| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still confused.
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the requirements entry to "You are holding or wearing healer's tools." Change the second sentence of the effect to "Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points, this does not remove the wounded condition." This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 286.
I'm not sure how a requirement of wearing healer's tools means you must use them, but I'll take the errata's conclusion at it's word.
Page 287 adds a paragraph on Wearing Tools: "You can make a set of tools (such as alchemist's tools or healer's tools easier to use by wearing it. This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them.
Okay, so Battle Medicine uses tools, but assuming you're wearing them there's no extra draw/stow actions.
Healer's Tools do still require 2 hands... except.
248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free.
Page 248 contains 3 sets of relevant requirements, in the 3 following actions: Administer First Aid, Treat Disease and Treat Poison.
It would be reasonable to assuming the errata is meant to apply to all of those but it's unclear. (Time the actions take: 2actions, 8 hours, 1 action)
Treat Wounds however is on 249. Should the errata apply to it as well? Probably but that's not what the errata says.
And as we've established before Battle Medicine is not treat wounds so it still takes 2 hands. :(
So conclusion:
At least one of Administer First Aid, Treat Disease and Treat Poison only need 1 hand.
If all 3 take 1 hand then Treat Wounds maybe also takes 1 hand.
Battle Medicine still takes two since the conclusion part of errata says it requires use of the tools, and no part of battle medicine reduces the hands required to use the tools, unlike some % of other medicine actions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I finally got the new version of the CRB to download, and the CRB does not match the errata doc.
In the CRB post errata 2, all 4 medicine actions on pages 248 & 249 say "Requirements You’re wearing or holding healer’s tools (page 290)."
But make no mention of having a hand free.
Battle Medicine shares nearly identical text Requirements You’re holding or wearing healer’s tools (page 209). .
So either the CRB is correct and all Medicine actions need 2 hands, or the errata is correct and some % of Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison and optionally Treat Wounds require 1 hand.
Either Way Battle Medicine still requires 2 hands, unless you conclude that since Treat Wounds and Battle Medicine share the same requirement text as the actions on 248 that the errata should apply to them rather than just the actions on 248.
The logical leap to get there bothers me a bit, but if I had to intuit the intention of the writers that's what I would guess.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well-researched and spelled out threads like this make me sad that we can't flag things as FAQ requests here, for some reason.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely much easier to see this if you look at the actual CRB.
I think the following is now correct (although I hope to be shown to be wrong).
Battle medicine now takes 2 free hands to actually use. I see nothing that overrides the 2 hands requirement in the Equipment section.
The benefit of wearing the tool (still significant) is that you can walk around with 0 or 1 hands free and can actually USE Battle Medicine as 1 action by using free actions to drop stuff.
And any argument I've seen that says the requirements override this ALSO seems, to me, to mean that it would take zero hands.
While I now no longer remotely trust my ability to comprehend PaizoSpeak the clearest reading of these rules to me is that 2 hands are required to be free.
Pragmatically, if I am correct, that means Battle Medicine generally takes at least another action (to grab up that weapon) for weapon users and makes bucklers really rock.
Edit : ah, sorry, I'm repeating what you said. Errata and actual CRB don't agree. CRB has the benefit of being clear :-(.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually argue that the new errata does not provide any clarity on how the feat battle medicine works, as far as number of hands.
Otherwise, what do you make of abilities that require you to be wearing the tools and have a hand free?
Why have that language at all if wearing the tools still requires two free hands to use them.
I think we are pretty much in the same boat that we were before the errata on this question.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually argue that the new errata does not provide any clarity on how the feat battle medicine works, as far as number of hands.
Otherwise, what do you make of abilities that require you to be wearing the tools and have a hand free?
Why have that language at all if wearing the tools still requires two free hands to use them.
I think we are pretty much in the same boat that we were before the errata on this question.
I think we're now in a slightly different boat.
I now think that the CRB is clear. 2 hands needed.
I also think the Errata is clearish. 1 hand needed except for Battle Medicine where 1 or 2 hands are needed.
So, at least 1 hand is needed in either interpretation. That is a plus.
What isn't clear is whether to follow the Errata or the CRB :-(.
Personally, I'm going with the CRB.Its clear, at least.
At least until some developer chines in.
I am not disagreeing that there is confusion, but the battle medicine feat doesn't require you to use the tools. In fact it specifies that you can be wearing them, so there is an assumption that still has to be made that the tools have to be used. If you only have to be wearing the tools then you never actually have to draw them.
That seems to be the same as before.
|
|
I am not disagreeing that there is confusion, but the battle medicine feat doesn't require you to use the tools. In fact it specifies that you can be wearing them, so there is an assumption that still has to be made that the tools have to be used. If you only have to be wearing the tools then you never actually have to draw them.
That seems to be the same as before.
Ah, you're right. CRB allows for 0 or 2 hands(although I think the fact that tools are required is strongly implied). Errata even more strongly implies the tools are required but doesn't quite state it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not disagreeing that there is confusion, but the battle medicine feat doesn't require you to use the tools. In fact it specifies that you can be wearing them, so there is an assumption that still has to be made that the tools have to be used. If you only have to be wearing the tools then you never actually have to draw them.
That seems to be the same as before.
Doesn't the new FAQ/Errata explicitly say that Battle Medicine requires you to use Healer's Tools?
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.
It says that this means you need to use healer's tools. That means it definitely requires two hands right?
Personally, I'm going with the CRB.Its clear, at least.
But the errata is supposed to be for the CRB, right? Meaning the intent is that it supersedes what's there.
I'm with Pirate Rob. This hasn't really answered any of the questions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not disagreeing that there is confusion, but the battle medicine feat doesn't require you to use the tools. In fact it specifies that you can be wearing them, so there is an assumption that still has to be made that the tools have to be used. If you only have to be wearing the tools then you never actually have to draw them.
That seems to be the same as before.
Doesn't the new FAQ/Errata explicitly say that Battle Medicine requires you to use Healer's Tools?
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.It says that this means you need to use healer's tools. That means it definitely requires two hands right?
Yeah, I guess that is a new new addition to that section of the errata, right now, if you have to use them, then they require two free hands to use. You just don't have to waste actions drawing and stowing them. This change will make Monks being the only viable battle medicine users as even casters are unlikely to have more than one hand free which still means having to spend an action putting away what was in your hand (or dropping it which can be dangerous if it is something important to you) and then drawing it again.
On the plus side, the heal spell becomes even more powerful and important in play.
|
|
Personally, I'm going with the CRB.Its clear, at least.But the errata is supposed to be for the CRB, right? Meaning the intent is that it supersedes what's there.
I'm with Pirate Rob. This hasn't really answered any of the questions.
The CRB pdf got updated to incorporate the Errata.
It is that new pdf I'm referring to.
In theory, at this point of time they should be identical.
Unfortunately, they're not. And I have no clue which is meant to be right when they disagree
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would really prefer the designers to actually give us some examples who characters with different setups use Battle Medicine, that can't be too much to ask.
I would really prefer that the designers use the same words in the errata as well as in the updated CRB.
But that seems too much to ask.
Or, at least, tell us which is correct when they differ :-). Maybe, just maybe, that is NOT too much to ask.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.
In the Cleric chapter, 2nd-Level Cleric Class FeaturesBattle Medicine
You know how to quickly heal your allies with Medicine. Write "Battle Medicine" in the Level 2 box in the Class section of your character sheet.Battle Medicine [reaction]
You can patch up wounds with your healer's tools and a free hand. Attempt a DC 15 Medicine check to heal yourself or an ally for 2d8 Hit Points. If you become an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 Medicine check to heal for 2d8+10 Hit Points. You can heal a particular person only once each day with Battle Medicine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Beginner Box is different, because that shows BM as a reaction, while in the CRB it is an action.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.
In the Cleric chapter, 2nd-Level Cleric Class FeaturesBattle Medicine
You know how to quickly heal your allies with Medicine. Write "Battle Medicine" in the Level 2 box in the Class section of your character sheet.Battle Medicine [reaction]
You can patch up wounds with your healer's tools and a free hand. Attempt a DC 15 Medicine check to heal yourself or an ally for 2d8 Hit Points. If you become an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 Medicine check to heal for 2d8+10 Hit Points. You can heal a particular person only once each day with Battle Medicine.
Oh, that would be a nice sensible way to do. Too bad we have to wait for them to tell us which one is the right one.
|
Personally, I'm going with the CRB.Its clear, at least.But the errata is supposed to be for the CRB, right? Meaning the intent is that it supersedes what's there.
Yeah, given that the whole point of an errata document is to correct problems in the book, I think the errata is the one we should consider correct until we hear otherwise.
I think that's how it's intended to work as well. As far as I can tell, most of the reasoning for why it wouldn't be at this point hinges on Battle Medicine being noted to "use" healer's tools and not being specified alongside Treat Wounds and other medicine skill actions in the "uses one hand" part. That could reasonably be taken to mean that Battle Medicine simply requires healer's tools that can be worn to work the same way as Treat Wounds in handedness, given how loose some of the language has been (and the earliest version of Battle Medicine not requiring the tools at all, which that text could be trying to clarify is no longer the case).
I believe the second printing of the book uses some older first printing text instead of errata text, but if that's so (and it isn't a 3rd version entirely), that's a pretty strong indicator that the second printing simply didn't include the errata text by mistake.
|
|
Yeah, given that the whole point of an errata document is to correct problems in the book, I think the errata is the one we should consider correct until we hear otherwise.Personally, I'm going with the CRB.Its clear, at least.But the errata is supposed to be for the CRB, right? Meaning the intent is that it supersedes what's there.
The Errata is to the First printing of the CRB
I was referring to the Second printing of the CRB
The one that is supposed to incorporate the errata.
Paizo has been silent on this issue for long, but at least finally we know it has their attention: link.
|
|
Paizo has been silent on this issue for long, but at least finally we know it has their attention: link.Thank you for pointing this out.
I guess all those people saying "don't make a fuss, it won't help" were wrong.
Well, it hasn't really helped yet has it? :-(.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This update hasn't clarified how many free hands it requires to use Battle Medicine.
Please take a moment to actually read the post
you just need one hand
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, rainzax is correct.
Follow the link, it includes Mark Seifter explicitly and definitively answering the thing on Battle Medicine once and for all: If you have Healer's Tools in a bandolier, it requires one action.
Small quibble: bandolier doesn't exist as an item now but is just a nice visual for wearing your tools. It works just as well stuffing your tools into pockets, in pouches, into your belt ot anything else you want to say. Heck, fantasy velcro or magnetics could by how you do it. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like whoever did this errata didn't really understand to hardcode the underlying issues at hand into confirmation.
We know that Battle Medicine has had two contention points. The first one was that simply listing them as a requirement did not ever claim that you actually use them, merely that you possess them. Nothing in the feat description states you're using them. Nothing in the general rules state you're using them. It's literally dead text that serves no purpose other than to create table variation.
This segues into the second contention point, which was to determine how many hands were required between the multiple different activities you could make with Healer's Tools (and by relation, all tools, after further speculation). As with the first point, people claimed that because it's merely required to possess them, limbs aren't required to operate them (armless medics and jedi mind tricks be damned), so they just "work". Others stated that because it's a manipulate, some form of limb (usually a hand) is required, though this falls under GM FIAT territory (hence table variation shenanigans), and others still have stated that if the intent is for actual usage, then it should be used as is normal for tools, as listed in the hands requirement of the item. All three interpretations have merit to them, and can't really disprove one or the other.
This errata addresses none of these major concerns, which have been expressed across numerous threads and countless posts. In fact, the only thing this errata does (which is nice) is state you both draw and stow the tools, both as you attempt them, and as the action completes, something which was initially missing in the original rules. This makes transitioning much easier and more fluid, which is good, don't get me wrong. But it's a non-sequitur to the entire point of all of this arguing.
We are otherwise in no different a place than square 1 (or rather, square 2, after the first round of errata was released), where none of this is at all clarified, which is aggravating. I feel like we are speaking through an old-school speech recognition device and being misheard constantly as to what our issue is, considering this has now been two errata rounds and these issues are still not adequately addressed whatsoever.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seifter's post (and the accompanying fix to the errata) settles the issue pretty conclusively. I don't see how there can be any more debate at this point. You need one hand and the tools on your person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the errata:
Update: We will be updating the tools revamp to indicate that worn healer's tools (along with other tool kits) take only one hand to use, as you don't have to hold the whole kit in your other hand, just pull out the things you need. What this means for Battle Medicine is that you only need one free hand to perform it with worn healer's tools, you don't need both hands.
**EDIT**
Nevermind, found it.
I do appreciate Mark's comment on what the intent is, which is two hands if not worn, one hand if worn. Whether that's what the errata will actually read is a whole different animal entirely.