| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there critical success/failure effects in battle medicine action?
According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.
"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446
Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air.
Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.
Remember "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444
I need a clarification on this and post here in a hope to be seen for the gods of FAQs/Erratas.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I (and my GM's) have always run it with critical success/failure, due to the "restore the corresponding amount of HP."
I (and my GM's) have always run it with critical success/failure, due to the "restore the corresponding amount of HP."
That could be only a reference to adjust incrensed healing for high DC. Or to 2d8 for sucess, what is the normal result in case of not mention crit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question would be two fold:
1. What makes a success more applicable than a critical success? When you "Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP" success isn't mentioned at all. It just says "the corresponding amount of HP", so, corresponding to what? The roll is against a DC with critical success, success, and critical failure results, so it would correspond to that DC and it's effects. Right?
2. Based on the question it sounds like you think this is too good to be true and are looking for a reason to exclude these effects. Would you mind explaining? In fact, one of my characters would actually love for it to not include these effects. It would make it safer to attempt moderately difficult DCs against players who are dying or close to it and need a huge boost of health. As it stands I have to use a very inefficient assurance that's one level away from hitting that higher DC because I don't want to have a 1/20 chance of killing them. That's not to say that removing the crit success and crit failure effects would always be a good thing, but rather wondering why it's so powerful that it might qualify as "too good to be true", especially considering those higher DCs are way stronger than an extra 2d8.
P.S. All that being said, even though I run it as being a copy-paste of treat wounds but without removing the wounded condition I actually think a technical reading of the rules wouldn't include the critical failure effect, since it isn't "restoring" HP, and battle medicine just restores the amount of HP as treat wounds. Again, I don't run it that way, but I can understand it being run that way.
Using Bardo's interpretation, these are just some of the feats for which you ignore critical successes and failures when making their associated checks: alchemical crafting, ancestral paragon, bargain hunter, battle cry, cloud jump, combat climber, continual recovery, courtly graces, experienced smuggler, experienced tracker, foil senses, group coercion, group impression, hobnobber, impressive performance, intimating glare, intimidating prowess, magical crafting. That can't possibly be RAI.
---
You are skilled at learning information through conversation. The Gather Information exploration activity takes you half as long as normal (typically reducing the time to 1 hour). If you’re a master in Diplomacy and you Gather Information at the normal speed, when you attempt to do so and roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead. There is still no guarantee that a rumor you learn with Gather Information is accurate.The master version of Hobnobber does less than nothing if the trained version already eliminates the criticals, so that is clearly not how it works.
---
The correct way to interpret these feats (and thus Battle Medicine) is that if the feat tells you to make a check and that check has results for criticals, then the feat also counts as having results for criticals.
You are making a wrong read of the rule, all these feats effects a actual action roll, and not are new actions, thus they follow their rules as normal. Battle medicine is a new action who only use the DC and some things of treat wounds as refer, but you not roll treat wounds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even though I disagree with his conclusion, Bardo_RS actually has a point in his latest reply. Many (if not all, I didn't check) of the things mentioned have notably different wording. Battle medicine doesn't say you can treat wounds in one action, but it doesn't remove the wounded condition. It says to base the DCs and health restored on treat wounds for this single action activity called battle medicine. That being said, if you're basing the health restored off of treat wounds then I still see no reason to only accept the success condition, as it never says anything about excluding the crit success, only including the success, or other such wording. Just "restore the corresponding amount of HP". So I ask again: corresponding to what? Why exclude a major part of the effects of treat wounds when determining what the correct amount of HP to restore is?
I would still really like to hear a response to some of the other things mentioned here, such as my or Azin's questions.
Like, yeah, there was a response as to why the examples @whew provided aren't identical, but that doesn't change the facts of what's written regardless of if there's other examples in the book. Which, btw, I think there are if I remember correctly, but I'm not entirely sure. I want to say something with a jumping feat talks about using the DCs of another activity as a base. Though, there was some people arguing for different interpretations of that as well, because of course there was, lol
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Azin
Yeah, the same quote as the poster, which is completely irrelevant here. If you're just looking at the feat in question then it doesn't list a success condition either, and if you're looking at the referenced ability (treat wounds) then it DOES list a critical success condition.
Note that, at least to my knowledge, EVERYTHING with a check has a success condition expressly written in the rules. Even something as simple as a Strike is written down very clearly. For battle medicine it's not in the feat because it's referencing a different check's DC and results. If you roll a crit success, then why would that not correspond to a crit success against the treat wounds DC, which has a crit success written?
What you quoted is something they put in to clearly state that something without a crit success doesn't just do nothing when you roll a crit success. It still succeeds, and a crit fail still does whatever the fail thing is even if nothing's written for crit fail. That may seem obvious, but it still needs to be said for the sake of the rules being as complete as possible.
Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP.
My question is: what does it really mean
"restore the corresponding amount of HP" ?
DC base of action treat wounds 15, sucess 2d8.
(expert) DC 20 2d8+10(master) DC 30 2d8+30
(legendary)DC 40 2d8+50
My question would be two fold:
1. What makes a success more applicable than a critical success? When you "Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP" success isn't mentioned at all. It just says "the corresponding amount of HP", so, corresponding to what? The roll is against a DC with critical success, success, and critical failure results, so it would correspond to that DC and it's effects. Right?2. Based on the question it sounds like you think this is too good to be true and are looking for a reason to exclude these effects. Would you mind explaining? In fact, one of my characters would actually love for it to not include these effects. It would make it safer to attempt moderately difficult DCs against players who are dying or close to it and need a huge boost of health. As it stands I have to use a very inefficient assurance that's one level away from hitting that higher DC because I don't want to have a 1/20 chance of killing them. That's not to say that removing the crit success and crit failure effects would always be a good thing, but rather wondering why it's so powerful that it might qualify as "too good to be true", especially considering those higher DCs are way stronger than an extra 2d8.
P.S. All that being said, even though I run it as being a copy-paste of treat wounds but without removing the wounded condition I actually think a technical reading of the rules wouldn't include the critical failure effect, since it isn't "restoring" HP, and battle medicine just restores the amount of HP as treat wounds. Again, I don't run it that way, but I can understand it being run that way.
First I don't know why they did it that way, whether it was intentional or not, I'm not in the developers' minds, and they haven't come out publicly to clarify. If you find out, let me know. I can guess two things though reading the feat, maybe they were wanting to balance the action at low lvl, or bad writing in the description. From what I saw in the feat, for some reason they didn't want it to be a quicker, more usable treat wounds in combat, even if only a few times a day. This was easy to do and wouldn't need so many laps.
Now moving on to the more objective part of the questions:1) The basic description of treating wounds sets the difficulty at 15, success tells me that it heals 2d8. The talent that gives you battle medicine action tells you to use treat wounds DC when rolling the medicine check to heal a corresponding amount. A corresponding amount determined for the DC you wanted to reach, it's not completely random, by the way this is quite common in PF2 rolls, you set a target difficulty and have four range steps in most cases.
The battle medicine talent even says that higher DC options can be enabled (DC 20 2d8+10, DC 30 2d8+30, DC 40 2d8+50) as in treating wounds. That is, you can have up to 4 amounts of healing to apply that match the difficulty you chose ("the corresponding amount of HP").
The talent tells you exactly what to roll against, and it doesn't ask you to treat wounds, it just asks you to use DC and heal the corresponding result. If they wanted you to use the treat wounds effects table they would ask you to simply roll the corresponding action just once per day per target and not remove wounds.
(to be continued...)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP.
My question is: what does it really mean
"restore the corresponding amount of HP" ?
DC base of action treat wounds 15, sucess 2d8.
(expert) DC 20 2d8+10
(master) DC 30 2d8+30
(legendary)DC 40 2d8+50
Yes, but if you found that DC and base healed, you also found the DC for crit successes and failures in the exact same place. They are literally listed next to each other:
"Critical Success The target regains 4d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Success The target regains 2d8 Hit Points, and its wounded condition is removed.
Critical Failure The target takes 1d8 damage."
I mean, you can't find out how much you heal without seeing the critical rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I treat Battle medicine exactly as treat wound but you can do it in combat with one action and it does not remove wounds.
You paid a feat tax for it. Let the player have agency. To me it is simply a way to heal quickly in battle which works just like treat wounds along with crit success and failure.
2. Based on the question it sounds like you think this is too good to be true and are looking for a reason to exclude these effects. Would you mind explaining? In fact, one of my characters would actually love for it to not include these effects. It would make it safer to attempt moderately difficult DCs against players who are dying or close to it and need a huge boost of health. As it stands I have to use a very inefficient assurance that's one level away from hitting that higher DC because I don't want to have a 1/20 chance of killing them. That's not to say that removing the crit success and crit failure effects would always be a good thing, but rather wondering why it's so powerful that it might qualify as "too good to be true", especially considering those higher DCs are way stronger than an extra 2d8.
P.S. All that being said, even though I run it as being a copy-paste of treat wounds but without removing the wounded condition I actually think a technical reading of the rules wouldn't include the critical failure effect, since it isn't "restoring" HP, and battle medicine just restores the amount of HP as treat wounds. Again, I don't run it that way, but I can understand it being run that way.
to be continued
2) Because it having a critical effect could be considered very good? Let's make some considerations:-> Balance at low lvl where an action can restore 4d8, on average, half a martial's HP and is easy to hit: 2lvl+expert+atrib (+4 to optimize) = +10 on DC 15 roll (5% chance critical failure, 15% failure, 50% success and 30% critical success);
-> With each new level the chance of failure remains the same, but the chance of success, and critical success, goes up more. At lvl 5 you have a 5% chance of critical failure, 5% of failure, 45% of success, 45% of critical success; Even increasing the DC to heal more the risk of failure would be moderate and the chance hurting the companions would remain low: 5lvl+expert+atrib (+4 to optimize) = +13 on DC 20 roll (5% critical failure, 40% failure, 30 % success and 20% critical success);
-> Combined with assurance you remove the chance of failure and could choose higher DCs without risk, even guaranteeing criticals. From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 20 and heal 2d8+10 (average 19) without risk, or risk healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always crit at DC 15 (4d8), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success);
-> Finally, the combination with other feats, abilities and archetypes who affects healing could make achieving the crit effect even easier and creating very powerful interactions.
The current interpretation of the community with rules giving almost certain guarantees of success/critical success makes this action very powerful, something you always need to have with any character at low lvl and which remains useful at high lvl, which is the current status of this feat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The talent tells you exactly what to roll against, and it doesn't ask you to treat wounds, it just asks you to use DC and heal the corresponding result. If they wanted you to use the treat wounds effects table they would ask you to simply roll the corresponding action just once per day per target and not remove wounds.
They did not write it that way because there are many things (notably feats) that specifically affect Treat Wounds (an exploration action) and not Battle Medicine (a combat action).
Me, I use the same DC as Treat Wounds and use the same success table too, including critical.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting flashbacks to the first few months of PF2 when people kept spewing math as a reason for Battle Medicine being "omg too overpowered".
Bardo will eventually get over it, but methinks we'll never stop seeing posters like this.
If he thinks it's too powerful, wait until he sees a Forensic Medicine Investigator with the Medic Archetype and the Eldritch Anatomist background... Seeing Battle Medicine healing an extra +level, changing temporarily immune to 1 hour, and can ignore temp immunity 1/day and rolling with Assurance all at 2nd level and not touching your skill increases and skill feats. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We'll never stop seeing posters like this, but the actual reason is that the rules are incredibly self-referential, which means that misunderstandings are really easy.
There are a whole bunch of these "nested" rules where in order to figure out what something does, you need to flip to 2-3 different pages. How much healing does Battle Medicine do? Well, flip to the page that talks about Battle Medicine, which directs you in part to the page on Treat Wounds.
I get it - it saves words because of redundancy, and it makes the development easier, i.e., at the beginning of development, they just link Battle Medicine to Treat Wounds, and later in development, if the scaling changes, they only need to change the numbers in one place. But the downside is that unless you're reading off an electronic document that's been well-hyperlinked, it's like a freaking Choose Your Own Adventure every time a rule needs to be looked up.
"You try to use the primary nonmagical healing option introduced in this game.
If you'd like to figure out how much healing you do, turn to page 249.
If you'd like to know how many hands you need to do it, turn to the errata.
If you'd like to know whether your healer's kit can be stored in a bandolier, find a pre-errata Core Rulebook and turn to page 287."
|
the downside is that unless you're reading off an electronic document that's been well-hyperlinked, it's like a freaking Choose Your Own Adventure
And that's done intentionally.
Pathfinder 2E is the first Paizo product designed with online referencing and digital search engines as the assumed default, with well-hyperlinked articles on a new online SRD.
It's progressive and some users are going to inevitably be left behind.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says to "Treat Wounds" and treat wounds lists a critical success and failure. I really don't see what the issue is here.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such as anyone who spends money on a hard copy of the books? AoN is convenient, but I'm not sure disincentivizing people from buying physical copies is a good move.the downside is that unless you're reading off an electronic document that's been well-hyperlinked, it's like a freaking Choose Your Own AdventureAnd that's done intentionally.
Pathfinder 2E is the first Paizo product designed with online referencing and digital search engines as the assumed default, with well-hyperlinked articles on a new online SRD.
It's progressive and some users are going to inevitably be left behind.
Not as disincentivizing as you’d think. Reading a book/PDF and cross-referencing AoN for information are two very different ways for obtaining and consuming information.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the downside is that unless you're reading off an electronic document that's been well-hyperlinked, it's like a freaking Choose Your Own AdventureAnd that's done intentionally.
Pathfinder 2E is the first Paizo product designed with online referencing and digital search engines as the assumed default, with well-hyperlinked articles on a new online SRD.
It's progressive and some users are going to inevitably be left behind.
If it works, it works because of AoN, not because of Paizo.
"Designed with online referencing" and "having online referencing" are two different beasts, and hopefully it won't be a contentious statement to say that Paizo's forte is not in IT. There's nothing wrong with that inherently, but with other "designed with online _____" initiatives, how well it works is a function of execution, not intent.
PFS boons migrating online? Blech. Will it be a better system someday? Yes. Is it a better system now? No.
Moving stuff to AoN? Not great at first. Nobody seemed to think much about SEO, so pages came up pretty low on Internet searches (the site's search engine was horrendously slow for a long time, so it was way faster to Google a page on AoN than to AoN-search a page on AoN, and even now is slightly faster to Google). The excuse that it was a new system doesn't hold - other PF2 references came up higher, e.g., Dragonlash, d20pfsrd, etc. Now, two years later, the official results are bubbling up to the top of search engines (but now and then I still accidentally click on a 1E page that's ranked higher). I'll applaud good things about AoN - AoN now has all the trait text boxes added to the bottom of the page, and linked feat chains, e.g., "Battle Medicine leads to" - all great things now, but they weren't there at first.
Fundamentally, the success or failure of this system ends up being outside of Paizo's control, and that's not ideal, even if the site is actually quite good (now).
If there's a mismatch between what the SRD says and what my physical copy of the CRB says, it's still very unclear to me how to resolve it (in this example, the clarifications on number of hands with Battle Medicine do not show up in the SRD).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I meant specifically about the number of hands that are required to use Battle Medicine.
The rules on the SRD currently do not reference needing any hands; at some point, there was quite a bit of table variability depending on whether the GM thought it should be 0, 1, or 2 free hands. I believe (but cannot readily find a reference) someone official clarifying that you need one free hand to use Battle Medicine.
Stuff like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it works, it works because of AoN, not because of Paizo.
So, it works because of Paizo, not because of Paizo? I mean, it's an official source now, so... yeah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I meant specifically about the number of hands that are required to use Battle Medicine.
The rules on the SRD currently do not reference needing any hands; at some point, there was quite a bit of table variability depending on whether the GM thought it should be 0, 1, or 2 free hands. I believe (but cannot readily find a reference) someone official clarifying that you need one free hand to use Battle Medicine.
Stuff like that.
You can find your reference for that at https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
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.
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.
-> Combined with assurance you remove the chance of failure and could choose higher DCs without risk, even guaranteeing criticals. From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 20 and heal 2d8+10 (average 19) without risk, or risk healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always crit at DC 15 (4d8), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success);You cannot automatically succeed with assurance at level 2 against dc 20. The best you can get this way is 16. 10 for assurance, 6 for proficiency bonus (lv 2 + 4 (expert). You never add your stat bonus when using assurance as it is not part of the proficiency bonus.
Yes a few hours later I realized that I treated assurance as take 10 (old habits). I was busy with other, more urgent things, sorry. Leaving the blood in the water for a while attracted more sharks to the post, that was good.
But this error doesn't change the fact that battle medicine is a very low risk and high reward action at low level if it has crit effects. The use of assurance eliminates the low risk for a healing a lowness category, but still relevant.
Errata =>> From 2lvl onwards you can ensure that battle medicine always works at DC 15 and heal 2d8 (average 9) without risk, or "risk" healing something between 4-32 (average 19) with 30% chance at DC 15, and each level beyond lowers the risk of trying the critical. At lvl 7 (+17 on roll) you could choose to always heal at DC 20 (2d8+10), or "risk" at DC 20 to heal 2d8+10/4d8+10 (5% chance critical miss, 10% miss, 45% success and 35% critical success); That w/o item bônus.
I'm getting flashbacks to the first few months of PF2 when people kept spewing math as a reason for Battle Medicine being "omg too overpowered".
Bardo will eventually get over it, but methinks we'll never stop seeing posters like this.
First of all the post isn't about battle medicine being super powerful, it's about mechanics and rules that seem to directly affect this action and how it's read.
I don't intend to change the way the community uses the feat after 3 years, right or wrong, but to raise a debate about something that has been missed. And maybe not just in this situation.Second, I used math just to show a solicited opinion, about an interpretation of what I referred: "Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is." CRB444
However, when I mentioned this warning it was because I knew that the community had already adopted the best possible version of rules for this action/feat and I wanted to remember that the system already foresees this possibility and not everything is written in iron.
And as a hobby-based community, it's common for themes to come and go from time to time, even more so in a game where the social contract is renegotiated all the time. Get over it Nefreet.;0)
Finally, if the rules section of the forum is not the place to think and discuss rules, and its ins and outs, which are heavily based on mathematical arguments, indicate to me another space and way to do it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing font 2 actions (1d8+8) at first level 3/day. Gets even better from there, and is substantially more powerful than combat medicine.
Lay on hands 6 points for a ten minute break.
alchemist 6/day @ 1d6
Mhm, mhm. As someone who's gotten the Blessed One dedication at level 2 specifically to avoid dumping a ton of skill feats into medicine I can confidently say that yeah, there's a lot of good healing options in the game, many of which require very little effort to get. PF2 just kind of assumes that you have a lot of healing.
Also, btw, if they really wanted to a level 1 Chirurgeon Alchemist could actually get up to 15 minor elixirs of life in a day. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's possible.
--> Level + int = 5 infused reagents; 3 signature items per infused reagent = 5*3 = 15
I honestly don't see what the fuss is about: most people I know that take Battle Medicine never roll the dice [Assurance] so the fact that you can crit succeed/fail rarely even comes up. Why would anyone make extra rolls on a known static DC like Treat Wound when you can skip all that and just roll how much you healed instead?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see what the fuss is about
That's because responders haven't really been reading the thread.
The question is not what Battle Medicine does. It's how we know what Battle Medicine does.
For better or for worse, the way to use Battle Medicine was informally canonized before it was formally canonized - it was a core component of the new system, and the CRB worded it with a lot of GM variation. In places like PFS, the rules pretty quickly coalesced around "yes there are crit successes and crit failures and you need one hand plus the healer's kit in a bandolier to use it". Some of those agreements were formally put into errata, and some weren't.
All the information for this feat (and several others) is scattered, and confusion persists (and will likely persist) until someone fixes the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the information isn't missing.
If you encounter someone who's unaware of it, then share it.
Most of the language is in the current CRB printing:
1) You must be wearing or holding Healer's Tools to use Battle Medicine (as the feat describes)
2) Healer's Tools can be drawn as part of the action required to use them (as the tools themselves describe)
3) Drawing an item only requires one hand (as the section on Interact actions describes)
The only language that's missing is:
4) The Errata combining #1-3 into a single, unifying statement.
When we move on to the 3rd printing, it'll finally be "fixed", but it's functional as is right now.
First of all the post isn't about battle medicine being super powerful, it's about mechanics and rules that seem to directly affect this action and how it's read.
Except it is. Your only real argument has been "this is too good to be true". The "corresponding HP" includes critical success and critical failure in the exact text it references. It is a much stronger leap of logic to exclude them than to than include it.
Your math hasn't really helped prove your point, and the hyperbole that everyone needs it is unfounded. More than a single use on the same character is impossible for 24 hours even when used by another character (baring additional feats). Also carries the risk on killing someone on a critical failure. Strong yes, but in line with other low level healing options:
Healing font 2 actions (1d8+8) at first level 3/day. Gets even better from there, and is substantially more powerful than combat medicine.
Lay on hands 6 points for a ten minute break.
alchemist 6/day @ 1d6
First post >>>> According to the rules of success and failure, if it is not written in the talent/action/magic, the successes and critical failures do not occur, they are only considered success and failure.
"If a feat, magic item, spell, or other effect does not list a critical success or critical failure, treat is as an ordinary success or failure instead." CRB446
Since battle medicine is very detailed about what is and is not similar to the treat wound action (DC used, difficulty increase, immunity, hands, actions, effects) the omission left this doubt in the air.
Unless you treat the action that the feat provides like treating wounds, which doesn't seem to be the intent, critical effects shouldn't occur with battle medicine.<<<<
That's my argument and my question. But all you read, if you read it, are the last two lines in the post, a reminder of a basic thing.
To be more precise, battle medicine is poorly written, it doesn't claim to roll to treat wounds, or roll medicine and modify it, it just claims to use some mechanics (DC, 2d8, high DC), it's different from power attack action, who says to roll the strike and modify it. Or a Hobnober that modifies the effects of the Gather Information activity.
Now going to more objective things:
>>> using max bonus attributes and lvl 1 <<<
- Source of healing: Two actions x5 days (1d8 + 8) is no more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4, or x6, one action in one day;
- Alchemist Elixir: one action, 1d6) x8, is no more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4, or x6 day, one action;
- Lay hands with a hp one action, x4 to x5 encounters in one day, no is more better than a 2d8 (4d8), x4 or x6 day, one action, at low level;
Yes the player needs to buy one or two skill feats, oh my god, but that choice hurts much less than maximizing secondary attributes to heal, or doing all on the same item per day with no flexibility, that's in my opinion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battle medicine has had some writing issues, but I don't think this is one of them.
I honestly don't see what the fuss is aboutThat's because responders haven't really been reading the thread.
The question is not what Battle Medicine does. It's how we know what Battle Medicine does.
For better or for worse, the way to use Battle Medicine was informally canonized before it was formally canonized - it was a core component of the new system, and the CRB worded it with a lot of GM variation. In places like PFS, the rules pretty quickly coalesced around "yes there are crit successes and crit failures and you need one hand plus the healer's kit in a bandolier to use it". Some of those agreements were formally put into errata, and some weren't.
All the information for this feat (and several others) is scattered, and confusion persists (and will likely persist) until someone fixes the system.
Excellent point.