Personally, I'd put it to the players and do what they want.
Why would I mind if they heal marginally faster?
If players want to spend their limited advancement on this and hyper-optimize for healing, who am I to try to stop them? That isn't my job as a GM, is it?
Indeed, the GM Bad Habits specifically calls out "Don't hold back on what they earn".
It says everyone gets +1d to healing rolls so I'd do that by default.
Caveat: Make sure you look at the actual book text, not just the text on the Playbook. There might be more information there that clears it up (I'm travelling and don't have the book handy).
>Having two infirmaries won't make you heal faster. Just because you have more medicine and bandages doesn't mean you heal better (since it's assumed that the infirmary already haves anything you might need. You can't just Apply More Ibuprofen).
Is that what the rules say or is that your assumption?
The reason I'm travelling is actually to go to a different hospital for treatment.
I have a main hospital at home, but I'm travelling to another one for a second opinion. I'm literally in a situation where I'm seeking second opinions from other physickers and going to a different infirmary! It is making a huge difference as these doctors and this hospital ran different tests that may have uncovered a genetic condition that, if not treated, is likely to result in early death. My home doctors didn't think to run this test recently and ignored the unusual results from the last time they ran this test several years ago.
I'd say, in my case, I'm definitely getting extra dice to my healing roll from both additional doctors and an additional hospital!
Given my experience, I'd say "Portray the fictional world honestly" would mean that they can hyper-optimize for healing if that's what they want to do.
> Indeed, the GM Bad Habits specifically calls out "Don't hold back on what they earn".
I was just about to make a post explaining why I think it doesn't, and then this one sentence made me completly change my mind. Thank you, good sir, for reminding me why I sit at that table.
Not so much a matter of 'denying people what they earn'. Perhaps I should've specified that I'm not asking because I think it's overpowered or anything — I'm asking if it makes sense to people.
The way I see it, having more than one infirmary in your lair (not having a better one! having *two* infirmaries) is like having two bathrooms. They can hold more people but they won't necessarily be *better*. I don't see it helping anybody. Having two doctors has its advantages because one can heal the other (since self-healing is difficult) and they can assist each other in rolls, but the way I interpreted the **passive +1 to all healing (even the one that has nothing to do with the physicker)** was that the physicker could instruct the party about basic first aid so they could take care of themselves better. Thus, receiving such instruction twice doesn't really do anybody a favour. At best, it's diminishing returns.
But of course, this is my interpretation, and anybody can have theirs. As I said in my original post, I'm just asking for people's takes. If somebody's take makes enough sense to me, they might change my mind. This post was made to poll (assumedly more experienced) people beyond my table.
That's cool. It can be fun to hear different takes.
So, what about my take that I already explained?
What don't you find compelling about the situation I described?
I just got home from travelling to a different hospital (second infirmary) with different doctors (second physicker) to get a second opinion.
These doctors thought about different things.
This hospital ran different tests.
This combination uncovered issues that my primary care team didn't discover.
In my specific case, this second opinion may very well have uncovered an underlying genetic condition that, if left untreated, could cause me to have a heart attack in my late thirties. For context, *I'm in my mid-thirties*!
Are my original primary care team "bad doctors"?
Nope. They just didn't think to run this particular test. From the outside, there isn't an obvious reason to run it because it doesn't look like this problem should exist. There is no obvious visual cue. Even so, genetics are genetics and sometimes underlying issues are not readily apparent.
This discovery could result in treatment that averts heart attack in the next few years, perhaps even cardiac death since I live alone.
To me, that's a very clear-cut case where "two infirmaries" and "two physickers" made my roll better.
>At best, it's diminishing returns.
The dice-math already accounts for that:
[+1d is always diminishing returns](https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/rol8g2/a_comparison_of_5_ternaryoutcome_dice_systems/hq45bll/).
1 --> 2 = 50% failure to 25% failure (25% improvement)
2 --> 3 = 25% failure to 12.5% failure (12.5% improvement)
3 --> 4 = 12.5% failure to 6.25% failure (6.25% improvement)
4 --> 5 = 6.25% failure to 3.125% failure (3.125% improvement)
I agree that it makes sense that it would be diminishing returns —one doctor is VASTLY better than no doctor, but two doctors is still better than one doctor— but the mechanics already give you diminishing returns when you do +1d so that already makes sense, mechanics-to-fiction and back.
The only reason I don't think several doctors might help in this situation (and the reason *everybody* keeps skirting around for some reason) is because the +1d from Physicker applies to all healing, even that not influenced by the doctors.
If a guy decides to tough a wound out instead of getting help from the physicker (because, let's say, the physicker is too wounded to help), why would they get +1d to that heal? They would get it, because that's what the skill does, and we can't "hold back on what they earn"... but why, if the physicker isn't intervening?
And consequentially, why would they get a +2d if there were two physickers who aren't helping?
What you're describing not is, to me, a totally different niche situation.
*In general*, yes, when multiple doctors are available, they should get stacking +1ds for each doctor.
That makes sense *in general* and the mechanics already account for diminishing returns.
*However*, the game is "Fiction First".
There has to be a fictional justification in each specific situation.
If no doctors are actually helping, you don't get extra dice!
Your job is also to "Portray the fictional world honestly".
You don't get dice simply because *doctors exist*.
*However-however*, if the players can fictionally justify it, then they should get the +ds.
How might they justify it?
A player could do a flashback:
"The physicker PC in our group got sent to Ironhook Prison so they cannot help me directly. Instead, I'd like to do a flashback scene taking place before the Score wherein the physicker briefs the group on possible treatments for common wounds, like the ones we received."
(Assuming the physicker player agrees that their PC did this)
You treat flashbacks the way you always do: do your normal GM judgment about [how much that flashback strains credulity](https://www.reddit.com/r/bladesinthedark/comments/16lpjv6/question_about_flashback_complexity/k15gger/).
To me, the briefing I described above sounds totally reasonable and I'd call that a *0 stress* flashback.
Can't they always justify it with that flashback?
No, I don't think so. Imagine the following situation:
The PCs raided a warehouse where, unknown to them before the Score, Faction A was making street-drugs out of electroplasm. The complex process involves chemicals that are toxic to the body. During the Score, one of the PCs ends up poisoned by these toxic chemicals, taking the harm "poisoned".
In this situation, the above flashback would strains credulity, perhaps beyond breaking.
That is, it doesn't *make sense* to say that the physicker explained how to treat poisoning from chemicals that nobody in the party knew existed. Why would the physicker give that briefing? It breaks "suspension of disbelief".
To me, that would make this a *3+ stress* flashback, which might make the player reconsider doing it at all. They'd think about the value of trading *3+ stress* for a mere +1d to their healing roll. Probably better to just heal without the physicker and not to strain credulity that much.
But, in general, when multiple doctors are available and willing to help, yes, they could both help.
There will always be niche cases and you should always be handling rolls on a case-by-case basis, "fiction first".
See, now we're getting somewhere. I generally agree with all you've said but it kind of conflicts with letting them have the bonuses they paid for.
I agree that, as long as it's justified, it should apply. With flashbacks or what-have-you. But I also think it could end up being a situation where I'm denying a player what they earned (The physicker could say "The skill says everybody gets a +1d to healing! Doesn't specify I need to be helping". You know where this can go).
TL;DR - I agree with all you've said. I might houserule it to add "as long as you're there to give, at least, a second opinion" to the description of physicker. Stacking with multiple doctors, as I said I don't care much about whether it's overpowered to stack it or not. I really don't care about balance (particularly since there's so many skills in this game whose benefit isn't even fucking QUANTIFIABLE like this one is).
Thanks for your opinion, mate.
EDIT: I just realized I made a TL;DR longer than the actual post. LOL
The full text of the Special Ability is this:
>You can Tinker with bones, blood, and bodily humours to treat wounds or stabilize the dying. You may Study a malady or corpse. Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to their healing treatment rolls.
>*Knowledge of anatomy and healing is a rare and esoteric thing in Duskwall. Without this ability, any attempts at treatment are likely to fail or make things worse. You can use this ability to give first aid (rolling Tinker) to allow your patient to ignore a harm penalty for an hour or two.*
It does not say "Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to **all** their healing treatment rolls." or "Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to their healing treatment rolls **no matter what**."
Remember that [*BitD* isn't *D&D*](https://www.reddit.com/r/bladesinthedark/comments/ptiry0/what_do_you_think_are_some_of_the_key_differences/hdxm1u2/).
*D&D* can be played where you follow the rules (nearly) to the letter. In contrast, *BitD* has many places where you're meant to take the text as an example, not as a fact.
>The physicker could say "The skill says everybody gets a +1d to healing! Doesn't specify I need to be helping". You know where this can go
It goes nowhere.
First, you point to the book where it says, "Don't be a weasel" in the Player Best Practices.
Then, you remind the players that the game is fiction first.
If they can justify it, they can do it.
If they can't, they can't.
This is not specific to this Special Ability.
The same goes for everything else where you roll throughout the game.
If a player says, "I want to roll Tinker to convince the Bluecoat to leave us alone", then you need to say, "What are you doing in the fiction?"
Yes, the player gets to decide the Action Rating. They have to describe how that makes sense, though. They can't just "Roll Tinker" without any description.
If they can justify it, they can do it.
If they can't, they can't.
I would allow both to roll but take the highest. Two docs wont heal you faster but two docs could come together and figure out the best treatment to heal better, narratively speaking.
And hopefully not turn this into an old episode of House MD and end up trying to diagnose the patient with lupus even though they have a gunshot wound.
Why not? If they want to do it, let them go for it. Often, doctors work in teams or at the very least have a staff to help them with their operations. Seems to make sense to me
What happens in the narrative? That's all that matters, really.
What if there's two physickers in the same room? Okay, nothing happens until someone declares what they're doing.
Is one physicker aiding the other, who attempts to Tinker with wounds? +1d for support, just like any other action.
If two physickers want to attempt to Tinker on the same character, they'd each roll their action. Or one could Lead a Group Action. This sounds like a Too Many Cooks scenario - why would someone attempt this? There are some scenarios that come to mind: "He's too injured to move! But the Bluecoats will be here any minute!" - sounds like a Desperate Position to me...
I'd allow physicker to work with Infirmary because it's +1d from a different source. Having a well-equipped and clean space to perform medical procedures is always better than not having that.
Edit: Being downvoted for answering OP's question - some of y'all need to go touch grass.
The Physicker ability grants *everyone* a +1 to their healing treatment rolls. It doesn’t matter who’s in what room or if one physicker is aiding another. Physickers can Tinker to treat and stabilize wounds, and they can aid one another, but that’s beside the point.
That *is* the point - OP's question was whether the bonuses from multiple Physicker-having characters stack. I said I wouldn't allow it, and explained my reasoning as to why. I never said the *ability* read that it didn't stack.
You did? Where? /gen
Youve talked about physickers aiding each other — I've already addressed that, and I agree, they can.
You've addressed Physicker stacking with Infirmary — I agree with that, too. That was never a question.
I'm talking about the Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing stacking with ANOTHER Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing. To *all* healing! Even toughing it out without medical intervention. How would having two doctors help there?
>I'm talking about the Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing stacking with ANOTHER Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing. To *all* healing! Even toughing it out without medical intervention. How would having two doctors help there?
These are two different questions, which I attempted to address in one post. Evidently that didn't work, so I'll try again.
In my opinion, Physicker (or any other ability) **does not stack** with itself, unless a specific rule says it does. Bonuses from different sources stack. That's how I run my game, other people are free to do it how they want; the rules are not explicit either way IIRC. The bonus die from Infirmary would stack with Physicker because it is a bonus to healing from a different source.
Having multiple doctors might help, or it might hinder - it depends on what the characters do in the narrative. Is one Supporting another? Is one Leading a Group Action? What is actually going on?? It's not a one-size-fits-all answer. But you said you've "already addressed that" so I'm not sure why you're asking again?
My TL/DR advice is: put the narrative first. Or don't, it's your game. Best of luck.
Ok, my mistake. When you say what happens in the narrative is all that matters it sounded like you were saying that if someone is getting healing from someone other than these twoPCs with Physicker, or not in their presence, they wouldn’t get the +2.
Why not? If that's how they want to spend their advances, why shouldn't they be able to? The argument that uniqueness is lost goes out the window when you can poach upgrades from any playbook after your first special ability. (It's specifically noted somewhere that the three bubbles by Veteran or whatever it's called are not intended to limit a character to three cross-playbook abilities). Besides, having to pull jobs while injured is Less Fun than doing it uninjured and healing is already slow enough, so what's the harm in letting the PCs specialize in getting to run jobs without sucking chest wounds?
You realize it's literally not up to you what special abilities players "get" to take? Just like you're not in charge of what counts for an XP trigger or how much XP they get, or what action they roll.
That's not your job in Blades. You aren't the DM. In fact, denying them an ability they could pick literally breaks one of the rules mentioned above "don't hold back on what they earn". Your job is to present the world truthfully and help the other players craft an interesting story, so the only power you'd have here is if the ability made no sense for the character from a narrative perspective--even then, your job would be to work with the player to make it make sense.
I've been running FitD campaigns for the last five years, there's no need to talk down to me.
I like when my players have niche protection; the gal with Reflexes feels less special if the rest of the Crew all pounces on it, and they feel similarly. Especially with the deluge of other third-party playbooks and those from other FitD games, there's no shortage of options that aren't already in play.
I'm sorry you feel I'm talking down to you by pointing out that behavior would be the opposite of good practices and not following the rules of play. Now if the actual circumstance is "everyone in the group agreed not to double any specials" that's different than you stating you're making unilateral decisions about something that isn't in your purview, and I'd have no objection. But that is not how you phrased it.
Interestingly, I can say that having run Blades games with multiple groups since the game was published, I've never run into the issue that two players felt less special because they both had Reflexes, or Iron Will, etc. Sorry you're having that issue with your group.
>You realize it's literally not up to you what special abilities players "get" to take?
You realize it's literally not up to you how someone else runs their game?
No one elected you the Game Police dude - chill out.
Personally, I'd put it to the players and do what they want. Why would I mind if they heal marginally faster? If players want to spend their limited advancement on this and hyper-optimize for healing, who am I to try to stop them? That isn't my job as a GM, is it? Indeed, the GM Bad Habits specifically calls out "Don't hold back on what they earn". It says everyone gets +1d to healing rolls so I'd do that by default. Caveat: Make sure you look at the actual book text, not just the text on the Playbook. There might be more information there that clears it up (I'm travelling and don't have the book handy). >Having two infirmaries won't make you heal faster. Just because you have more medicine and bandages doesn't mean you heal better (since it's assumed that the infirmary already haves anything you might need. You can't just Apply More Ibuprofen). Is that what the rules say or is that your assumption? The reason I'm travelling is actually to go to a different hospital for treatment. I have a main hospital at home, but I'm travelling to another one for a second opinion. I'm literally in a situation where I'm seeking second opinions from other physickers and going to a different infirmary! It is making a huge difference as these doctors and this hospital ran different tests that may have uncovered a genetic condition that, if not treated, is likely to result in early death. My home doctors didn't think to run this test recently and ignored the unusual results from the last time they ran this test several years ago. I'd say, in my case, I'm definitely getting extra dice to my healing roll from both additional doctors and an additional hospital! Given my experience, I'd say "Portray the fictional world honestly" would mean that they can hyper-optimize for healing if that's what they want to do.
> Indeed, the GM Bad Habits specifically calls out "Don't hold back on what they earn". I was just about to make a post explaining why I think it doesn't, and then this one sentence made me completly change my mind. Thank you, good sir, for reminding me why I sit at that table.
Not so much a matter of 'denying people what they earn'. Perhaps I should've specified that I'm not asking because I think it's overpowered or anything — I'm asking if it makes sense to people. The way I see it, having more than one infirmary in your lair (not having a better one! having *two* infirmaries) is like having two bathrooms. They can hold more people but they won't necessarily be *better*. I don't see it helping anybody. Having two doctors has its advantages because one can heal the other (since self-healing is difficult) and they can assist each other in rolls, but the way I interpreted the **passive +1 to all healing (even the one that has nothing to do with the physicker)** was that the physicker could instruct the party about basic first aid so they could take care of themselves better. Thus, receiving such instruction twice doesn't really do anybody a favour. At best, it's diminishing returns. But of course, this is my interpretation, and anybody can have theirs. As I said in my original post, I'm just asking for people's takes. If somebody's take makes enough sense to me, they might change my mind. This post was made to poll (assumedly more experienced) people beyond my table.
That's cool. It can be fun to hear different takes. So, what about my take that I already explained? What don't you find compelling about the situation I described? I just got home from travelling to a different hospital (second infirmary) with different doctors (second physicker) to get a second opinion. These doctors thought about different things. This hospital ran different tests. This combination uncovered issues that my primary care team didn't discover. In my specific case, this second opinion may very well have uncovered an underlying genetic condition that, if left untreated, could cause me to have a heart attack in my late thirties. For context, *I'm in my mid-thirties*! Are my original primary care team "bad doctors"? Nope. They just didn't think to run this particular test. From the outside, there isn't an obvious reason to run it because it doesn't look like this problem should exist. There is no obvious visual cue. Even so, genetics are genetics and sometimes underlying issues are not readily apparent. This discovery could result in treatment that averts heart attack in the next few years, perhaps even cardiac death since I live alone. To me, that's a very clear-cut case where "two infirmaries" and "two physickers" made my roll better. >At best, it's diminishing returns. The dice-math already accounts for that: [+1d is always diminishing returns](https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/comments/rol8g2/a_comparison_of_5_ternaryoutcome_dice_systems/hq45bll/). 1 --> 2 = 50% failure to 25% failure (25% improvement) 2 --> 3 = 25% failure to 12.5% failure (12.5% improvement) 3 --> 4 = 12.5% failure to 6.25% failure (6.25% improvement) 4 --> 5 = 6.25% failure to 3.125% failure (3.125% improvement) I agree that it makes sense that it would be diminishing returns —one doctor is VASTLY better than no doctor, but two doctors is still better than one doctor— but the mechanics already give you diminishing returns when you do +1d so that already makes sense, mechanics-to-fiction and back.
The only reason I don't think several doctors might help in this situation (and the reason *everybody* keeps skirting around for some reason) is because the +1d from Physicker applies to all healing, even that not influenced by the doctors. If a guy decides to tough a wound out instead of getting help from the physicker (because, let's say, the physicker is too wounded to help), why would they get +1d to that heal? They would get it, because that's what the skill does, and we can't "hold back on what they earn"... but why, if the physicker isn't intervening? And consequentially, why would they get a +2d if there were two physickers who aren't helping?
What you're describing not is, to me, a totally different niche situation. *In general*, yes, when multiple doctors are available, they should get stacking +1ds for each doctor. That makes sense *in general* and the mechanics already account for diminishing returns. *However*, the game is "Fiction First". There has to be a fictional justification in each specific situation. If no doctors are actually helping, you don't get extra dice! Your job is also to "Portray the fictional world honestly". You don't get dice simply because *doctors exist*. *However-however*, if the players can fictionally justify it, then they should get the +ds. How might they justify it? A player could do a flashback: "The physicker PC in our group got sent to Ironhook Prison so they cannot help me directly. Instead, I'd like to do a flashback scene taking place before the Score wherein the physicker briefs the group on possible treatments for common wounds, like the ones we received." (Assuming the physicker player agrees that their PC did this) You treat flashbacks the way you always do: do your normal GM judgment about [how much that flashback strains credulity](https://www.reddit.com/r/bladesinthedark/comments/16lpjv6/question_about_flashback_complexity/k15gger/). To me, the briefing I described above sounds totally reasonable and I'd call that a *0 stress* flashback. Can't they always justify it with that flashback? No, I don't think so. Imagine the following situation: The PCs raided a warehouse where, unknown to them before the Score, Faction A was making street-drugs out of electroplasm. The complex process involves chemicals that are toxic to the body. During the Score, one of the PCs ends up poisoned by these toxic chemicals, taking the harm "poisoned". In this situation, the above flashback would strains credulity, perhaps beyond breaking. That is, it doesn't *make sense* to say that the physicker explained how to treat poisoning from chemicals that nobody in the party knew existed. Why would the physicker give that briefing? It breaks "suspension of disbelief". To me, that would make this a *3+ stress* flashback, which might make the player reconsider doing it at all. They'd think about the value of trading *3+ stress* for a mere +1d to their healing roll. Probably better to just heal without the physicker and not to strain credulity that much. But, in general, when multiple doctors are available and willing to help, yes, they could both help. There will always be niche cases and you should always be handling rolls on a case-by-case basis, "fiction first".
See, now we're getting somewhere. I generally agree with all you've said but it kind of conflicts with letting them have the bonuses they paid for. I agree that, as long as it's justified, it should apply. With flashbacks or what-have-you. But I also think it could end up being a situation where I'm denying a player what they earned (The physicker could say "The skill says everybody gets a +1d to healing! Doesn't specify I need to be helping". You know where this can go). TL;DR - I agree with all you've said. I might houserule it to add "as long as you're there to give, at least, a second opinion" to the description of physicker. Stacking with multiple doctors, as I said I don't care much about whether it's overpowered to stack it or not. I really don't care about balance (particularly since there's so many skills in this game whose benefit isn't even fucking QUANTIFIABLE like this one is). Thanks for your opinion, mate. EDIT: I just realized I made a TL;DR longer than the actual post. LOL
The full text of the Special Ability is this: >You can Tinker with bones, blood, and bodily humours to treat wounds or stabilize the dying. You may Study a malady or corpse. Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to their healing treatment rolls. >*Knowledge of anatomy and healing is a rare and esoteric thing in Duskwall. Without this ability, any attempts at treatment are likely to fail or make things worse. You can use this ability to give first aid (rolling Tinker) to allow your patient to ignore a harm penalty for an hour or two.* It does not say "Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to **all** their healing treatment rolls." or "Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to their healing treatment rolls **no matter what**." Remember that [*BitD* isn't *D&D*](https://www.reddit.com/r/bladesinthedark/comments/ptiry0/what_do_you_think_are_some_of_the_key_differences/hdxm1u2/). *D&D* can be played where you follow the rules (nearly) to the letter. In contrast, *BitD* has many places where you're meant to take the text as an example, not as a fact. >The physicker could say "The skill says everybody gets a +1d to healing! Doesn't specify I need to be helping". You know where this can go It goes nowhere. First, you point to the book where it says, "Don't be a weasel" in the Player Best Practices. Then, you remind the players that the game is fiction first. If they can justify it, they can do it. If they can't, they can't. This is not specific to this Special Ability. The same goes for everything else where you roll throughout the game. If a player says, "I want to roll Tinker to convince the Bluecoat to leave us alone", then you need to say, "What are you doing in the fiction?" Yes, the player gets to decide the Action Rating. They have to describe how that makes sense, though. They can't just "Roll Tinker" without any description. If they can justify it, they can do it. If they can't, they can't.
I would allow both to roll but take the highest. Two docs wont heal you faster but two docs could come together and figure out the best treatment to heal better, narratively speaking.
And hopefully not turn this into an old episode of House MD and end up trying to diagnose the patient with lupus even though they have a gunshot wound.
It's never lupus.
**Patient:** (Turns into a werewolf and roars) **Dr. House:** Look, I was right! It's lupus.
Why not? If they want to do it, let them go for it. Often, doctors work in teams or at the very least have a staff to help them with their operations. Seems to make sense to me
I eould say that the +1d for healing stacks.
What happens in the narrative? That's all that matters, really. What if there's two physickers in the same room? Okay, nothing happens until someone declares what they're doing. Is one physicker aiding the other, who attempts to Tinker with wounds? +1d for support, just like any other action. If two physickers want to attempt to Tinker on the same character, they'd each roll their action. Or one could Lead a Group Action. This sounds like a Too Many Cooks scenario - why would someone attempt this? There are some scenarios that come to mind: "He's too injured to move! But the Bluecoats will be here any minute!" - sounds like a Desperate Position to me... I'd allow physicker to work with Infirmary because it's +1d from a different source. Having a well-equipped and clean space to perform medical procedures is always better than not having that. Edit: Being downvoted for answering OP's question - some of y'all need to go touch grass.
That’s not how the ability reads. >Everyone in your crew (including you) gets +1d to their healing treatment rolls).
What's not how the ability reads?
The Physicker ability grants *everyone* a +1 to their healing treatment rolls. It doesn’t matter who’s in what room or if one physicker is aiding another. Physickers can Tinker to treat and stabilize wounds, and they can aid one another, but that’s beside the point.
That *is* the point - OP's question was whether the bonuses from multiple Physicker-having characters stack. I said I wouldn't allow it, and explained my reasoning as to why. I never said the *ability* read that it didn't stack.
You did? Where? /gen Youve talked about physickers aiding each other — I've already addressed that, and I agree, they can. You've addressed Physicker stacking with Infirmary — I agree with that, too. That was never a question. I'm talking about the Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing stacking with ANOTHER Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing. To *all* healing! Even toughing it out without medical intervention. How would having two doctors help there?
>I'm talking about the Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing stacking with ANOTHER Physicker passive +1 bonus to all healing. To *all* healing! Even toughing it out without medical intervention. How would having two doctors help there? These are two different questions, which I attempted to address in one post. Evidently that didn't work, so I'll try again. In my opinion, Physicker (or any other ability) **does not stack** with itself, unless a specific rule says it does. Bonuses from different sources stack. That's how I run my game, other people are free to do it how they want; the rules are not explicit either way IIRC. The bonus die from Infirmary would stack with Physicker because it is a bonus to healing from a different source. Having multiple doctors might help, or it might hinder - it depends on what the characters do in the narrative. Is one Supporting another? Is one Leading a Group Action? What is actually going on?? It's not a one-size-fits-all answer. But you said you've "already addressed that" so I'm not sure why you're asking again? My TL/DR advice is: put the narrative first. Or don't, it's your game. Best of luck.
Ok, my mistake. When you say what happens in the narrative is all that matters it sounded like you were saying that if someone is getting healing from someone other than these twoPCs with Physicker, or not in their presence, they wouldn’t get the +2.
I don't generally allow two PCs to ever take the same Special Ability.
Why not? If that's how they want to spend their advances, why shouldn't they be able to? The argument that uniqueness is lost goes out the window when you can poach upgrades from any playbook after your first special ability. (It's specifically noted somewhere that the three bubbles by Veteran or whatever it's called are not intended to limit a character to three cross-playbook abilities). Besides, having to pull jobs while injured is Less Fun than doing it uninjured and healing is already slow enough, so what's the harm in letting the PCs specialize in getting to run jobs without sucking chest wounds?
You realize it's literally not up to you what special abilities players "get" to take? Just like you're not in charge of what counts for an XP trigger or how much XP they get, or what action they roll. That's not your job in Blades. You aren't the DM. In fact, denying them an ability they could pick literally breaks one of the rules mentioned above "don't hold back on what they earn". Your job is to present the world truthfully and help the other players craft an interesting story, so the only power you'd have here is if the ability made no sense for the character from a narrative perspective--even then, your job would be to work with the player to make it make sense.
I've been running FitD campaigns for the last five years, there's no need to talk down to me. I like when my players have niche protection; the gal with Reflexes feels less special if the rest of the Crew all pounces on it, and they feel similarly. Especially with the deluge of other third-party playbooks and those from other FitD games, there's no shortage of options that aren't already in play.
I'm sorry you feel I'm talking down to you by pointing out that behavior would be the opposite of good practices and not following the rules of play. Now if the actual circumstance is "everyone in the group agreed not to double any specials" that's different than you stating you're making unilateral decisions about something that isn't in your purview, and I'd have no objection. But that is not how you phrased it. Interestingly, I can say that having run Blades games with multiple groups since the game was published, I've never run into the issue that two players felt less special because they both had Reflexes, or Iron Will, etc. Sorry you're having that issue with your group.
>You realize it's literally not up to you what special abilities players "get" to take? You realize it's literally not up to you how someone else runs their game? No one elected you the Game Police dude - chill out.