Treat Wounds, Continual Recovery and Time


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Treat Wounds States: “The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour, but this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating (so a patient can be treated once per hour, not once per 70 minutes).” (Core 249)

While Continual Recovery states: “When you Treat Wounds, your patient becomes immune for only 10 minutes instead of 1 hour.” (Core 260)

My question is if someone’s wounds are treated by a healer (who has the feat) and the 10 minutes has passed to do the action:
Can the healer immediately attempt to treat there wounds again? Or do they still have to wait 10 minutes before trying again?

I’m just a bit confused over RAW and RAI. Because, if they could immediately try again. Wouldn’t Continual Recovery just say the patient doesn’t take the temporarily immunity to Treat Wounds? Or am I just splitting hairs?


Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with breithauptclan. Note however, that in both cases they become immune to treay wounds while being treated, so two people cannot treat the same person at the same time.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:

Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

That makes sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
I agree with breithauptclan. Note however, that in both cases they become immune to treay wounds while being treated, so two people cannot treat the same person at the same time.

Also, be reminded that, by RAW, if one were treated by an inferior healer (1 h cooldown) first, their cooldown would still apply to the superior treatment (10 min cooldown).

Which does not apply to Battle Medicine, by the way, where the immunisation is personal.


breithauptclan wrote:

Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

I agree but my GM does not, he wants "proof"

Is there any way to get in touch with, someone from Paizo?

thnx
Joakim


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoakimEdman wrote:

I agree but my GM does not, he wants "proof"

Is there any way to get in touch with, someone from Paizo?

thnx
Joakim

No,

Best you can do is share something like

https://youtu.be/Sbt7dJh6NkE

Your GM asking for you to prove it beyond RAW is very hard.

It would be like being asked to prove you gain a class feat at level 2, pointing to where the book says you do and being told to prove it.

Treat wounds takes 10 minutes to perform and explicitly starts a 60min count down when the activity starts so after treating wounds ends you have 50min left; continual healing reduces the cooldown to 10 minutes and doesn't touch anything else... allowing for it to be continual (wonder if that is perhaps why it is called continual healing... r_r)

Something to note is that continual healing does not modify the oft forgotten element of treat wounds that lets you continue treating wounds for the whole hour to double the result. So that still takes an hour.

Horizon Hunters

You won't be getting a developer to respond on the forums, and when they do, it's usually about something game breaking.

If you are playing a home game, unfortunately the GM's word is law, even if it stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules.

If you're playing in a PFS environment, ask the local venture agent to step in. While GMs have leeway when it comes to unclear rules, this one is very clear, and should be run properly in PFS games.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoakimEdman wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

I agree but my GM does not, he wants "proof"

Is there any way to get in touch with, someone from Paizo?

thnx
Joakim

No, there is no way to prove this any better than to point to the rules in Treat Wounds that the immunity time overlaps with the time spent treating wounds.

If that doesn't work, then I don't think anything will.

Paizo devs are too busy with either work or just being humans to correct every GM that isn't able to understand the printed rules.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JoakimEdman wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

I agree but my GM does not, he wants "proof"

Is there any way to get in touch with, someone from Paizo?

thnx
Joakim

You are not the OP of this thread, but just look at what Continual Recovery does. It basically says to substitute the 60 minute cooldown with a 10 minute cool down. So in Treat Wounds original wording, substitute the time. Now how do the rules read? To me the only option is:

Treat Wounds wrote:
The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour 10 minutes, but this interval overlaps with the time you spent treating (so a patient can be treated once per hour 10 minutes, not once per 70 20 minutes).” (Core 249)

There's literally no other reasonable possible interpretation, but if someone can't draw the same conclusion I think it's probably because they don't want to, because they've already made up their mind.

The same GM probably wont be happy when you take ward medic and can heal all your allies at once.

Honestly prior to being a master in medicine, even with the incorrect interpretation of being immune for 20 minutes it's not the end of the world. You can heal 2 of your 4 party members for 10 minutes, then the other 2, then the first 2 again, and so on. Until everyone is back to full. If there's a point where someone needs to be healed back to back with no one else needing help, then you can recharge your focus points on something. There's usually plenty to do to deal with a GM forcing this incorrect ruling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoakimEdman wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Continual Recovery does not remove the rule from Treat Wounds that the time spent treating wounds overlaps with the immunity time.

So yes, with Continual Recovery you can immediately use Treat Wounds again after the 10 minutes of using Treat Wounds on the same character.

The balance point of that is to make it match up with focus point HP recovery like Lay on Hands, Goodberry, or Hymn of Healing, etc. Characters with those spells can cast the spell, then refocus for 10 minutes, then cast the spell again.

I agree but my GM does not, he wants "proof"

Is there any way to get in touch with, someone from Paizo?

thnx
Joakim

Ask him what he thinks the word "Continual" means.

- Jee


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
I agree with breithauptclan. Note however, that in both cases they become immune to treay wounds while being treated, so two people cannot treat the same person at the same time.

So this would mean that two people can Repair the same item at the same time? As the Repair activity doesn't stipulate anything about immunity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cilng wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
I agree with breithauptclan. Note however, that in both cases they become immune to treay wounds while being treated, so two people cannot treat the same person at the same time.
So this would mean that two people can Repair the same item at the same time? As the Repair activity doesn't stipulate anything about immunity.

*shrugs*

Sure, Why not?

Grand Lodge

As a GM, I would probably limit it to 2 people repair at the same time, unless the item could be repaired in parts or was very large.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
As a GM, I would probably limit it to 2 people repair at the same time, unless the item could be repaired in parts or was very large.

Do you find any support in the rules for this ruling?

Grand Lodge

Cilng wrote:
Jared Walter 356 wrote:
As a GM, I would probably limit it to 2 people repair at the same time, unless the item could be repaired in parts or was very large.
Do you find any support in the rules for this ruling?

This is mostly a rule 0 call, but some guidance can be found in aid:

If they cannot have the item to work on, they cannot repair it.

You try to help your ally with a task. To use this reaction, you must first prepare to help, usually by using an action during your turn. You must explain to the GM exactly how you’re trying to help, and they determine whether you can Aid your ally.


Ok, and why wouldn't you use all of the mechanics in Aid? The aiding character rolls their aid check and if successful the repairing character gets a circumstance bonus on their Repair check.

Grand Lodge

you could, and if so I might increase the limit. This would represent the another person tending the fires, handing the tools, etc.

The rules won't cover all cases, and the ambiguous rules section is there to remind us of this. This is one of the primary roles of the GM, to rule in corner cases, and use some common sense.

The question I would ask, is how many people can reasonable work on the task without getting in each others way?

for repairing a ring it might be one, for a suit or armor maybe two, for a boat maybe a dozen. Unlocking a door, one. tracking two.

These are all little more than judgement calls about what is reasonable. Hence the preface "as a gm".


Sure, but circumstance bonuses don't stack so it's a bit of a gamble if people will actually contribute.

Another example of an exploration actiivty is Make an Impression. Can two people Make an Impresession on the same target at the same time?

Grand Lodge

as written, I don't see anything forbidding it.
Personally, I would only allow one person to make a diplomacy check, and one to aid. I also recognize this is a judgment call, and other DMs make different calls.


I find it interesting in this thread how the tone has shifted from such certainty how immunity in the treat wounds action must be interpreted to the relaxed attitude that it’s up to the GM and common sense on other closely related matters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The immunity time in the treat wounds action is spelled out explicitly. There is no question there.

Having multiple people doing the same task in order to finish it faster or have more opportunities for success isn't spelled out that precisely.

Nothing in Seek or Search prevents other characters from doing the same actions to attempt the same thing. But if all 4 characters are allowed to search a room for something important - using separate rolls each - and each one has about a 50% chance of success individually, then there is a 94% chance that one of the four of them will succeed. Using Aid, on the other hand, means that each of the three supporting characters has a good chance (depending on level) of adding a 5% - 15% (depending on proficiency) increase to the primary roll. So at most a 65% chance of success overall for the group.

And in that case some tables prefer one way and other tables prefer the other. So it is left up to the GM.


Breit, what you're pointing out is a math problem realistically.

Assume you have a 4 person party.

If all you need is one success to move past whatever obstacle, you can find at what point aid is superior vs multiple people rolling.

It's important to remember that to calculate the odds of 1 person succeeding, you actually need to calculate the odds of everyone failing instead, because if you calculate the odds everyone fails, then the remaining amount (from 100%) is the odds at least one person succeeds.

So let's keep things easy, everyone has a +10 vs a DC 21. Meaning everyone needs to roll a 11 or better to succeed, which is a 50% chance of success. In 4 attempts, the chance that no one succeeds is 6.25%, meaning an almost 94% chance of succeeding.

Now, for Aid. Aid can allow you to grant a bonus, up to +4 to someone else's roll. It is typically also a DC 20. And the +4 bonus only happens if you're legendary in a skill, in which case you probably should be the one rolling but let's ignore that part.

So instead of your 50% chance of success, that +4 bonus brings your chance of success up to 70%. You also can't have multiple circumstance bonuses because of how bonuses work, so more than one person aiding you doesn't help.

So where is the break even point? I did some math and it looks like Aid (+4 bonus) is even with 4 people rolling when you normally have about a 40% chance of success. So if everyone in your party has a 40% chance of success or lower, Aid is mathematically the better way to go. Which is kind of unsatisfying.

Edit: As I looked at this more what I said above isn't quite true. Basically at 40% chance of success you have a case where Aid is relatively equal to 4 separate rolls.

As I looked at it more, if everyone in the party has at least a 45% chance of success on their independent roll, then 4+ people have a 90% or better chance of success on 1 of 4 rolls.

What I ultimately found is if you have a 5% chance of success on your intendent rolls getting Aid has a higher chance of succeeding than 4 independent rolls. And then once you get to an 80% chance of success Aid again wins out over multiple rolls, but that's pretty much because you reach 100% success at that point, and while it's technically better than multiple rolls the multiple rolls are at 99% chance of success.

So the only time it's really advisable to use Aid is if the GM wont let you make multiple rolls, or if there is some sort of penalty for 1 (or more) of the 4 of you failing.

Edit 2: Man aid is really terrible (mathematically). If your GM will let multiple people roll, it's basically always going to be better.

To GMs, if you don't want players to brute force success by large numbers, add some sort of consequence to individual failures. And if the party could succeed at something by making enough attempts (because the failure consequences aren't that serve) consider just letting the party pass, perhaps stating they expend X amount of time and succeed.


Yeah, it is really hard to beat that p^n exponential growth of multiple independent attempts by using a linear bonus increase from Aid.

Having 5 or 6 players all independently attempting the same task makes it even more valuable than Aid.

Edit: Thinking on it for a minute, I don't think the bonus from Aid would even be linear. Because the bonus from n people doesn't stack.


One notable case that I would point out where the game does very explicitly allow multiple characters to all attempt the same check in order to increase the party's chances of success and decrease the amount of time it takes to achieve that success...

Attacking and dealing damage.


breithauptclan wrote:

Yeah, it is really hard to beat that p^n exponential growth of multiple independent attempts by using a linear bonus increase from Aid.

Having 5 or 6 players all independently attempting the same task makes it even more valuable than Aid.

Edit: Thinking on it for a minute, I don't think the bonus from Aid would even be linear. Because the bonus from n people doesn't stack.

Yeah, Aid could probably use some help in how it function.

For certain things it makes sense, like Aiding an Ally's attack roll when you have a really crappy damage attack. You might do very little to the enemy, but if you can "distract" the enemy by aiding your ally's attack, you might get a hit that deals much more damage, or even a crit. The kind of scenario I'm thinking of is a spellcaster helping a martial character. But that supposes the caster doesn't have a relevant cantrip and doesn't want to use a spell slot either. So not exactly common.

I think Aid in Combat scenarios can make sense, but outside of that, and outside of consequences for failure I have a hard time envisioning it's use. Like thematically aiding for skills is what I think of most, but in most cases the party is going to be better off if you simply attempt the thing yourself. Also until a certain point in the game (level 6?) the standard DCs of challenges is below the 20 you need to Aid. So you might as well succeed at the check yourself.


Claxon wrote:
Yeah, Aid could probably use some help in how it function.

Well, that depends on what you want the purpose of Aid to be.

What it currently does is provides a way for multiple characters to participate in a single simple skill check, but in a way that doesn't cause that exponential catastrophic cascade in probability that nearly guarantees success.

It is a reasonable bonus. It requires no feats or class features. It still makes the roll important rather than making the rolling irrelevant.

It becomes a step up from only allowing one character to do something, but not so complicated as turning the challenge into a victory point subsystem encounter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Another note: This is also why Quiet Allies is such a valuable feat.

It is the same math problem, but for avoiding failures instead of gaining success.

If you have 4 players all having to make individual Stealth checks, and they have a 50% chance of success - well, they have a 94% chance that one of them is going to fail.

Even if you have a 10 DEX character in your party and so their bonus after the Follow the Expert bonus only gives them a 40% chance of success, that is still drastically better than the 5% chance you had without the feat with a party where everyone is at least competent enough in Stealth to have 50% odds.


The temporary immunity rule (p453 CRB) is used in many different actions, spells, consumables etc. Why, do you think, they made it different when creating Treat Wounds? It seems to be only example of the temporary immunity overlapping with the time it takes to perform the action.


Cilng wrote:
The temporary immunity rule (p453 CRB) is used in many different actions, spells, consumables etc. Why, do you think, they made it different when creating Treat Wounds? It seems to be only example of the temporary immunity overlapping with the duration of the activity.

To make the time calculations line up better.

Without Continual Recovery, Treat Wounds can happen once per hour per character. A nice even number.

With Continual Recovery, Treat Wounds lines up with the 10 minute quick activities that are used for a ton of different things - such as Refocus, Repair, Identifying items, and other such things.

Another common time interval is 1 minute, but that is too fast for Treat Wounds healing.


Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?


breithauptclan wrote:
Cilng wrote:
The temporary immunity rule (p453 CRB) is used in many different actions, spells, consumables etc. Why, do you think, they made it different when creating Treat Wounds? It seems to be only example of the temporary immunity overlapping with the duration of the activity.

To make the time calculations line up better.

Without Continual Recovery, Treat Wounds can happen once per hour per character. A nice even number.

With Continual Recovery, Treat Wounds lines up with the 10 minute quick activities that are used for a ton of different things - such as Refocus, Repair, Identifying items, and other such things.

Another common time interval is 1 minute, but that is too fast for Treat Wounds healing.

Pretty much. Because 70 minutes would have been awkward. Similarly ruling 20 minutes would be awkward.

We have stuff that takes an hour, or takes 10 minutes. We don't really have stuff that takes those weird increments of time.

And because if you needed to wait an hour after you treated wounds (without continual recovery) you pretty much guarantee that the party is only going to have 1 fight a day. If anyone needs multiple rounds of healing they're going to spend multiple hours of down time on healing. At that point, it's hard to imagine waiting 3+ hours to continue on. You're probably calling it a day and going to do other stuff.

Prior to level 2 access to continual recovery that's basically what happens, unless you have ample consumables or someone that's okay with spending their few precious spell slots on healing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cilng wrote:
Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?

So that it explicitly prevents allowing multiple high level characters from doing low-proficiency easy DC Treat Wounds on the same character at the same time and crit-succeeding the check to heal 184 HP every 10 minutes.


Cilng wrote:
Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?

Why would they?

It takes 10 minutes (minimum) to treat wounds. Continual Recovery reduces the immunity to treat wounds to 10 minutes. Most people can piece together that you can now continuously treat someone, if you need to.

But as Briet points out, if you don't have the immunity period, then multiple characters could treat wounds on the same character at the same time.


breithauptclan wrote:
Cilng wrote:
Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?
So that it explicitly prevents allowing multiple high level characters from doing low-proficiency easy DC Treat Wounds on the same character at the same time and crit-succeeding the check to heal 184 HP every 10 minutes.

Why would they use the temporary immunity rule to enforce this when it's not used for that purpose anywhere else? Why not just write "no more than one person may treat the same target at the same time."?

Also, if the purpose for creating an exception to the general temporary immunity rule was for "timing" purposes, have we not already establish that the purpose was not for "multiple people treating the same individual"-purposes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it is a pretty elegant solution to handle all of those requirements and effects at the same time.

For the regular treat wounds the temporary immunity causes the once per hour time limit as well as preventing multiple people from treating the same patient.

For the treat wounds with continual recovery, it still prevents multiple people treating the same character but changes the time to a once per 10 minutes interval. All without actually changing the rules text of treat wounds itself.


Claxon wrote:
Cilng wrote:
Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?

Why would they?

Because writing that there is a 10 minute temporary immunity in Continual Recovery and mean there is no temporary immunity breaks the consistency of how temporary immunity is used as a rule throughout the book and explained on p453.

Nowhere else has temporary immunity been used for the purpose of stopping people from executing the same task on the same target at the same time. If that was the intention in this specific case it had been easier to just state "No more than one person can perform Treat Wounds on the same target at the same time".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cilng wrote:
Nowhere else has temporary immunity been used for the purpose of stopping people from executing the same task on the same target at the same time. If that was the intention in this specific case it had been easier to just state "No more than one person can perform Treat Wounds on the same target at the same time".

"Nowhere else" is a pretty bold claim. One I will have to check.

Also, your proposed replacement is actually a lot more complicated than you are making it out to be.

If you write "No more than one person can perform Treat Wounds on the same target at the same time" in Continual Recovery alone, then it is simply redundant. Treat Wounds already accomplishes that with the temporary immunity.

Removing the Temporary Immunity from Treat Wounds means that it could be used unrestricted. By any number of people and without any restriction on frequency.

And having Continual Recovery remove the temporary immunity from Treat Wounds - for starters, isn't what you proposed - and is potentially ambiguous. Does it remove the temporary immunity from other people using treat wounds also, or just you?

So if you want, as an exercise, you could write up full and entire replacement rules text for both Treat Wounds and Continual Recovery and we can all nitpick it to death to see what exploits you have inadvertently introduced.

If not, maybe slow down a bit on the criticism.


breithauptclan wrote:


"Nowhere else" is a pretty bold claim. One I will have to check.

Please do.I browsed through the core rulebook but I wasn't able to find another example, but I could of course be wrong.

breithauptclan wrote:


If you write "No more than one person can perform Treat Wounds on the same target at the same time" in Continual Recovery alone, then it is simply redundant. Treat Wounds already accomplishes that with the temporary immunity.

This argument assumes that temporary immunity's purpose is to prevent several people doing the same task on the same target at the same time, which is exactly what I am not finding support in the rules for it to be. But I am happy to be shown otherwise.

Also the general ruling of temporary immunity I've referenced above doesn't clarify this in my meaning (it would have been an excellent place to do so if that was the designer's intent).

breithauptclan wrote:


Removing the Temporary Immunity from Treat Wounds means that it could be used unrestricted. By any number of people and without any restriction on frequency.

I suggested that if it is was the designer's intent to not have temporary immunity on Treat Wounds when you select Continual Recovery, not the default version of Treat Wounds, it would have been easy to state that.

breithauptclan wrote:


And having Continual Recovery remove the temporary immunity from Treat Wounds - for starters, isn't what you proposed - and is potentially ambiguous. Does it remove the temporary immunity from other people using treat wounds also, or just you?

So if you want, as an exercise, you could write up full and entire replacement rules text for both Treat Wounds and Continual Recovery and we can all nitpick it to death to see what exploits you have inadvertently introduced.

If not, maybe slow down a bit on the criticism.

I am not sure what the purpose is with this paragraph? It is not my intention to criticize anyone, and I am sorry if I have offended you. It is clear that I have interpreted temporary immunity differently several others here and I am looking for arguments that supports your interpretation of it. I'd like to have a polite conversation around arguments for and against a certain interpretation.


Cilng wrote:
Why didn't they write "there is no temporary immunity" in Continual Recovery?

Future proofing is the first thing that comes to my mind... say a spell or magic item lets you treat wounds as an action instead of 10 minutes.

Continual healing would make that very short, potentially broken in combat.

The other is because of how treat wounds immunity impacts other PCs... no immunity allows for some weirdness I can't imagine they would want.

It also matters if someone gets interrupted during the treatment phase.

Grand Lodge

Cilng wrote:


Please do.I browsed through the core rulebook but I wasn't able to find another example, but I could of course be wrong.

Try the Bestiary, It show up there all the time.


Cilng wrote:
This argument assumes that temporary immunity's purpose is to prevent several people doing the same task on the same target at the same time,

And your argument is instead assuming that there can be only one reason and purpose for a particular rule such as temporary immunity.

To speak to that, I have two things:

One the difference between

frequency once per round
as seen in abilities like Psi Burst and Communal Sustain

and the Flourish trait on abilities like Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows.

The difference between the two -- 'Frequency: once per round' will only prevent you from using that action again during the remainder of that round. The Flourish trait will prevent you from using that action for the rest of that round and prevent you from using other Flourish trait actions for the rest of that round also - two purposes and intents in the Flourish trait.

The other speaking point is the wording of other abilities like Demoralize that use the concept of temporary immunity but specify that it applies only to the one character. When one character uses Demoralize, the target is temporarily immune to that character's Demoralize for 10 minutes - but not that of any other character.

If Treat Wounds and Continual Recovery were intended to only have one purpose for the temporary immunity, it would have said that there was only the one purpose. Temporary Immunity does two things by default - it prevents you from using the ability on the target, and it prevents others from using that ability on the target too. In places where it is not intended to do both, it will say so.


Jared Walter 356 wrote:
Try the Bestiary, It show up there all the time.

I can't find any example of where Temporary Immunity must mean "several people cannot perform this same action on the same target at the same time". Would you mind helping me?

breithauptclan wrote:
And your argument is instead assuming that there can be only one reason and purpose for a particular rule such as temporary immunity.

My argument assumes that Temporary Immunity works in the way described on p453 in the Core Rulebook. I would actually argue that adding the effect "several people cannot do the same thing to the same target at the same time" is redundant.

breithauptclan wrote:


One the difference between

frequency once per round
as seen in abilities like Psi Burst and Communal Sustain

and the Flourish trait on abilities like Twin Takedown and Flurry of Blows.

The difference between the two -- 'Frequency: once per round' will only prevent you from using that action again during the remainder of that round. The Flourish trait will prevent you from using that action for the rest of that round and prevent you from using other Flourish trait actions for the rest of that round also - two purposes and intents in the Flourish trait.

I understand the difference between these two rules but not the connection you want to make to Temporary Immunity. Why are how these rules work relevant to the dicussion?

breithauptclan wrote:
Temporary Immunity does two things by default - it prevents you from using the ability on the target, and it prevents others from using that ability on the target too. In places where it is not intended to do both, it will say so.

Temporary Immunity doesn't state "this prevents multiple people from doing the same action on the same target at the same time". And if that was one of its main purposes, hadn't it been stated clearly there? As an example it says "For example, the blindness spell says, “The target is temporarily immune to blindness for 1 minute.” If anyone casts blindness on that creature again before 1 minute passes, the spell has no effect." To me it's clear that Temporary Immunity does not prevent anyone from casting Blindness on the target, only that there is no additional effect from it.

Nor do I find any other examples of when Temporary Immunity is used in an ability, action, item or spell where it is clear that "it prevents multiple people doing the same thing at the same time" must be the purpose of Temporary Immunity.

In my mind, interpreting that effect into Temporary Immunity is redundant because the rules on Aid already stipulates how you can help another do the same thing at the same time.


Cilng wrote:
To me it's clear that Temporary Immunity does not prevent anyone from casting Blindness on the target, only that there is no additional effect from it.

And the same is true of Treat Wounds actually. Another player can attempt to treat a temporarily immune character with Treat Wounds. The treated character in that case is simply unaffected by that application of treat wounds.

I'm not 100% sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Could you try to elaborate on exactly where you are coming from? Are you saying that the rules could be worded differently to be more specific? Or are you saying that you don't interpret the rules to work in the way posited up thread?


beowulf99 wrote:
I'm not 100% sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Could you try to elaborate on exactly where you are coming from? Are you saying that the rules could be worded differently to be more specific? Or are you saying that you don't interpret the rules to work in the way posited up thread?

Yes, thanks for asking! To me the rules are clear. But it's also clear that I have interpreted them differently from others in this thread. I see inconsistencies with the positions presented above and in order to shift my position I'd like to see arguments for their interpretations.

I have brought the topic to the table and spontaneous interpretations from some players have supported my position. One does not support it, and he has posted above.

At our table we have never had problems with how you work together in Pathfinder 2e. Repairing a shield comes up often and it's never been a topic that four PCs should be able to simultaneously Repair it in order for it to regain more hitpoints faster. All these cases are solved with the Aid action, which in the GM guide specifies it can be used for encounter mode or long-term actions (example "research). The mechanics for Aid also resonates in other portions of the game - Rituals is a good example.

I am surprised of the position that "nothing RAW prevents 4 players to simultaneously Make an Impression or Repair the same target". This, to me, is solved by Aid. And I don't see repairing a shield as a corner case, as it happen every session at our table.

Treat Wounds would follow the same logic. If someone would want to do Treat Wounds on the same target as someone else they would Aid them in Treat Wounds.

Therefore, to me, the writing of the overlap in Temporary Immunity in Treat Wounds is a thing purely for convenience. Think in hours, not in 70 minutes. And when you take Continual Recovery which explicitly states you have 10 minutes of Temporary Immunity you have that immunity after the application of Treat Wounds, preventing further applications as described in the Temporary Immunity rules.

Thinking in 20 minutes isn't as inconvenient as thinking in 70 minutes. 20 minutes allows the Champion to Refocus and Repair, for instance.

Hope that helps clarifying my interpretation and please point me towards any mistakes you see.


Cilng wrote:
please point me towards any mistakes you see.

There:

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


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.


Perhaps this is a summary of the arguments presented.

Argument:
The temporary immunity of Continual Recovery lasts for 10 minutes as stated in the feat, preventing further applications of the same effect for the duration of the immunity as stated in the temporary immunity rules

Counterargument:
The duration of the temporary immunity is expended during the activity itself as that is how Treat Wounds work

Counterargument
The default action of Treat Wounds has a specific writing of overlap that isn't existing anywhere else. Since Continual Recovery's writing is also specific, it should stand.

Counterargument:
Unless the target is immune against treat wounds during the actual treatment, several people at the same time could do it.

Counterargument:
Working together on the same task (and its restrictions) is solved via Aid, not via Temporary Immunity. Such reading is inconsistent with the rules of Temporary Immunity and ignores the existence of Aid

Counterargument:
Aid is an optional action to take. Nothing stops four PCs from Repairing the same item at the same time in RAW.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I will say, I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

Perhaps some others are, but to me the text is clear and not ambiguous.

If you reach a different conclusion, I'm not sure I can instruct you on how to read it to reach the same conclusion. For me the conclusion is as basic as replace where the rules text says 1 hour with 10 minutes in the description of treat wounds. As I already posted earlier.


Claxon wrote:

I will say, I'm not interested in trying to convince you.

Perhaps some others are, but to me the text is clear and not ambiguous.

If you reach a different conclusion, I'm not sure I can instruct you on how to read it to reach the same conclusion. For me the conclusion is as basic as replace where the rules text says 1 hour with 10 minutes in the description of treat wounds. As I already posted earlier.

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.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Treat Wounds, Continual Recovery and Time All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.