Treat Wounds, Continual Recovery and Time

[Claxon]

I wouldn't say I'm interested in challenging my interpretations, as I feel like the supposes I might be wrong. Generally I think my interpretations are correct. However, I'm not closed off to other interpretations, and on more than one occasion I have read an argument that resonated with me and made me realize that my conclusion was incorrect.

An example was a PF1 thread in which we were discussing the number of uses of SLAs that some races had. I had already read the lists as a number of total uses of any of the following spells in the row. When actually it is each spell listed get's those number of uses. And once I read a few posts on the topic I realized I had never thought about how the information was presented, but I didn't set out to challenge my understanding.

Anyways, as I said I'm not interested in convincing you. I provided an argument. In my opinion, there's nothing to really go beyond that argument of replacing 1 hr with 10 minutes.

You say you have a counterargument, that somehow Continual Recovery is very specific and doesn't keep any of the language from Treat Wounds, even though that makes no sense, since continual recovery doesn't reprint any of the other rules for Treat Wounds.

I agree that Continual Recovery is very specific, in that it only changes the immune time. How you argue that it somehow functions different than only changing the immune time I don't understand at all, and to me it's complete non-sense. So rather than arguing about a view I can't even remotely understand, I'd rather go spend time on other things.

[Jared Walter 356]

Cilng wrote:

I don't know what motivates you to read and post of course, but as I am interested in challenging my own interpretations of the rules I'll happily read and look for arguments. And yes, you stated it above and I believe I captured it in my list of arguments.

I think you'll find most of us that respond in the rules forums are most interested in helping people understand the rules. It's a big game with a lot of moving parts and can be overwhelming for new players. The vast majority of us will listen to well reasoned arguments based on actual game text. We will also point out where a specific interpretation violates actual game text.

Many of us are GMs with a passion for running the game, and want others to succeeded. Areas where the text is very clear leaving little room for interpretation will see very little GM variance, as in treat wounds. Things where guidance is less strict, like fleeing, or how many people can attempt a task will get a wider range of interpretations.

Almost no one on the forums can really comment on why rules were written a certain way, as designers don't frequent these boards. So trying to say this rule was written for this purpose is mostly useless. What you will get is this rule allows or forbids this.

[jcheung]

Cilng wrote:

Errenor wrote:

Cilng wrote:

please point me towards any mistakes you see.

There:

...this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating...

Which can be argued belongs to that specific sentence, i.e when the treatment time is 10 minutes, the immunity is one hour. A support for that argument lies in the clarification in brackets.

enter initiative for those 10 minutes with 4 people treating wounds on the same target with continual recovery.

whoever finishes first gets their treat wounds applied. immunity is then applied.
this retroactively applies to when treat wounds was initiated because "this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating".
medic 2, 3, 4 would have then retroactively started their checks while the target was immune, making them an invalid target.
this invalidates their check and therefore no healing is applied.

this is why continual recovery DOESN'T state "there is no temporary immunity" and specifically states that "1 hour" is replaced with "10 minutes" in the treat wound action

[Claxon]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Almost no one on the forums can really comment on why rules were written a certain way, as designers don't frequent these boards. So trying to say this rule was written for this purpose is mostly useless. What you will get is this rule allows or forbids this.

I don't think this is quite true. From what I understand the devs actually read the boards quite often. However they rarely post now.

During PF1 it had become common place for devs to drop in an give their opinion...I think ultimately that became a faux pas because as a company they didn't like the way things were being handled with off the cuff answers. I suspect that the devs collectively decided not to post rules answers without getting consensus from the dev team, and that when they do they probably just mark it for errata as it's quite likely the thread has died by the time consensus is achieved.