The flavor text in the first sentence for the Robust Recovery feat (Core p. 266) implies that only you can be the patient affected, and that's how my GM is ruling the feat works. But I think the intent is that anytime I Treat Disease or Poison on anyone, that patient gets the benefit. I believe that if they'd meant it only applied to me, they'd say "you," not "the patient." (In addition, of course, if someone else does so on me, I still get the benefit.)
Can anyone help? Here's the wording:
Robust Recovery -- Feat 2
You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison, and using it diligently has made you especially resilient. When you Treat a Disease or a Poison, or someone else uses one of these actions on you, increase the circumstance bonus granted on a success to +4, and if the result of the patient’s saving throw is a success, the patient gets a critical success.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Robust Recovery applies its effect in both directions.
Both "When you Treat a Disease or a Poison" on someone else, they (as the patient) get the benefit.
And "someone else uses one of these actions on you", you (as the patient) get the benefit.
The only time it doesn't work is when you are simply present. If one of your allies use Treat Disease or Treat Poison on a different ally, Robust Recovery won't do anything because you weren't involved in the process.
As for the first sentence, this is how I interpret it:
"You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison, and using it diligently has made you especially resilient."
But with that said, might not be the best idea to argue with your GM about it too much. If the feat isn't doing what you hoped it would, you can retrain out of it.
Yes, Robust Recovery applies its effect in both directions. [skip]
The only time it doesn't work is when you are simply present. If one of your allies use Treat Disease or Treat Poison on a different ally, Robust Recovery won't do anything because you weren't involved in the process.
As for the first sentence, this is how I interpret it:
"You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison, and using it diligently has made you especially resilient."
But with that said, might not be the best idea to argue with your GM about it too much. If the feat isn't doing what you hoped it would, you can retrain out of it.
Thanks for the endorsement. I'll present the wording you provided me to the GM for her consideration. As for your advice, I get it. I actually had to decide (at 3rd) what skill to upgrade to Expert, and was looking at skill feats for 4th when the discussion came up. So no, I won't argue too much (I hope). As it was, I picked a different skill.
You don't even need to change the wording. The part of the line before the comma, "When you Treat a Disease or a Poison," doesn't specify a target so it works when you perform those actions no matter who the target is
I agree! But the GM saw it differently.
As a fellow player has pointed out, but I omitted earlier, the name of the feat (Robust Recovery) seems to imply that it applies only to the character taking the feat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why. The character can help someone else have a robust recovery too. That's what the feat does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it is right there:
"When you Treat a Disease or a Poison, or someone else uses one of these actions on you,..."
The first half ought to be clear enough: Whenever your toon uses the Treat Disease/Poison action, the benefits of the feat apply, period.
In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even helps the character themselves, when they happen to be the patient rather then the doctor.
As for the first sentence, flavour text or not, implying anything, the same reading applies:
"You learned folk medicine to help recover from diseases and poison,"
You are the doctor helping your patients get well. That is the core use of the Medicine skill, period.
"and using it diligently has made you especially resilient. "
In addition, the feat is so awesome that it even allows the practitioner themselves to benefit from it.
And honestly, the name of the feat implies no such thing as only being relevant to the PC possessing it. The feat makes a recovery robust. Which recovery? Why, the recovery the use of the Medicine skill affords the creature it is being performed upon. Which is usually a person different from the one performing the skill.
It is hard to give any advice about how you should approach your GM about this, but it seems like your GM is balking at a non-magical feat being "too good". Perhaps they are used to editions where anything fancy is purely the purview of magic, and mundane skill use is simply, well, mundane.
If that is the case, maybe it helps pointing out that PF 2 tries hard to not make magic and casters overshadow non-casters, and that is why skill feats (which are available to everyone) are meant to actually be good. Just point at the Legendary uses of some skills and ask if these are okay to take and watch their reaction reading up on them.
Edit: Maybe it helps pointing out that they are hurting the party by not allowing the feat to apply to the party?
Thanks, everyone! I'll present the thread to my GM and see what she says. Worst come to worst, a cool feat doesn't exist in her game and the party (not to mention my character) has to do without.