I just saw some players on YouTube get a TPK. It was mostly due to bad luck and suboptimal tactics, but one of the contributing factors was that a player tried to use https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=760 and got a critical failure, taking 1d8 damage and knocking himself out. The Battle Medicine feat, however, doesn't seem to support this outcome.
You can patch up wounds, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP; this doesn't remove the wounded condition. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day.
There's nothing in the feat saying "deal the corresponding damage," and I believe that if the developers intended for the damage to be dealt, the feat would say to "apply the corresponding effect" and keep the text that prevents Battle Medicine from curing the wounded condition. There have been other threads about this subject, but it appears the feat text has received errata since then, so I thought I'd make a new one. Thoughts?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corresponding means it follows the same stages.
You can restore negative HP :)
Treat wounds only mentions "Hit Points the target regains" but it can still hurt you when you crit fail, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will agree that the wording for Battle Medicine is a bit unclear, since it's trying to disassociate itself from being like Treat Wounds (meaning for things referencing Treat Wounds, Battle Medicine wouldn't count for it), but the intent is quite clear that it would reference the four stages of Treat Wounds, otherwise "corresponding amount of HP" is too nebulous to understand.
It would also be weird that you could deal damage to allies in a controlled non-hostile environment, but not in an encounter-based one, given that you have significantly less time to heal in-combat compared to out-of-combat, so it makes sense, and I would imagine most GMs rule the same way here too.
Corresponding means it follows the same stages.
You can restore negative HP :)
Treat wounds only mentions "Hit Points the target regains" but it can still hurt you when you crit fail, right?
There's no such thing as negative HP. Damage reduces Hit Points. It does not count as Hit Points.
I will agree that the wording for Battle Medicine is a bit unclear, since it's trying to disassociate itself from being like Treat Wounds (meaning for things referencing Treat Wounds, Battle Medicine wouldn't count for it), but the intent is quite clear that it would reference the four stages of Treat Wounds, otherwise "corresponding amount of HP" is too nebulous to understand.
It does not seem obvious that Battle Medicine dealing damage would be intended, since Battle Medicine only refers to the restoration of Hit Points even though damage is another possible effect of Treat Wounds.
It would also be weird that you could deal damage to allies in a controlled non-hostile environment, but not in an encounter-based one, given that you have significantly less time to heal in-combat compared to out-of-combat, so it makes sense, and I would imagine most GMs rule the same way here too.
Is it really any weirder than condensing 10 minutes of careful first aid into 2 seconds and getting the same effect? Battle Medicine already boosts your medicinal effectiveness just for taking it. And it only works on a given target once per day.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Restoring negative hp” was just a tongue in cheek to say “do damage.”
If you want to insist on this interpretation the wording on treat wounds also prohibits doing damage on a crit fail because the flavor text only says “regains.”
“Restore corresponding hit points” seems very clear. If it wasn’t intended to skirt damage on a crit fail it would explicitly say it is overriding that one component.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see many GMs buying this argument, but YMMV.
If you want to insist on this interpretation the wording on treat wounds also prohibits doing damage on a crit fail because the flavor text only says “regains.”
“Restore corresponding hit points” seems very clear. If it wasn’t intended to skirt damage on a crit fail it would explicitly say it is overriding that one component.
Flavor text? The only flavor text is the first sentence saying, "You can patch up wounds, even in combat." Everything else in Battle Medicine is an actual rule governing Battle Medicine, and nothing in Battle Medicine suggests that it's using the damage effect of Treat Wounds in addition to its Hit Point restoring effects. If you were under an effect that granted you a +2 status bonus to any Hit Points restored, taking damage would not count as "restoring negative Hit Points," so the bonus would not help mitigate the damage.
So you are contending that the single word "restore" clearly overrides the crit fail part of the corresponding hp.
Again, by this logic treat wounds cannot do damage on a crit fail either, because it says "The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains."
Now, the way I've always run it is that we follow "corresponding HP" logic to treat wounds which just like Battle Medicine doesn't explicitly mention taking damage in its prose.
I will agree that the wording for Battle Medicine is a bit unclear, since it's trying to disassociate itself from being like Treat Wounds (meaning for things referencing Treat Wounds, Battle Medicine wouldn't count for it), but the intent is quite clear that it would reference the four stages of Treat Wounds, otherwise "corresponding amount of HP" is too nebulous to understand.It does not seem obvious that Battle Medicine dealing damage would be intended, since Battle Medicine only refers to the restoration of Hit Points even though damage is another possible effect of Treat Wounds.
It would also be weird that you could deal damage to allies in a controlled non-hostile environment, but not in an encounter-based one, given that you have significantly less time to heal in-combat compared to out-of-combat, so it makes sense, and I would imagine most GMs rule the same way here too.Is it really any weirder than condensing 10 minutes of careful first aid into 2 seconds and getting the same effect? Battle Medicine already boosts your medicinal effectiveness just for taking it. And it only works on a given target once per day.
Again, I blame the fact that it's trying to use Treat Wounds mechanics without actually utilizing the Treat Wounds activity, but given that it uses Treat Wounds for determining how much healing is done, and Treat Wounds has damage dealt on a Critical Failure (despite listing "regaining HP" within its texts), means this is a Specific Trumps General rule. Yes, Battle Medicine will often restore the "corresponding amount of HP," but suggesting that it lets you ignore Critical Failure results compared to Treat Wounds isn't really viable given that Treat Wounds uses similar language, and still presents a possibility of damaging the target of your treatment.
Handwaving realism to make a feat work is different than blatantly choosing to ignore potential negative consequences of actions that they normally possess, especially when there are feats and abilities that let you effectively reduce or ignore such potential negative consequences, like Evasion, Juggernaut, Sneak Savant, etc. Treat Wounds having a Critical Failure entry doesn't mean Battle Medicine gets to ignore it's effects due to a poor choice of wording.
Yeah, I would agree with Doug Hahn. Treat Wounds itself doesn't mention causing damage in its rules description - just in the result outcomes.
And Battle Medicine uses the outcomes of Treat Wounds. So even though it also doesn't mention causing damage, since it uses the critical failure result of Treat Wounds, it still can cause damage.
Treat Wounds deals damage via its crit fail entry, bur that has nothing to do with the fact that the amount of Hit Points restored depends on the degree of success. The crit fail entry simply says it does damage. There is no need to assume that the "restoring of HP" Treat Wounds mentions should be interpreted as damage in the case of a crit fail. And there is no need to assume that Battle Medicine would need to be interpreted that way either.
Basically, I'm not saying the word "restore" is overriding the crit fail damage from Treat Wounds. I'm saying that Battle Medicine's text doesn't support applying that damage in the first place.
As for whether Battle Medicine is balanced without that damage, I don't know.
Wha...
The crit fail entry... has nothing to do... with the degree of success...
Wha...
The crit fail entry... has nothing to do... with the degree of success...
That's not what I'm saying. The amount of Hit Points restored for a Treat Wounds crit fail is 0. The amount of damage it deals is 1d8. The damage is not restoration of HP.
That's not what I'm saying. The amount of Hit Points restored for a Treat Wounds crit fail is 0. The amount of damage it deals is 1d8. The damage is not restoration of HP.Wha...
The crit fail entry... has nothing to do... with the degree of success...
And you are still missing the point that the rest of us are trying to make.
There is nothing here in the rules for Treat Wounds
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). 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).
The Medicine check DC is usually 15, though the GM might adjust it based on the circumstances, such as treating a patient outside in a storm, or treating magically cursed wounds. If you’re an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 10; if you’re a master of Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 30 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 30; and if you’re legendary, you can instead attempt a DC 40 check to increase the Hit Points regained by 50. The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.
If you succeed at your check, you can continue treating the target to grant additional healing. If you treat them for a total of 1 hour, double the Hit Points they regain from Treat Wounds.
The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.
that says that Treat Wounds ever deals damage other than the mention about the results of critical failure.
So the same logic that you are using to say that Battle Medicine can't deal damage applies to Treat Wounds too.
On a critical failure of a Treat Wounds action, the target regains 0 HP.
The only reason that Treat Wounds would be dealing damage is because of the critical failure results. Which are also referenced in Battle Medicine.
Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP
Reading that as not being able to use the critical failure result of Treat Wounds falls deep into the Too Good To Be True territory. Battle Medicine uses the same outcomes for the degree of success that Treat Wounds does - including dealing damage on a critical failure.
The logic I am using to say that Battle Medicine doesn't deal damage is simply that it doesn't say so, nor does it say it is using the damaging properties of Treat Wounds. It only refers to the restoration of HP. The same logic doesn't apply to Treat Wounds because Treat Wounds *does* say that it does damage.
Neither Treat Wounds nor Battle Medicine are claiming that damage dealt is a form of restoring HP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The logic I am using to say that Battle Medicine doesn't deal damage is simply that it doesn't say so, nor does it say it is using the damaging properties of Treat Wounds.
The feat gives you all the information you need. It also does not explicitly state that anything happens on a critical success or failure. Attempt a check, receive health. Pass, fail, die rolled off the table- who cares! It was the attempt that mattered, receive your hp! It is only functional if you refer back to treat injury and apply the results as normal. If additional modifications were intended, they would have been stated. Group consensus has been pretty clear on this one, houserule it if you need to change it.
The logic I am using to say that Battle Medicine doesn't deal damage is simply that it doesn't say so, nor does it say it is using the damaging properties of Treat Wounds.The feat gives you all the information you need. It also does not explicitly state that anything happens on a critical success or failure. Attempt a check, receive health. Pass, fail, die rolled off the table- who cares! It was the attempt that mattered, receive your hp! It is only functional if you refer back to treat injury and apply the results as normal. If additional modifications were intended, they would have been stated. Group consensus has been pretty clear on this one, houserule it if you need to change it.
Battle Medicine is saying to use the amount of restored HP based on what Treat Wounds yields for the degree of success you got. It's not saying to use any damage Treat Wounds would deal for the degree of success you got. I agree that if additional modifications were intended, they would have been stated, but I'm claiming the modification in this case is the damage while you are claiming it's the absence of damage.
you can houserule it as you wish.
The raw is pretty clear on this one:
if you crit fail, you take damage.battle medicine uses the exact same language as treat wounds, neither mentions you taking damage, but both do on a crit fail.
Treat Wounds DOES mention you taking damage. And that mentioned damage is NOT in the sentence about restored HP that shares common wording with Battle Medicine, but instead in separate text about the outcome of a critical failure. This further suggests that Battle Medicine doesn't make use of the damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you are using Battle Medicine and you get a success - where do you go to know how much HP change you get?
The degree of success list from Treat Wounds, yes? Where else could you possibly go? That is what the 'corresponding amount of HP' means.
So if you have to use that list of degrees of success from Treat Wounds for success and critical success ... then you also have to use it for critical failure. That is fair.
If you are using Battle Medicine and you get a success - where do you go to know how much HP change you get?
The degree of success list from Treat Wounds, yes? Where else could you possibly go? That is what the 'corresponding amount of HP' means.
So if you have to use that list of degrees of success from Treat Wounds for success and critical success ... then you also have to use it for critical failure. That is fair.
Battle Medicine doesn't say "HP change". It says "restore the corresponding amount of HP". That's more restrictive and doesn't allow for damage. So if you get a crit fail for Battle Medicine, you still go to the degree of success list and check the critical failure entry, but there are no Hit Points to restore, so nothing happens.
There are actually already some threads on both this forum and Reddit regarding Battle Medicine crit fails. I had dismissed them in my post because of errata since then, but it seems that said errata didn't have anything to do with Battle Medicine damage (it was about free hand requirements), so the arguments made on either side of this issue were unaffected.
There are actually already some threads on both this forum and Reddit regarding Battle Medicine crit fails. I had dismissed them in my post because of errata since then, but it seems that said errata didn't have anything to do with Battle Medicine damage (it was about free hand requirements), so the arguments made on either side of this issue were unaffected.
A brief search on Reddit shows the same answer: the crit fail is included. I don't see much debate there except for a couple random comments that are pretty soundly refuted. I'm not familiar with any threads on this forum where this question is up in the air. Perhaps you can link some of them?
People tried politely explaining the rule to you and that is all we can do.
⠀• If you are a player, your GM has the final say even if you disagree.
⠀• If you are a GM you are free to use your house rule interpretation.
Threads where it's more up in the air:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42te7?Can-Battle-Medicine-hurt-you#1
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/t1hdhv/crit_fail_battle_medi cine/
And I've tried to politely discuss the rule, too. But the impression I'm getting from some of these comments is that I should just jump on the bandwagon already. I am well aware of the point everyone is making. I just don't agree with the logic behind it.
That reddit thread and the paizo thread have people saying the same things they are here.
I think you are getting push back because you posed this as an ask for discussion where in reality you had your mind made up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"up in the air" means there's no conclusion. It seems pretty conclusive in those threads that everyone is on the "Yes it does damage" train.
You asked a question, and everyone said it works a certain way, yet you are intent on arguing that it isn't that way. You're interpretation was incorrect, that's not a bad thing. This isn't a bandwagon, this is the only wagon, and you're alone standing to the side yelling at everyone else that they're wrong.
I didn't check the reddit thread. But this one:
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42te7?Can-Battle-Medicine-hurt-you#1
went the same way that this thread did. One person raised the question of if Battle Medicine can cause damage since it only lists doing healing.
Then three people came on the thread to say that it does and should. Because it uses the same degrees of success that Treat Wounds does.
The only thing 'up in the air' on that other thread is the question about if Battle Medicine removes the Wounded condition - and that was added to the rules text in errata after that thread was made.
I am well aware of the point everyone is making. I just don't agree with the logic behind it.
Question: Do you just not like the results of the logic that everyone else is using, or do you not understand it?
What part of the logic do you not agree with?
The logic being:
Battle Medicine 'does the corresponding amount of healing' as Treat Wounds.
That is interpreted to mean that it uses the same results based on the degrees of success listed in Treat Wounds.
Treat Wounds does damage on a critical failure.
Treat Wounds also say that it only does 'HP recovery' - except in one line that is about using the higher levels of proficiency where it states that the amount of damage done does not change when using increased proficiency.
Therefore, Battle Medicine also deals damage on critical failure.
I'm sure the OP fully understands the logic of Battle Medicine, since he keeps returning to the same point so as to provike others into contradicting him.
In some games, you use fire on those sorts of creatures, to stop their regeneration.
My initial post here wasn't "How does this feat work?" It was "I'm pretty sure this feat doesn't do this, but I'm interested in hearing other people's thoughts about it." I didn't intend to paint it as anything else. And I don't intend to give the impression that I'm yelling my arguments at everyone.
Thank you all for your thoughts so far. If it isn't too much trouble, I'd like to resume the discussion about Battle Medicine.
So the crux of the argument in favor of Battle Medicine dealing damage on a critical failure is that this statement
The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.refers to this
and is also intended to refer to this.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.So when Battle Medicine similarly states this,
Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP; this doesn't remove the wounded condition.
it stands to reason that the feat also refers to Critical Success, Success, and Critical Failure entries of Treat Wounds. Is my assessment of this argument accurate?
(I see that breithauptclan has posted replies while I was typing. The part of the logic I disagree with is about the Treat Wounds sentence about what "determines how many Hit Points the target regains" referring to the damage in the crit fail in addition to the HP in the crit success and success.)
That's pretty much it.
None of us can figure out how it could be reasonable that when Treat Wounds says 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' it includes the critical failure results, but when Battle Medicine says practically the same thing, it somehow doesn't include crit fail result.
Just like so many other strict "rules as written" discussions, it's time to spin our tires dissecting atomic-level semantics to support one side or the other.
Maybe OP has discovered that the whole PF community has been doing BM wrong for almost 4 years. I guess no one will ever know.
That's pretty much it.
None of us can figure out how it could be reasonable that when Treat Wounds says 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' it includes the critical failure results, but when Battle Medicine says practically the same thing, it somehow doesn't include crit fail result.
So if the Treat Wounds sentence 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' was not referring to the damage dealt on a critical failure, then that would mean that Battle Medicine, which says practically the same thing, is also not referring to the damage Treat Wounds deals on a critical failure, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if the Treat Wounds sentence 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' was not referring to the damage dealt on a critical failure, then that would mean that Battle Medicine, which says practically the same thing, is also not referring to the damage Treat Wounds deals on a critical failure, right?That's pretty much it.
None of us can figure out how it could be reasonable that when Treat Wounds says 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' it includes the critical failure results, but when Battle Medicine says practically the same thing, it somehow doesn't include crit fail result.
Yes. But that would also mean that Treat Wounds also wouldn't deal any damage on a critical failure.
So it seems really, really strange to write in a critical failure result that is not used because it deals damage instead of listing an amount of HP regained.
Just like so many other strict "rules as written" discussions, it's time to spin our tires dissecting atomic-level semantics to support one side or the other.
Yeah. It happens.
I find it interesting to see how other people think though, so I don't mind too much.
So if the Treat Wounds sentence 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' was not referring to the damage dealt on a critical failure, then that would mean that Battle Medicine, which says practically the same thing, is also not referring to the damage Treat Wounds deals on a critical failure, right?That's pretty much it.
None of us can figure out how it could be reasonable that when Treat Wounds says 'The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.' it includes the critical failure results, but when Battle Medicine says practically the same thing, it somehow doesn't include crit fail result.
Yes. But that would also mean that Treat Wounds also wouldn't deal any damage on a critical failure.
So it seems really, really strange to write in a critical failure result that is not used because it deals damage instead of listing an amount of HP regained.
Would it really prevent Treat Wounds from dealing damage? If the sentence isn't referring to damage, that means the sentence is neither enforcing nor waiving the damage, so the Treat Wounds crit fail would still deal damage due to the crit fail entry, right?
Would it really prevent Treat Wounds from dealing damage? If the sentence isn't referring to damage, that means the sentence is neither enforcing nor waiving the damage, so the Treat Wounds crit fail would still deal damage due to the crit fail entry, right?
If that sentence in Treat Wounds:
The result of your Medicine check determines how many Hit Points the target regains.
doesn't include the critical failure results, what does indicate that Treat Wounds can deal damage?
The only other place in the text that mentions dealing damage is in the section on increasing the effects by increasing the DC as long as you have the required proficiency.
The damage dealt on a critical failure remains the same.
And even there, it doesn't state directly that Treat Wounds deals damage, it says that the amount of damage Treat Wounds deals doesn't change from increasing the proficiency requirements and effects.
Which heavily implies that Treat Wounds can deal damage even if only using the Trained proficiency and the DC 15 check.
But where does it say that?
So if Treat Wounds doesn't say that it can deal damage anywhere other than the critical failure results - which aren't included in the sentence quoted above about Treat Wounds causing Hit Points to be regained, then nothing does. The critical failure results aren't valid for the rule text because they deal damage instead of restoring HP, and the rule says to only use the results of the check to determine 'how many Hit Points the target regains'.
So if that sentence is not including the critical failure results, then Treat Wounds does not deal damage on a critical failure.
And if you can find some logical reason to say that the line in Treat Wounds does include the critical failure result that deals damage, then I can also use that exact same logic to say that Battle Medicine does as well. Unless you are somehow going to find a distinction between the words 'restore' and 'regain' as it pertains to Hit Points - where one involves dealing damage and the other doesn't.
Treat Wounds's critical failure entry says it does damage. Isn't that enough to enable Treat Wounds to deal damage? If the sentence in question was absent, you'd still refer to all the entries for the degrees of success to determine what happens to the target. Does each degree of success entry need permission from preceding text or else it might as well not exist?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to reiterate the absurdity of this approach. Battle Medicine does not tell us what to do on a critical success, success, failure or critical failure. It seems strange to single out the idea "Battle Medicine does not specify it deals damage on a critical failure" while overlooking that it does not tell us what to do on any other result either.
Battle Medicine
Feat 1
General Healing Manipulate Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 258 4.0
Prerequisites trained in Medicine
Requirements You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free
You can patch up wounds, even in combat. Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds and restore the corresponding amount of HP; this doesn't remove the wounded condition. As with Treat Wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. The target is then temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 day.
Attempt check, receive health. Plain as day. Not only does it not do damage on a critical failure, you in fact still get your healing.
Please note I am not actually advocating for this approach. It is technically correct (the best kind of correct) and could be viewed Rules As Written. More importantly, I would like to see our assumptions taken to their logical conclusion. If anyone is going to try and tell me that Battle Medicine does not rely upon Treat Wounds to establish its functionality then they had better go on to conclude that Battle Medicine does not even need that d20 to stop rolling. Is it too much to ask that we present our nonsense in an internally consistent and fully developed format?
Treat Wounds's critical failure entry says it does damage. Isn't that enough to enable Treat Wounds to deal damage?
Since Battle Medicine doesn't have its own degrees of success and uses the ones from Treat Wounds:
Treat Wound's critical failure entry says it does damage. Isn't that enough to enable Battle Medicine to deal damage?
If the results table was copied over into the text for Battle Medicine, would you have any argument?
I am not aware of anything that references a degree of success outcome table from something else that doesn't include all of the outcomes or none of them.
So I don't see Battle Medicine being an exception to this. Either it has no degree of success outcomes for its Medicine check (and therefore we don't have any idea how much healing it does on a success), or it is using all of the outcomes from Treat Wounds.
Does each degree of success entry need permission from preceding text or else it might as well not exist?
Basic Saving Throws do have that.
Gale Blast mentions a saving throw and then gives the outcome list.Goading Feint references Feint and overrides all of the outcomes.
Can you provide an example of an effect that just lists out a degree of success table without some supporting rules text to tell us what it is used for and why it is included?
Attempt check, receive health. Plain as day. Not only does it not do damage on a critical failure, you in fact still get your healing.
Please note I am not actually advocating for this approach. It is technically correct (the best kind of correct) and could be viewed Rules As Written. More importantly, I would like to see our assumptions taken to their logical conclusion. If anyone is going to try and tell me that Battle Medicine does not rely upon Treat Wounds to establish its functionality then they had better go on to conclude that Battle Medicine does not even need that d20 to stop rolling. Is it too much to ask that we present our nonsense in an internally consistent and fully developed format?
No one here is arguing that a fail or crit fail with Battle Medicine restores HP. Treat Wounds fail and crit fail make no mention of HP, so Battle Medicine fail and crit fail have no reason to restore HP. We'll probably come back to this point later. For now, we're focusing on Treat Wounds and what enables it to deal damage in the first place. I'll get back to you in a moment, breithauptclan.
Treat Wounds's critical failure entry says it does damage. Isn't that enough to enable Treat Wounds to deal damage?Since Battle Medicine doesn't have its own degrees of success and uses the ones from Treat Wounds:
Treat Wound's critical failure entry says it does damage. Isn't that enough to enable Battle Medicine to deal damage?
Battle Medicine does indeed use the degrees of success of Treat Wounds, but only to refer to the corresponding amount of HP that needs to be restored. It's not copying everything from Treat Wounds, so no, I don't believe the fact that Treat Wound's critical failure entry says it does damage is enough to enable Battle Medicine to deal damage.
If the results table was copied over into the text for Battle Medicine, would you have any argument?
Absolutely not. In that case, Battle Medicine would explicitly state that a crit fail does damage.
I am not aware of anything that references a degree of success outcome table from something else that doesn't include all of the outcomes or none of them.So I don't see Battle Medicine being an exception to this. Either it has no degree of success outcomes for its Medicine check (and therefore we don't have any idea how much healing it does on a success), or it is using all of the outcomes from Treat Wounds.
It is crucial to note that Battle Medicine is not Treat Wounds. It requires a Medicine check just like Treat Wounds. It restores the amount of HP described in Treat Wounds. You can even increase the DC for better healing just like Treat Wounds. But since it is not actually Treat Wounds, it stands to reason that any additional similarities would have to be explicitly spelled out.
Does each degree of success entry need permission from preceding text or else it might as well not exist?Basic Saving Throws do have that.
Gale Blast mentions a saving throw and then gives the outcome list.
Goading Feint references Feint and overrides all of the outcomes.Can you provide an example of an effect that just lists out a degree of success table without some supporting rules text to tell us what it is used for and why it is included?
The Squeeze action is an Acrobatics skill action that doesn't give any context for its degree of success table. In fact, the only mention it makes of a skill check is to tell you that there are many cases where spaces you move through only impose difficult terrain and don't require a check. Because it is an Acrobatics skill action, though, it is clear what the feat is saying: Make an Acrobatics check and refer to the degree entries to see what happens. Squeeze could have had a sentence telling you to roll Acrobatics and refer to the degree entries, but that would just be a reminder of a general rule that exists either way.
No one here is arguing that a fail or crit fail with Battle Medicine restores HP.
Pretty sure I did to demonstrate a point.
Treat Wounds fail and crit fail make no mention of HP
Treat Wounds absolutely discusses HP on a critical failure, it specifies 1d8 damage.
Battle Medicine does indeed use the degrees of success of Treat Wounds, but only to refer to the corresponding amount of HP that needs to be restored.
It does not ever explicitly refer to the degrees of success of Treat Wounds, it in fact refers to the DC. This is relevant as higher DCs come with more healing.
it stands to reason that any additional similarities would have to be explicitly spelled out.
It also stands to reason that any additional exceptions would have to be spelled out.
You seem to understand that Battle Medicine relies upon Treat Wounds to determine its functionality. Can you provide any sort of reference that supports picking and choosing which parts of the skill check you like? Writing in additional exceptions to the Battle Medicine feat is a topic more suited to the house rule forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Medicine does indeed use the degrees of success of Treat Wounds, but only to refer to the corresponding amount of HP that needs to be restored. It's not copying everything from Treat Wounds, so no, I don't believe the fact that Treat Wound's critical failure entry says it does damage is enough to enable Battle Medicine to deal damage.
Then that is at least where the fundamental difference is.
As I mentioned before, I see no other examples where one ability references the degree of success outcomes of another ability - but only some of them. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.
And while you might be able to claim that if the sentence in Treat Wounds about the outcomes determining how much HP is restored was absent then we could still use the degrees of success that it lists. But that sentence does exist. And it tells us how to use those degrees of success in very nearly identical language to how Battle Medicine does.
I don't think you have proven that we shouldn't use all of the degree of success outcomes from Treat Wounds. At best you can say that it is ambiguous whether they should all be used or not.
And at that point, then we are going to look at the Ambiguous Rules rule and have to determine if it makes logical sense to have Treat Wounds have a chance of dealing damage when you work on someone for 10 minutes, but Battle Medicine doesn't even though it is done in 1 action and heals the same amount if successful. I don't think it makes sense. From the look of it, very few other people that you are going to be playing the game with are going to think so either. So be aware of and expecting that.
Battle Medicine does indeed use the degrees of success of Treat Wounds, but only to refer to the corresponding amount of HP that needs to be restored. It's not copying everything from Treat Wounds, so no, I don't believe the fact that Treat Wound's critical failure entry says it does damage is enough to enable Battle Medicine to deal damage.Then that is at least where the fundamental difference is.
As I mentioned before, I see no other examples where one ability references the degree of success outcomes of another ability - but only some of them. It just doesn't make any sense to do that.
You already quoted one. Goading Feint overrides the outcomes for two specific degrees of success and leaves the others unchanged.
And while you might be able to claim that if the sentence in Treat Wounds about the outcomes determining how much HP is restored was absent then we could still use the degrees of success that it lists. But that sentence does exist. And it tells us how to use those degrees of success in very nearly identical language to how Battle Medicine does.
Or the sentence is just pointing out that the degree of success determines how many Hit Points the target regains, which is true regardless of the damage dealt on a critical failure.
I don't think you have proven that we shouldn't use all of the degree of success outcomes from Treat Wounds. At best you can say that it is ambiguous whether they should all be used or not.And at that point, then we are going to look at the Ambiguous Rules rule and have to determine if it makes logical sense to have Treat Wounds have a chance of dealing damage when you work on someone for 10 minutes, but Battle Medicine doesn't even though it is done in 1 action and heals the same amount if successful. I don't think it makes sense. From the look of it, very few other people that you are going to be playing the game with are going to think so either. So be aware of and expecting that.
Yeah, I won't expect any table I join to run Battle Medicine without damage. I just think it's odd that the accepted interpretation requires us to look at damage and call it Hit Points. And the alternative doesn't seen too far-fetched. A medical procedure that someone trained in Medicine can do in two seconds sounds a lot less risky than a 10 minute one, with the drawback that it's not so effective that you can expect it to work on the same patient all day.
You already quoted one. Goading Feint overrides the outcomes for two specific degrees of success and leaves the others unchanged.
Nope
On a Feint, you can use the following success and critical success effects instead of any other effects you would gain when you Feint;
Goading Feint replaces all of them.