| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
If a feat or ability requires you to wield tools, then the bandolier has you covered. If you only need to have tools, then you're fine.
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.
that doesn't say much though.
yes, the bandolier, in general, allows you to draw tools IF the action requires to have tools on hand.
That was never in question. There are several skills that specifically require you to have tools on hand that the bandolier works with, like Repair.
The question still remains that "do you need to have healer's tools on hand to use battle medicine"
Unfortunately we only have snipets of contradicting rules and/or missing text, that allow both sides to argue their point perfectly good.
My stance still remains that "RAW is inconclusive. So, play it in your homegame as you wish, and for PFS wait for the PFS team to make a ruling"
Well we know that we need to at least have the tools based on Errata.
In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.”
Yes, yes we do. No one is disputing that.
Ergo "have" tools -> per 272 "You do not need to be wielding them, simply having them is enough" -> ergo no free hands needed.
QED
If a feat or ability requires you to wield tools, then the bandolier has you covered. If you only need to have tools, then you're fine.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?
You aren't drawing them to wield it, though, you're drawing them out of a bandolier, which serves as a container in this case. The text implies you should have to draw it out if an activity requires them.
Of course, I'm totally fine to conceding Paizo making half of the relevant text irrelevant because they can't make the text match up to itself properly. But something tells me that it is RAI to have to draw tools out for Battle Medicine and other relevant activities, otherwise we have dead text that doesn't do anything except eat word count.
the bandolier could be refering for other tools/other uses. It's not an item made specifically for Battle medicine.If a feat or ability requires you to wield tools, then the bandolier has you covered. If you only need to have tools, then you're fine.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?You aren't drawing them to wield it, though, you're drawing them out of a bandolier, which serves as a container in this case. The text implies you should have to draw it out if an activity requires them.
Of course, I'm totally fine to conceding Paizo making half of the relevant text irrelevant because they can't make the text match up to itself properly. But something tells me that it is RAI to have to draw tools out for Battle Medicine and other relevant activities, otherwise we have dead text that doesn't do anything except eat word count.
Too bad there aren't any, and even if it wasn't for Battle Medicine, it wouldn't be an applicable example to state Healer's tools go in there and state you can draw them as part of the activity that requires them.
Manipulate Trait is specifically vague after the change from playtest to live version (when it lost the "have a hand empty" clause) because there are manipulate actions that require you to have them on hand and manipulate actions that dont require stuff on hand.
I've pointed this out before, [Manipulate] the trait, did not have a free hand requirement in the playtest.
there is repair. It allows you to draw the tools that require to be specifically in your hands.
And noone said that you can't slot your healer's tools there, just that you dont need to draw them for battle medicine (IF battle medicine doesnt require them on hand)
The fact that you CAN do something doesn't mean that you MUST do it.
Again, I'm not saying that this is how it works, just that there's not enough evidence for either side to "win".
The bandolier in particular is particularly flimsy reason to weight into one or the other side since it's an item made in vaccum for every single tool and every single potential use of said tool. It's not in any way, shape, or form, saying anything about a singular use of a singular tool.
The hands mentioned in the Repair description are flavor text, as they aren't listed as a requirement in the Requirements section for comparison. Nice try, it's basically the same arguments I've made prior. They won't listen to you because Battle Medicine "working" >>>>>> Whatever realistic simulationist BS you throw at them.
The point of me referencing it is that it creates another interpretation of where the rules don't add up whatsoever. It mentions drawing tools, but nothing in the rules require you to draw or use tools. Congratulations, dead text that is there just to make us go "Well WTF is this here for, and how does this actually work?!"
Because per RAW, I never have to draw tools out to use them. They just sit in a Bag of Holding and I can use them from between the plane of existence they are on via jedi mind tricks. I just have to manipulate something, not even the tools themselves, and it just happens to work. Maybe I find a rulebook and give it the finger, and it happens? Works for me at this point.
CLW wands were tedious, but at least they worked in a vacuum and had the Magic clause to carry their shenanigans. Battle Medicine is none of those things, and quite frankly, neither is Open Lock, Disable Device, Repair, Create Item, etc. Paizo should just rewrite the whole thing in errata and make a blog post as a step by step guide to follow, with PFS following that very same thing.
???
How can "you need to hold the tools in both hands" be flavor text?
Because that's you saying that it's needed, when it's not.
Here's what the entry actually says:
You spend 10 minutes attempting to fix a damaged item, placing the item on a stable surface and using the repair kit with both hands.
Saying that you need to do that is incorrect, based on page 272 stating that having an item means you don't have to wield it to use it. And Repair's requirements is that you "have" a repair kit. Not drawn. Not wielded. Merely possessed.
It also wouldn't work for creatures without hands but having other suitable appendages, meaning it's flavor text written with an assumption that may not be applicable, especially if the Manipulate trait is involved.
Downtime/exploration activities don't list their requirements as stringently as combat activities. Because its an activity that takes ten or more minutes. Having to get up, walk to the outdoor shed, and fetch some materials because you forgot to gather everything, and coming back is "fine" as far as rules go.
it clearly says you are "using the item with both hands".
I fail to see how that isn't directly rule text. Repair isnt only exploration activity since quick repair turns it into encounter ability as well at higher levels.
Repair [Activity] is an exploration activity. Quick Repair changes how long it takes (which means it CAN be used in combat) but it is still written as an exploration activity, so its hard requirements (ie the things that matter in combat) aren't listed clearly.
I guess the answer to the title is still "depends on the GM". Do we have something about this in PFS?
Table Variation I assume. I mean it seems to me that this big selling point of 2E GM arbirtation is as much of an issue as it is a boon.
I guess the answer to the title is still "depends on the GM". Do we have something about this in PFS?Table Variation I assume. I mean it seems to me that this big selling point of 2E GM arbirtation is as much of an issue as it is a boon.
It always has been, it's just Paizo would rather give GMs the benefit of the doubt (especially in PFS) than have them chained to rules, thus forcing GMs to either enforce rules they don't like or houserule it (which takes work, and not something they can do in PFS).
It's a boon if you and your fellow players are on the same wavelength. It isn't if you're in a group where someone is a dick or obsessive rules lawyer. And the more things that are predicated on GM FIAT, the more important this tenant becomes.
I guess the answer to the title is still "depends on the GM". Do we have something about this in PFS?Table Variation I assume. I mean it seems to me that this big selling point of 2E GM arbirtation is as much of an issue as it is a boon.It always has been, it's just Paizo would rather give GMs the benefit of the doubt (especially in PFS) than have them chained to rules, thus forcing GMs to either enforce rules they don't like or houserule it (which takes work, and not something they can do in PFS).
It's a boon if you and your fellow players are on the same wavelength. It isn't if you're in a group where someone is a dick or obsessive rules lawyer. And the more things that are predicated on GM FIAT, the more important this tenant becomes.
But on the inverse the more things left to GM FIAT the more things like this situation we end up in. And the more things in PFS will likely havet to PFS Rulings on. Because 2 players in organized play running the same feat shouldn't have wildly differing experiances using it in the same spot on the same scenario. Imagine trying to use a feat and being told no or that it takes a bunch of unlisted actions to preform. Someone dies to this, when talking to some other players they ask what happens and are shocked because it worked just fine when they did it.
Can't wait for the "Can my Eidoloin Help me Preform Battle Medicine" Thead.
Just my monthly check-in? Any news? Any changes/ new feats features to question?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like we're still waiting for clarification.
In the meantime, my houserule is that Battle Medicine requires healer's tools (in a bandolier makes it easiest) and a free hand.
Sure that requires potential healers to drop or sheathe their weapon before attempting Battle Medicine (assuming their other hand is occupied with a sheild or otherwise) but IMHO that's the price for doing non-magical healing with a single action.
RAW is unclear, or more precisely RAW is not sufficiently specific. But it is not an unreasonable ruling, and can work with what the PCs are doing on the battlefield.
Looks like we're still waiting for clarification.
In the meantime, my houserule is that Battle Medicine requires healer's tools (in a bandolier makes it easiest) and a free hand.
Sure that requires potential healers to drop or sheathe their weapon before attempting Battle Medicine (assuming their other hand is occupied with a sheild or otherwise) but IMHO that's the price for doing non-magical healing with a single action.
RAW is unclear, or more precisely RAW is not sufficiently specific. But it is not an unreasonable ruling, and can work with what the PCs are doing on the battlefield.
Same for me, but I'm also ruling that tools simply can be worn as if in a bandolier.