite thing using the half as your supporting evidence.
A bandolier can be dedicated to a full set of tools, such as healer’s tools, allowing you to draw the tools as part of the action that requires them.
Sounds like the RAI is you draw them, even though RAW you don't have to. Strange, isn't it?
But really, abstraction is another word for rules cheesing here. I can't hold a wand and a sword in the same hand and expect to use both of them effectively, what hope does Healer's Tools for Battle Medicine have? "Because we want/need it to work" isn't a good rules answer, nor does RAW care about that.
So why is someone without arms being able to do just that such a problemBecause that's forbidden by one of the few clear and explicit rules we have. It doesn't matter if some other combination of rules imply you can do it without arms, because the 'suitable appendage' rule takes precedence.
"Suitable Appendage" is GM FIAT. There may be GMs who are okay with me using an occupied hand, there are some that won't. Some might even let me use tails, toes/feet, even my nose. Or, nothing at all, because there's no implication as to what limb would be needed, which means a suitable appendage could not be required!
Well clearly a suitable appendage can't be no appendage. It does still have to be some sort of appendage. And yes maybe some GMs might rule that a foot or tail is enough to make it work. But X requires you to have a suitable item from a subset doesn't suddenly mean that not having an item from that subset works.