The part I think is ambiguous is "When you use Battle Medicine, on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level, and the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day."
The way I read it, the trigger is "When you use Battle Medicine", then on that trigger, two separate effects happen 1) "on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level" and 2) "and target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day."
But I can also see one reading it as both effects are tied to the success of the Medicine check for the Battle Medicine action.
TL;DR
Reading 1
When you use Battle Medicine:
• on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level
• target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day.
Reading 2
When you use Battle Medicine, on a success:
• the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level
• target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day.
If the second reading of this is correct, it would be the only ability that alters the immunity of Battle Medicine that is dependent on success.
You're overthinking it, reading 1 is reasonable.
I wish my DM and group agreed with you :P
The immunity part of battle medicine has nothing to do with the degree of success, so I don't know why we'd assume a feat that changes the immunity would have to be.
Also just looking at the mechanics, increasing the lockout timer on your feat by 23 hours if you roll a single failure seems kind of insane??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The comma separating the concepts would be unnecessary if Reading 2 were correct. So Reading 1, though Paizo perhaps should've used a period.
ETA: From a former teacher of English teachers.
The comma separating the concepts would be unnecessary if Reading 2 were correct. So Reading 1, though Paizo perhaps should've used a period.
ETA: From a former teacher of English teachers.
My group is under the impression that because both effects are in the same sentence, they are both tied to the aforementioned success of the battle medicine. They pointed out Godless Healing and Robust Health as examples of how the effects are in different sentences, so the immunity is not tied to the success on those.
I pointed out that if we swap these effects in the sentence it reads: "When you use Battle Medicine, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day, and on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level." they would still be in the same sentence, yet not both dependent on the success, but my argument was ineffective.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The comma separating the concepts would be unnecessary if Reading 2 were correct. So Reading 1, though Paizo perhaps should've used a period.
ETA: From a former teacher of English teachers.
My group is under the impression that because both effects are in the same sentence, they are both tied to the aforementioned success of the battle medicine. They pointed out Godless Healing and Robust Health as examples of how the effects are in different sentences, so the immunity is not tied to the success on those.
I pointed out that if we swap these effects in the sentence it reads: "When you use Battle Medicine, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day, and on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level." they would still be in the same sentence, yet not both dependent on the success, but my argument was ineffective.
Your group is under the mistaken impression that the books are written with substantially more attention to this kind of detail than they actually are. The fact that Robust Health words this slightly differently doesn't mean anything: it was just the word choice using by the person writing that paragraph, which probably wasn't the same person writing the other ability.
This is a frequent mistake and it leads to people coming up with silly rulings like this that don't make any sense if you just stop and think about how a ten year old would read it. As another poster is fond of saying: "RAW is a troll ruling."
Battle Medicine immunity happens when you use Battle Medicine. Success has nothing to do with it. Trying to impose such a limitation on exactly one ability like this is a complication that doesn't add anything and doesn't make any sense to do.
|
The comma separating the concepts would be unnecessary if Reading 2 were correct. So Reading 1, though Paizo perhaps should've used a period.
ETA: From a former teacher of English teachers.
My group is under the impression that because both effects are in the same sentence, they are both tied to the aforementioned success of the battle medicine. They pointed out Godless Healing and Robust Health as examples of how the effects are in different sentences, so the immunity is not tied to the success on those.
I pointed out that if we swap these effects in the sentence it reads: "When you use Battle Medicine, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day, and on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level." they would still be in the same sentence, yet not both dependent on the success, but my argument was ineffective.
The effects in Godless healing and Robust health are in 2 separate sentences because the reduced immunity time is for "you or an ally".
Such is not the case for the Methodology effect. Hence the different wording.
All above posters are correct. Reduced immunity time does not depend on the success because of the comma.
You can also attempt to flip the PoV and ask them to justify the opposite case.
I cannot recall a single ability that changes the cooldown, but only if a skill check or equivalent roll is a Success+. (But there genuinely might be some ability/thing out there like some Swash finisher encore thing, idk)
If they can point out some real examples, which is not a small if, that'll give yall something to compare against.
And I'm 99.5% confident it'll support reading #1.
Paizo might be hella sloppy fairly often, but they don't hide something as mechanical as a variable cooldown like that.
You can also attempt to flip the PoV and ask them to justify the opposite case.
I cannot recall a single ability that changes the cooldown, but only if a skill check or equivalent roll is a Success+. (But there genuinely might be some ability/thing out there like some Swash finisher encore thing, idk)
If they can point out some real examples, which is not a small if, that'll give yall something to compare against.
And I'm 99.5% confident it'll support reading #1.Paizo might be hella sloppy fairly often, but they don't hide something as mechanical as a variable cooldown like that.
I don't have any specifics in mind at the moment, but I am pretty sure I have seen some things where the cooldown can change on a critical failure, like not being able to try again for a 24 hours on a crit failure when normally it would have a cooldown of an hour or a minute.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're up against one of the pitfalls with geeks: a tendency to read too deeply into accidental tiny differences in wording.
RPGs are more enjoyable though if you take a step back and add a few more text-interpretation tools to your toolbox to do a more balanced interpretation.
One of these is that you should assume good intent on the part of the writers. The writers aren't out to "gotcha!" you by making an ability that seems fine until you find the trap in the fine print.
Another one is that extraordinary effects should be explicitly pointed out. If this ability was really intended to be different from all the others, they should have said so clearly. If it would only be maybe different because of a comma, it's reasonable to think it's just an accident.
It's also good to keep in mind that abilities aren't all written by the same people and aren't all proofread by the same people. Quite a few of the people who wrote PF2.0 don't work for Paizo anymore. So subtle differences in wording are really normal.
For a more RAW angle on this, one of the key rules is the [url=https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2266]Ambiguous Rules[/ur] rule:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn't work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
Fixating narrowly on the text even though it makes an ability dumb and unenjoyable is breaking this rule.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, will a thread of randoms agreeing with you manage to sway your group? Less clear, but I wish you the best of luck :)
That is very true.
I would add, however, that unanimity among the regulars on the rules forum here is rare enough that it should be taken into consideration.
I'm going to go against the apparent unanimity among the regulars here.
Most abilities in PF2e first describe the base effect and then separately describe the success/failure results. If an effect is meant to apply regardless of success or failure, the wording is usually much clearer.
If the intent was for the reduced immunity duration to always apply, I would expect wording more like:
When you use Battle Medicine, the target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day. On a success, the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level.
Or, if the success effect needed to appear first, because you think hp effect should be before immunity effects:
When you use Battle Medicine, on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level. After, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour instead of 1 day.(similar to robust health)
There are several other effects that reduce Battle Medicine immunity to 1 hour, and they all use wording very similar to the examples above. Because of that, it seems odd to place the success-effect language directly in the middle of the sentence without a period or stronger separator. A comma or "and" reads more like a continuation of the same effect chain, which suggests that the 1-hour immunity is tied to the success condition rather than being a standalone benefit.
For comparison:
Battle Medic's Baton
"You use Battle Medicine. The target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Robust Health
"You gain a circumstance bonus to the number of Hit Points you regain equal to your level from a successful attempt to Treat Wounds or use Battle Medicine on you. After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Godless Healing
"After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Personally, I'd be fine with a GM ruling it either way. It's entirely possible that Paizo simply wrote this one ambiguously or even incorrectly. That wouldn't exactly be unprecedented.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As another writing instructor, reading 1 is the grammatically correct reading of the sentence. The second comma would be grammatically incorrect if the cool down were tied to the success result. A lot of people (myself included) often misuse commas when drafting or writing a quick internet response by placing them everywhere where we might pause if we were reading the text out loud, but that doesn't change that "success" is only tied to the clause about additional healing, not the clause about what to do with the cool down.
It is reasonable to ask for FAQ on this and to be concerned that something as small as comma placement doesn't make this separation clear enough in relationship to other examples, but the RAW here is reading 1.
I'm going to go against the apparent unanimity among the regulars here.
Most abilities in PF2e first describe the base effect and then separately describe the success/failure results. If an effect is meant to apply regardless of success or failure, the wording is usually much clearer.
If the intent was for the reduced immunity duration to always apply, I would expect wording more like:
When you use Battle Medicine, the target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day. On a success, the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level.
Or, if the success effect needed to appear first, because you think hp effect should be before immunity effects:
When you use Battle Medicine, on a success the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level. After, the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour instead of 1 day.(similar to robust health)
There are several other effects that reduce Battle Medicine immunity to 1 hour, and they all use wording very similar to the examples above. Because of that, it seems odd to place the success-effect language directly in the middle of the sentence without a period or stronger separator. A comma or "and" reads more like a continuation of the same effect chain, which suggests that the 1-hour immunity is tied to the success condition rather than being a standalone benefit.
For comparison:
Battle Medic's Baton
"You use Battle Medicine. The target is temporarily immune to your Battle Medicine for 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Robust Health
"You gain a circumstance bonus to the number of Hit Points you regain equal to your level from a successful attempt to Treat Wounds or use Battle Medicine on you. After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."
Godless Healing
"After you or an ally use Battle Medicine on you, you become temporarily immune to that Battle Medicine for only 1 hour instead of 1 day."Personally, I'd be fine with a GM ruling it either way. It's entirely possible that Paizo simply wrote this one ambiguously or even incorrectly. That wouldn't exactly be unprecedented.
If reading 2 was what was intended, they could have just as easily said "When you successfully use Battle Medicine, the target recovers additional Hit Points equal to your level, and the target becomes temporarily immune for only 1 hour, not 1 day."
But doesn't matter at this point because the DM said that reading 1 was OP and "too good to be true"
But doesn't matter at this point because the DM said that reading 1 was OP and "too good to be true"
Well, all the more to get this one FAQ so the DM or other DM's that might rule this way on the same track.
While I don't think the ability is overpowered (either reading), it can be strong. Instead of each of your allies having to take Robust Health to do the effects, the investigator gets it rolled up into one ability. So its possible that Paizo added a small flaw that could be easily bypassed.
And as the Raven says, assurance can be a decent option with your current DM. Although it might feel sucky missing out on DC 20's before level 6 if your assuring all the time.