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.
That is flavor - not mechanics.
I could also flavor it that it is the same procedure (it is doing the same healing after all). It is just being done in 2 seconds instead of 10 minutes. And at that point it makes a lot less sense that trying to do it in 2 seconds doesn't have the possibility of doing damage like the 10 minute attempt does.
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.
Oops. Then I don't know of any other examples.
Yes, it would be rather silly to flavor it that way. You could if you wanted to, though. Even then it wouldn't be the silliest feat in the game. As for the existing flavor text,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.That is flavor - not mechanics.
I could also flavor it that it is the same procedure (it is doing the same healing after all). It is just being done in 2 seconds instead of 10 minutes. And at that point it makes a lot less sense that trying to do it in 2 seconds doesn't have the possibility of doing damage like the 10 minute attempt does.
"You can patch up wounds, even in combat."
That leaves a lot of room for how to flavor the procedure so that it does makes sense.
Here's the "fun" rules note.
You gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead.
So if you KO yourself with a failed treat wounds/battle medicine you go to dying 2, but if you KO your buddy they only go to dying 1.
Here's the "fun" rules note.
You gain the dying 1 condition. If the effect that knocked you out was a critical success from the attacker or the result of your critical failure, you gain the dying 2 condition instead.So if you KO yourself with a failed treat wounds/battle medicine you go to dying 2, but if you KO your buddy they only go to dying 1.
Yeah, that's another thing it seems the video got wrong. The guy downed himself and went to dying 2 (he was wounded) instead of dying 3.
Oops. Then I don't know of any other examples.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.
Wait a second, doesn't Goading Feint later state the following?
When you trick a foe, you can goad them into overextending their next attack. On a Feint, you can use the following success and critical success effects instead of any other effects you would gain when you Feint; if you do, other abilities that adjust the normal effects of your Feint no longer apply. You can choose whether to use the Goading Feint benefits or the normal benefits each time you Feint a given foe.Critical Success The target takes a –2 circumstance penalty to all attack rolls against you before the end of its next turn.
Success The target takes a –2 circumstance penalty to its next attack roll against you before the end of its next turn.
That seems to indicate that Goading Feint only swaps out the beneficial parts of Feint. I wouldn't call being flat-footed to my opponent a benefit.
That seems to indicate that Goading Feint only swaps out the beneficial parts of Feint. I wouldn't call being flat-footed to my opponent a benefit.
Again only if you squint in just the right way and interpret the word choices in exactly the way that you want to.
I see that sentence as saying that Goading Feint is still a full override of the entire result list, but that having Goading Feint doesn't prevent you from using a normal Feint. Each time you use the Feint action you can choose which of the two separate result sets to use - but you don't mix and match and create a hybrid combination of both sets.
This connotation is so clear that Paizo explicitly wrote in "dont remove wounded condition." Because without that written exception, people would read the rule and get the idea that it removes wounded. Because again 'do what Treat Wounds does' is so clearly connoted.
Chapter 9 of the CRB has this to say about redundant rules.
If a rule doesn’t specify otherwise, default to the general rules presented in this chapter. While some special rules may also state the normal rules to provide context, you should always default to the normal rules even if effects don’t specifically say to.
The presence of a sentence does not imply that the opposite is the norm. Restoring the corresponding amount of HP does not include removing the wounded condition, but it helps to redundantly say so anyway just to make sure there's no confusion. It certainly would have been nice if there was also a sentence about the damage, though.
That seems to indicate that Goading Feint only swaps out the beneficial parts of Feint. I wouldn't call being flat-footed to my opponent a benefit.Again only if you squint in just the right way and interpret the word choices in exactly the way that you want to.
I see that sentence as saying that Goading Feint is still a full override of the entire result list, but that having Goading Feint doesn't prevent you from using a normal Feint. Each time you use the Feint action you can choose which of the two separate result sets to use - but you don't mix and match and create a hybrid combination of both sets.
So taking the new benefits would remove the risk of being flat-footed and keeping the old ones wouldn't, eh? Alright, then. Anyway, I think I've found some examples of only specific degrees being overwritten. Stumbling Feint is a monk feat that lets you make a Feint as a free action and, if successful, alters what your target is flat-footed to. Overextending Feint is nearly identical to Goading Feint but only replaces effects if you succeed.
I suspect these weren't the kind of examples you were asking for, though. They explicitly mention the degree effect overwriting only sometimes happens rather than overwriting only a few specific degree effects. But it seems functionally the same as if they did just overwrite specific degree effects, so I don't think an effect using only some of another effect's degree outcomes is strange at all.
But I'm not trying to argue that Battle Medicine is ignoring the Treat Wounds crit fail entry. I'm trying to argue that Battle Medicine does refer to the Treat Wounds crit fail entry, but there's simply nothing for it to do because there are no Hit Points to restore. It's like walking up to a bookshelf looking for collect the manga there, but then walking away because the shelf only had textbooks.
I find that relying on the designers' intent to run a rule is kind of iffy when there's reasonable doubt over what that intent is. The Strike action can't target unattended objects? Well, it must be able to because there are feats that let your Strikes overcome an object's Hardness. The Steal action might require you to beat a higher Perception DC for observers who are distracted? Of course not, since that's the opposite of what being distracted does. The XP yielded by a level+4 hazard is a bit less than twice that of a hazard two levels below it, unlike every other hazard? It seems like a typo, and all doubt of that is removed when the preceding text cites the exact table that the second one is supposed to be a copy of.
These are the kind of rules where I think relying on intent is best, since there's no room for reasonable doubt about what the rule is supposed to do. And I don't think Battle Medicine is one of those rules. I find it reasonable to doubt that a rule that never mentions damage would deal damage anyway just as you find it reasonable to doubt that a feat would refer to another rule's outcomes and yet not use the damage listed. In such a case, I would defer to what's actually written in the feat rather than take a shot in the dark about what the authors wanted to write, but I concede that other tables do not need to do this. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Ahhhhhh. The "designers' intent" you agree with are totally factual, and the ones you disagree with are not.
Ahhhhhh. The "designers' intent" you agree with are totally factual, and the ones you disagree with are not.
I'm not talking about whether I agree with the intent, but whether something even is the intent. I'd be perfectly fine with Battle Medicine dealing damage as long as that is definitely the intent. But if my GM says it does damage, I'd be fine with that, too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intent of the rule isn't argued by fine details of the meaning of a particular word. Intent is argued based on some in-game or balance reasoning.
So is there any in-game reasoning that Battle Medicine wouldn't have the possibility of doing damage when Treat Wounds does? Is there a game balance problem with it?
All we have heard as arguments against Battle Medicine doing damage are literal game mechanics and word choices and meanings. That is the tools of someone arguing for strict RAW interpretation - not RAI intent and practical gameplay.
Intent of the rule isn't argued by fine details of the meaning of a particular word. Intent is argued based on some in-game or balance reasoning.
So is there any in-game reasoning that Battle Medicine wouldn't have the possibility of doing damage when Treat Wounds does? Is there a game balance problem with it?
All we have heard as arguments against Battle Medicine doing damage are literal game mechanics and word choices and meanings. That is the tools of someone arguing for strict RAW interpretation - not RAI intent and practical gameplay.
That's a good point. I'm going to look into this when I get home, since I don't know what to compare Battle Medicine to off the top of my head.
That's a good point. I'm going to look into this when I get home, since I don't know what to compare Battle Medicine to off the top of my head.Intent of the rule isn't argued by fine details of the meaning of a particular word. Intent is argued based on some in-game or balance reasoning.
So is there any in-game reasoning that Battle Medicine wouldn't have the possibility of doing damage when Treat Wounds does? Is there a game balance problem with it?
All we have heard as arguments against Battle Medicine doing damage are literal game mechanics and word choices and meanings. That is the tools of someone arguing for strict RAW interpretation - not RAI intent and practical gameplay.
...treat wounds?
seems like a perfect comparison...
Treat Wounds is a trained Medicine skill action. Anyone trained in Medicine can do it. Battle Medicine is a level 1 skill feat you must select to benefit from, so it's power should be compared to another level 1 skill feat.
It kind of is, but you won't find many Level 1 skill feats that do the same thing(s) that Battle Medicine does, so it seems silly to find a comparison for it.
That being said, it's quite clear that we won't reach a consensus because there isn't an agreement to be made here; you have your mind set that there is no Critical Failure consequences to Battle Medicine, and we all disagree.
Treat Wounds is a trained Medicine skill action. Anyone trained in Medicine can do it. Battle Medicine is a level 1 skill feat you must select to benefit from, so it's power should be compared to another level 1 skill feat.
That still sounds like you are looking at this from a game mechanics perspective - the RAW perspective. Which does also use game balance for its considerations. But it is game balance as compared to power levels of other feats and abilities.
For intent argument, it is more about game balance as in 'how does it feel emotionally to use this ability?' Does it give you that, 'Yeah, this feels like a useful thing to do, but not so powerful that it is outperforming what the other characters are able to do'. And 'Yeah, this makes sense. I can easily find ways to describe my character doing this that feel consistent with the way the world works.'
Or does it instead give you a feeling of 'It is strange that this works this way and I have trouble describing my actions in a way that makes any sense.' Or 'it feels really underwhelming to use this.' Or 'Yeah, it's good - but it is also really boring'.
It kind of is, but you won't find many Level 1 skill feats that do the same thing(s) that Battle Medicine does, so it seems silly to find a comparison for it.
In terms of HP restoration, yes, there's little for comparison. But in terms of the benefits conferred, something that prevents Hit Points from being lost in the first place may work for a comparison. For instance, if using a skill feat would let you lower an enemy's chance to hit, that's HP you're not losing, which is kind of like HP you regain.
Treat Wounds is a trained Medicine skill action. Anyone trained in Medicine can do it. Battle Medicine is a level 1 skill feat you must select to benefit from, so it's power should be compared to another level 1 skill feat.That still sounds like you are looking at this from a game mechanics perspective - the RAW perspective. Which does also use game balance for its considerations. But it is game balance as compared to power levels of other feats and abilities.
For intent argument, it is more about game balance as in 'how does it feel emotionally to use this ability?' Does it give you that, 'Yeah, this feels like a useful thing to do, but not so powerful that it is outperforming what the other characters are able to do'. And 'Yeah, this makes sense. I can easily find ways to describe my character doing this that feel consistent with the way the world works.'
Or does it instead give you a feeling of 'It is strange that this works this way and I have trouble describing my actions in a way that makes any sense.' Or 'it feels really underwhelming to use this.' Or 'Yeah, it's good - but it is also really boring'.
Fair, but I don't think there's an objective way to measure how good a feat feels to use, so I'm focusing on how literally powerful Battle Medicine would be compared to other options a character could pick. This isn't exactly napkin math, so this will take me a while.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, Battle Medicine is already one of the best 1st level Skill Feats when it can deal damage on a crit fail. Take that away and it would be even better.
I don't know any other skill feats that do something similar, but I might be missing something. The closest in a widely available 1st level feat I can think of is Shield Block (as a General, not Skill Feat), which most characters wouldn't be able to take until 3rd level.
Ok, it's time for a lot of white room math. I'll frequently be referring to the Moderate values in Building Creatures in the GMG. Assuming a level 1 character (some ancestry feats grant you a skill feat of your choice) with Wisdom as their key ability (so we can see Battle Medicine at its best), the total modifier for Medicine would probably be +7 against DC 15. So that crits on an natural 18 or higher (15%), succeeds on a natural 8 or higher (65%), and fails on a natural 1 (5%). 2d8 averages to 9. 1d8 averages to 4.5.
HP restored by Battle Medicine w/o damage = 0.65*9 + 0.15*9 = 7.2 HP per creature
HP restored by Battle Medicine w/ damage = 0.65*9 + 0.15*9 - 0.05*4.5 = 6.975 HP per creature
It's a very small difference, but let's continue by looking at feats that can protect or restore Hit Points mid-combat.
Assurance (Athletics) can be used for 3rd action Trip attacks to knock enemies prone, compelling them to waste an action that could have been spent making a second attack (I'm assuming they didn't want to make a third attack). It would also make them flat-footed and easier to kill, robbing them of more attacks. But the Trip would always yield 13 (ability modifier can't be added), so the target must have a Reflex DC of 13 or worse to be affected. A search on Archives of Nethys reveals that few monsters have a low enough Reflex DC for this (15/72 level -1 monsters, 5/60 level 0 monsters, 12/174 level 1 monsters, 5/185 level 2 monsters, and 3/168 level 3 monsters). So I doubt that this would make enough of a difference, even if the PC Trips multiple times in one battle. Assurance (Athletics) is probably best used for climbing and swimming rather than Tripping.
Cat Fall lets you treat falls as 10 feet shorter, so it protects 5 Hit Points per fall. There must actually be a fall to be had, though, so it's pretty situational. Battle Medicine is better for your HP than Cat Fall.
Intimidating Glare can protect HP because Demoralize (which works on a target only once much like Battle Medicine) lowers the enemy hit chance and increases your entire party's hit chance. Yes, you can Demoralize either way, but Intimidating Glare helps you Demoralize by removing the penalty incurred by not speaking the target's language. 363 of the 659 level 3 or lower monsters on AoN (41/72 level -1 monsters, 40/60 level 0 monsters, 86/174 level 1 monsters, 103/185 level 2 monsters, and 93/168 level 3 monsters) don't know Common, so Intimidating Glare should frequently be useful.
A level 1 creature with Moderate Strike damage does 1d6+2(5.5) damage on a hit. Frightened 1 would rob such a creature of 5% hit chance and 5% crit chance for every Strike, so that's 0.1*5.5=0.55 HP saved per Strike. If the monster Strikes twice, that's 1.1 HP saved by frightened 1. Frightened 2 would additionally rob the creature of 10% hit chance and 10% crit chance per Strike, so that's twice the HP saved on top of the HP saved by frightened 1 which immediately follows frightened 2. Assuming the monster has a Moderate Will DC of 17 and the PC has an Intimidation of +7, the average HP saved by a correct-language Demoralize is 0.55*1.1 + 0.05*2.2 = 0.715 HP. If the language is wrong, it's 0.35*1.1 + 0.05*2.2 = 0.495 HP. Since the language is wrong for 55% of the possible level 3 or lower monsters (assuming the players don't try languages other than common), this averages to 0.55*0.495 + 0.45*0.715 = 0.594 HP saved without Intimidating Glare. The extra HP that Intimidating Glare saves is 0.715 - 0.594 = 0.121 HP.
But we need to account for the AC penalty, too. Assuming that 3 fellow level 1 PCs do about two Moderate (1d6+2) Strikes each against the target, that's 3*2*0.1*5.5=3.3 extra damage due to frightened 1, and an additional amount equal to twice as much for frightened 2. So the total extra average damage of a correct-language Demoralize is 0.55*3.3 + 0.05*6.6 = 2.145 damage. If the language is wrong, it's 0.35*3.3 + 0.05*6.6 = 1.485 damage. On average, Demoralize without Intimidating Glare will effectively deal 0.55*1.485 + 0.45*2.145 = 1.782 damage. The extra damage effectively dealt with Intimidating Glare is 2.145 - 1.782 = 0.363 damage, which I don't think is enough to prevent an attack from the creature. Battle Medicine is better for your HP than Intimidating Glare. Demoralize is still a strong option for those who invest in Intimidation, but Intimidating Glare doesn't seem to do much for it.
Yeah, I'm changing my mind about this. Battle Medicine looks really good compared to the competition even with the damage on a crit fail.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you are also missing in that analysis is that while Intimidating Glare lets you do something you can’t normally do (demoralize without a shared language), it is an expansion of something you can already do (demoralize with a shared language). Someone without Intimidating Glare can still Demoralize, just not against every enemy.
Same for Assurance (Athletics). Anyone with Athletics can trip an opponent. Assurance just sets the value of the die roll.
Without Battle Medicine, you can’t Treat Wounds in combat at all. It is an entirely new action. Not the expansion of an existing action. And on top of that the math is really good for Battle Medicine even with the crit fail. Which, if you really want to eliminate the crit fail effect, just take Assurance (Medicine), and you don’t have to worry about it after 3rd level.