Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
The Medicine skill has the following associated activities:
Untrained Administer First Aid
Trained Treat Disease, Treat Poison, Treat Wounds.
The Natural Medicine Feat says "You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination."
Is Natural Medicine only applicable to Treat Wounds, or can it be applied the other activities under "medicine"?
Oddly, the Healing Trait says "A healing effect restores a creature's body, typically by restoring Hit Points, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects" but only Treat Wounds among Medicine's activities has the Healing Trait. Seems to me they should all have it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Natural medicine allows you to use Nature instead of medicine for treat wounds only. You cannot use it to treat disease, treat poison, or administer first aid.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I mean it says it right there. "You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds" not "You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Disease" or anything else.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Natural Medicine actually showed up in one of the previewed pages of the Remaster from the GenCon Stream. It now reads---
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds, including higher Nature proficiency letting you attempt more difficult checks. It doesn't replace Medicine for uses of the skill other than Treat Wounds or for feat prerequisites. Ravingdork made a post made a pdf of these pages. It's on page 28 of the pdf.
And it also does not apply to Battle Medicine because the latter is not Treat Wounds.
Yep. It is almost totally worthless.
Yep. Badly written feat with no purpose. Could have been a good feat if they allowed you to use Nature instead of Medicine for everything involved in medicine including feats to simulate that natural world healer. But they wrote it in a way that made it pointless.
How dare the powers that be want to keep the Medicine skill relevant instead of just letting Nature take all of magic identification, creature identification, and everything involving healing.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Farien wrote: How dare the powers that be want to keep the Medicine skill relevant instead of just letting Nature take all of magic identification, creature identification, and everything involving healing. Why create the feat then ? To give a taste of the forbidden fruit ?
I don't think its a bad or worthless feat. A ranger that is going to up his Nature skill at the first chance he can is now able to heal 2d8+10 to an ally with the cost of only one level 1 feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kelseus wrote: I don't think its a bad or worthless feat. A ranger that is going to up his Nature skill at the first chance he can is now able to heal 2d8+10 to an ally with the cost of only one level 1 feat. You still need Expert medicine to heal for 2d8+10.
Which makes it kinda pointless.
That said, I prefer to either leave it as it is, or remove it, rather than making it fully count as Medicine.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote: Farien wrote: How dare the powers that be want to keep the Medicine skill relevant instead of just letting Nature take all of magic identification, creature identification, and everything involving healing. Why create the feat then ? To give a taste of the forbidden fruit ? I mean it's a single low level skill feat that gives you access to cheap of combat healing without having to invest any skill increases in medicine. That seems perfectly fine.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
shroudb wrote: Kelseus wrote: I don't think its a bad or worthless feat. A ranger that is going to up his Nature skill at the first chance he can is now able to heal 2d8+10 to an ally with the cost of only one level 1 feat. You still need Expert medicine to heal for 2d8+10.
Which makes it kinda pointless.
That said, I prefer to either leave it as it is, or remove it, rather than making it fully count as Medicine. This is false.
Per the official clarification on the FAQ/errata page:
Quote: When I use Natural Medicine, can I attempt the higher-DC checks even though I'm not using Medicine?
You absolutely can. Essentially, you replace any mention of “Medicine” in the activity with “Nature” if you’re using Natural Medicine. You do still need healer’s tools.
Also, note that this feat applies only to using Treat Wounds. You would still need to be an expert in Medicine, not Nature, to select the Ward Medic feat. If you did qualify for and did select Ward Medic, you would be able to use Nature to Treat Wounds for two targets. You’d still need to become a master or legendary in Medicine to treat more targets than that.
The feat isn't a full replacement for medicine, and isn't the best pick for everyone, but it can be useful to some characters who wanted to raise Nature already. The most important feats to improve Treat Wounds do require Expert Medicine, but there are a lot more ways to get an extra skill to Expert than to raise an extra skill all the way to Legendary.
The Raven Black wrote: Farien wrote: How dare the powers that be want to keep the Medicine skill relevant instead of just letting Nature take all of magic identification, creature identification, and everything involving healing. Why create the feat then ? To give a taste of the forbidden fruit ? It does let you use Treat Wounds.
It may be less useful than picking up Medicine skill and the associated feats like Continual Recovery. But it isn't worthless.
If you are already trained in Nature due to your class (Druid, Thaumaturge, Primal Sorcerer/Witch/Summoner, ...) then all it costs you is one level 1 skill feat. You don't have to spend a skill boost or two into Medicine.
And if all you spend on Medicine is one skill boost, it isn't going to be any better than your Natural Medicine. You have to spend at least two skill boosts in Medicine and then spend more skill feats into making Medicine actually be better than focus spell healing. After all of that, then your Medicine healing is good.
But I don't see any good game balance or narrative reason why knowing Nature should mean that you can do healing using that skill as a complete replacement for Medicine. It sounds more like people who are strapped for skill boosts, but can't find skill feats that they like, are wanting to get extra mileage out of their Nature skill.
Squiggit wrote: The Raven Black wrote: Farien wrote: How dare the powers that be want to keep the Medicine skill relevant instead of just letting Nature take all of magic identification, creature identification, and everything involving healing. Why create the feat then ? To give a taste of the forbidden fruit ? I mean it's a single low level skill feat that gives you access to cheap of combat healing without having to invest any skill increases in medicine. That seems perfectly fine. Yeah a lot of low level skill feats are kind of situational (armor assist, most of the ones involving speeding things up honestly) or just kind of confusing (student of the canon makes failures successes for remembering your own religion's tenets, when your character should just know those if they are acting in accordance with them)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HammerJack wrote: shroudb wrote: Kelseus wrote: I don't think its a bad or worthless feat. A ranger that is going to up his Nature skill at the first chance he can is now able to heal 2d8+10 to an ally with the cost of only one level 1 feat. You still need Expert medicine to heal for 2d8+10.
Which makes it kinda pointless.
That said, I prefer to either leave it as it is, or remove it, rather than making it fully count as Medicine. This is false.
Per the official clarification on the FAQ/errata page:
Quote: When I use Natural Medicine, can I attempt the higher-DC checks even though I'm not using Medicine?
You absolutely can. Essentially, you replace any mention of “Medicine” in the activity with “Nature” if you’re using Natural Medicine. You do still need healer’s tools.
Also, note that this feat applies only to using Treat Wounds. You would still need to be an expert in Medicine, not Nature, to select the Ward Medic feat. If you did qualify for and did select Ward Medic, you would be able to use Nature to Treat Wounds for two targets. You’d still need to become a master or legendary in Medicine to treat more targets than that.
The feat isn't a full replacement for medicine, and isn't the best pick for everyone, but it can be useful to some characters who wanted to raise Nature already. The most important feats to improve Treat Wounds do require Expert Medicine, but there are a lot more ways to get an extra skill to Expert than to raise an extra skill all the way to Legendary. Then it needs a rewrite in core 1, because that's not at all what it's actually written on the feat.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I mean, the errata disagrees with you. It's right there.
Squiggit wrote: I mean, the errata disagrees with you. It's right there. Its even the first entry in the "Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing)", so you don't have to scroll or search very far to find it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
breithauptclan wrote: Squiggit wrote: I mean, the errata disagrees with you. It's right there. Its even the first entry in the "Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing)", so you don't have to scroll or search very far to find it. I'm not saying there isn't a clarification about it, i'm saying that said clarification needs to be on print and not simply left as a comment.
The text of the feat, in the book, still is
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination. So, anyone not browsing for dev commnets, will never know about said clarification.
It needs to be in writing on the actual rules.
breithauptclan wrote: Its even the first entry in the "Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing)", so you don't have to scroll or search very far to find it. shroudb wrote: It needs to be in writing on the actual rules. So the link to the Paizo.com errata page, with the actual wording of the errata there is not official enough for you?
Do you not allow any errata to apply in your games until the new PDF is released? Or do you have to have an actual physical printed copy in your hands before you allow those rules changes to take effect in your games?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Dancing Wind wrote: breithauptclan wrote: Its even the first entry in the "Pathfinder Core Rulebook Clarifications (4th Printing)", so you don't have to scroll or search very far to find it. shroudb wrote: It needs to be in writing on the actual rules. So the link to the Paizo.com errata page, with the actual wording of the errata there is not official enough for you?
Do you not allow any errata to apply in your games until the new PDF is released? Or do you have to have an actual physical printed copy in your hands before you allow those rules changes to take effect in your games?
a)I don't doubt how official it is, but it's not errata, it is commentary. "The actual wording" is still the one i posted.
b)i'm not saying it's not official or how it is suppossed to work.
i'm saying that the average gamer that buys the book doesn't crawl through "dev comments" to find if a written rule works differently than what's written.
Errata is vastly different than commentary. One gets written in the book the other is not.
If someone buys the book and tries to play the game, he will never know the commentary unless he goes the extra step to start actively searching for it.
tldr;
what i'm asking is for the commentary to become an errata.
shroudb wrote:
tldr;
what i'm asking is for the commentary to become an errata.
People are trying to get through to you:
This has already happened.
Dancing Wind wrote: shroudb wrote:
tldr;
what i'm asking is for the commentary to become an errata.
People are trying to get through to you:
This has already happened. do yourself a favor:
go to the linked page.
you will see a section colled: "4th print ERRATA"
see if there's ANY change to natural medicine there.
hint: there's none.
then you can go scroll down to "clarifications"
THERE is the blurb that we're talking about.
The RULE CHANGE is not in the errata, it's not in the book, or in th pdf, ANYWHERE.
it's just a comment/clarification of "how it should be run" but not in the actual errata.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
And now that you have the clarification you can run it per RAW/RAI appropriately.
Not sure why we're still arguing.
Fortunately I had read through that Errata page before I made my post, so yes, I'm completely aware that some of the posts are called 'errata', some are called 'clarifications' and some are called 'clarifications and errata'.
In the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide Clarifications And Errata, how do you distinguish between the two? Which is an acceptable rules change and which is not? And why did Paizo developers post them all scrambled together like that if they didn't expect both kinds of changes to be equally official?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: And now that you have the clarification you can run it per RAW/RAI appropriately.
Not sure why we're still arguing.
Because the RAI (as evident from the commentary) is different from the RAW (that's the actual written feat text).
This is an actual change of the what's written.
*I* (now) know indeed how to run it, because I frequent the forums. But someone who buys the book/pdf, will not, because that's NOT what the actual feat text that he will read says at all.
Dancing Wind wrote: Fortunately I had read through that Errata page before I made my post, so yes, I'm completely aware that some of the posts are called 'errata', some are called 'clarifications' and some are called 'clarifications and errata'.
In the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide Clarifications And Errata, how do you distinguish between the two?
"Errata" means that there's actual words changed in the actual books/pdfs.
"Clarifications" do not change the books/pdfs.
That's the major difference and how you distinguish between the two.
Or, to put it differently, errata changes the RAW, clarifications speak about the RAI behind a written RAW.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Because the RAI (as evident from the commentary) is different from the RAW (that's the actual written feat text).
This is an actual change of the what's written.
*I* (now) know indeed how to run it, because I frequent the forums. But someone who buys the book/pdf, will not, because that's NOT what the actual feat text says at all.
If you're confused about how the feat actually functions, online clarifications are a good way to help players understand. So again I'm not really seeing the issue here.
People who used the feat incorrectly can look at the clarification for guidance, and people who used the feat correctly don't need it and can continue on.
From my experience, most people ran the feat correctly to begin with.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote:
Because the RAI (as evident from the commentary) is different from the RAW (that's the actual written feat text).
This is an actual change of the what's written.
*I* (now) know indeed how to run it, because I frequent the forums. But someone who buys the book/pdf, will not, because that's NOT what the actual feat text says at all.
If you're confused about how the feat actually functions, online clarifications are a good way to help players understand. So again I'm not really seeing the issue here.
People who used the feat incorrectly can look at the clarification for guidance, and people who used the feat correctly don't need it and can continue on.
From my experience, most people ran the feat correctly to begin with. but as written, there's no reason someone would be confused.
the feat is pretty straightforward: "instead of rolling medicine, roll nature". Per RAW, there's no reason for someone to go "I wonder if ranks in nature count as ranks in medicine!" to go check.
in short, the "clarification" is not actually a clarification (clarifing some ambiguous text), it is an actual "errata" (change of the rule).
People "who use the feat incorrectly" have no reason at all to check or look the clarifications, because there's nothing to clarify as written!
You didn't answer my question (how do you differentiate the two kinds of developer information in the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide), but OK
Fortunately the rest of us are free to read the official Paizo errata page and use the information there as 'official', even if you think it's not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote: the feat is pretty straightforward: "instead of rolling medicine, roll nature". If that's what the feat said you'd be correct. For someone so concerned about RAW though it's strange you'd paraphrase the text so extensively.
This is why it's good that Paizo clarified the confusion you've been having tbh.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Squiggit wrote: shroudb wrote: the feat is pretty straightforward: "instead of rolling medicine, roll nature". If that's what the feat said you'd be correct. For someone so concerned about RAW though it's strange you'd paraphrase the text so extensively.
This is why it's good that Paizo clarified the confusion you've been having tbh. Squiggit you are being very slow on this.
Shroudb has been quite clear.
Clarifications from Paizo about something that was not unclear, are rule changes.
They muddle the waters not clarify. Paizo should change the rule if they want to. Reinterpreting it beyond its meaning because it's more reasonable that way, is not a good thing for them to do.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote: Clarifications from Paizo about something that was not unclear I mean, given this thread it plainly was, though.
Yeah I feel like "hey does natural medicine also make the healing scale with nature?" would be a pretty common question.
Squiggit wrote: Gortle wrote: Clarifications from Paizo about something that was not unclear I mean, given this thread it plainly was, though. You are just being contrary and argumentative.
yarrchives wrote: Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds, including higher Nature proficiency letting you attempt more difficult checks. It doesn't replace Medicine for uses of the skill other than Treat Wounds or for feat prerequisites. Ravingdork made a post made a pdf of these pages. It's on page 28 of the pdf. I think now we can patiently wait for the remaster knowing this. The discussion now is a bit outdated.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: The text of the feat, in the book, still is
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination. So, anyone not browsing for dev commnets, will never know about said clarification.
It needs to be in writing on the actual rules.
I'm curious which part of this feat's rules text needs changed?
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. Yup. That is what it does. You can use the Treat Wounds action - all of it - and use your Nature skill for the action in place of Medicine.
Quote: If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination. Sure. +2 circumstance bonus when doing Treat Wounds using Nature under certain circumstances.
So..... What's the problem?
Nothing in that feat says that you could use Nature for other uses of the Medicine skill. Or that you can use your Nature proficiency in place of your Medicine proficiency when trying to get skill feats. But it does say that you can use Nature in place of Medicine for the Treat Wounds action.
Now, it may be possible to misinterpret the wording of the feat to not allow you to use your Nature skill proficiency to use the various levels of Treat Wounds. But that is a ruling that is based on a very pedantic reading of the feat text. The feat itself doesn't actually list out that you can use the Nature proficiency for all of Treat Wounds. But the clarifications clear that right up.
breithauptclan wrote: shroudb wrote: The text of the feat, in the book, still is
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination. So, anyone not browsing for dev commnets, will never know about said clarification.
It needs to be in writing on the actual rules.
I'm curious which part of this feat's rules text needs changed?
Quote: You can apply natural cures to heal your allies. You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. Yup. That is what it does. You can use the Treat Wounds action - all of it - and use your Nature skill for the action in place of Medicine.
Quote: If you’re in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to Treat Wounds using Nature, subject to the GM’s determination. Sure. +2 circumstance bonus when doing Treat Wounds using Nature under certain circumstances.
So..... What's the problem?
Nothing in that feat says that you could use Nature for other uses of the Medicine skill. Or that you can use your Nature proficiency in place of your Medicine proficiency when trying to get skill feats. But it does say that you can use Nature in place of Medicine for the Treat Wounds action.
Now, it may be possible to misinterpret the wording of the feat to not allow you to use your Nature skill proficiency to use the various levels of Treat Wounds. But that is a ruling that is based on a very pedantic reading of the feat text. The feat itself doesn't actually list out that you can use the Nature proficiency for all of Treat Wounds. But the clarifications clear that right up. I would simply add something to the effect of "... using your Nature ranks for the effect instead of your Medicine ranks."
Exactly because that "pedantic" reading exists and is the most straightforward way of reading it imo.
Natural Medicine wrote: You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. shroudb wrote: "... using your Nature ranks for the effect instead of your Medicine ranks." So how is that not going to be seen as redundant?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
breithauptclan wrote: Natural Medicine wrote: You can use Nature instead of Medicine to Treat Wounds. shroudb wrote: "... using your Nature ranks for the effect instead of your Medicine ranks." So how is that not going to be seen as redundant? "use your Nature instead of Medicine"
Treat wounds says
Quote: 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.
So, even if you are "using Nature instead of Medicine", you are still NOT expert in Medicine.
What the feat would need to say to be on point with the clarification would eithr be what I wrote, or something akin to "Use your Nature and change every mention of Medicine to Nature" (which I do find kinda inelegant, hence my suggestion)
---
A second way to fix that would be to change Treat wounds and instead of saying "If you are X in Medicine" saying "If you are X in the skill used".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
shroudb wrote: "use your Nature instead of Medicine"
Treat wounds says
Quote: 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.
So, even if you are "using Nature instead of Medicine", you are still NOT expert in Medicine.
Yeah. And you are using Nature instead of Medicine for Treat Wounds. Everything is in agreement on that. That is what the Natural Medicine feat says. That is what we are both saying.
So why are you suddenly asking about Medicine proficiency? That seems like a really strange thing to do if you are using Nature for the Treat Wounds activity.
Treat Wounds also says that the Medicine check is DC 15. So are you also claiming that since it doesn't list a Nature DC that the DC is undefined and needs errata on that too?
If not, why are we using Nature as a replacement skill in one sentence of the Treat Wounds rules like the feat says to, but not in the very next sentence? The Natural Medicine feat says to use Nature instead of Medicine in Treat Wounds. It doesn't say you pick and choose which parts of Treat Wounds you use Nature for, and have to use Medicine for the others.
The ruling that Natural Medicine only lets you use the Trained level of Treat Wounds has some problems in the very beginning. The clarification in the 4th printing makes the proper ruling crystal clear. And from what I hear from other people on the thread, the Remaster is going to have a wording change like what you are looking for too.
breithauptclan wrote: nd from what I hear from other people on the thread, the Remaster is going to have a wording change like what you are looking for too. that's all i'm asking.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
