Draft Medical Rules

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Ah, yeah, those rules are contradictory.

So far I've been assuming that you can get Regimental Surgeons with a MedA of 1, in the same way as you get appalling military commanders.

We could change it, but if I do people should be aware that your suggesting weighting plus change actually makes it more dangerous than the current system!

At the moment, only MedA 1-3 has a chance of a negative modifer at the front. And even there it's small.

(That's how it should be I think. There's very few situations where "bad surgeon" should be the same as "no surgeon" in terms of mods).

[huillaume]

Well, my point is that a surgeon with a MXA 3 or lesser would rarely be accepted ,and if so he wil lrarely survive the first campaign once the soldiers see his capacities . If we cuple this with the fact MXA 1 is the minimum anyone can have, I believe someone appointing for a medical post (in this case regimental) would be asked some referenc es, and a first aid novice (MXA 1) wil lnot be likely to be accepted.

OTOH, I guess a MXA 4 represents someone that can show some references and prove some studies, IMHO the minimum that any Regiment will ask.

Of course, if the minimum MXA is 4, we must either accept there will be no bad results (if only a 6 give them, as with an ability of 4 a result of 6 is not possible) or to accept a result of 5 is also detrimental. As I believe this possibility must always exist, that's why I suggested to return to 5-6 represneting detrimental rsults, even if this means Regimental Surgeons, unless PCs with higher MXA, ca nbe more detrimental than beneficial (BUt then again, this also happens with commanders, whree NPCs use to be quite bad, whe ncomapred with PCs).

[Yves Eau]

The change to have only BR6 subtract 1 from the death roll was a reaction to the poor NPC surgeons, who made surgeons on average dangerous. The change made them on average beneficial. If we enforce a minimum of 3, and weight the odds in favour of 4 or 5, as I suggested a couple of posts back, the average is neutral.

Neutral is better than the definite -1 for regiments with no surgeon.

If characters gravitate towards regiments with good surgeons, the average effect in reality will be beneficial.

If influence is used to remove a low-skilled NPC surgeon, how long before the regiment hires a (newly-rolled) replacement?

[Ymbert Montgomery]

Once a year technically, like other appointments.

One of my main concerns with weighting it towards 4 or 5 is that's actually higher than any PC is going to start with.

[gaston]

To keep things simple, could I suggest the Regimental Surgeon becomes effectively a PC-only appointment ? That all regiments have NPC surgeons / vacancies on paper, but only PC Regimental Surgeons bestow benefits / penalties? This would mean that PC Colonels positively recruited good surgeons, didn't appoint bad ones, and poorly qualified PC surgeons only provided a disincentive to join a very small number of regiments.

[Ymbert Montgomery]

I wouldn't have an issue with that. What do others think?

[huillaume]

Nov 15, 2019 19:10:38 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

Once a year technically, like other appointments.

One of my main concerns with weighting it towards 4 or 5 is that's actually higher than any PC is going to start with.

Just a pont here: it would be higher than any PC is going to start unless he wants to follow this path (medical):

Sept 1, 2019 13:27:32 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

But I allow anyone who wants to start as a Doctor to do so, rolling their Military Ability on 1d3 and their Medical Ability on 1d6.

The fact Regimental surgeons need to have a MxA higher than non-medical characters begin with doesn't seem me wrong, in any case...

[gaston]

Nov 15, 2019 19:23:12 GMT Ymbert Montgomery said:

I wouldn't have an issue with that. What do others think?

Only the 4th Arquebusiers, Frontier Cavalry and RNHB currently have both PCs in action and NPC Regimental Surgeons with Medical Ability of 5+ (ie more likely to have a positive effect than a negative one). Indeed, the good quality of the surgeon was a major factor in Jean Paul Marsaud's joining the 4A.

Maybe these regiments could keep their current Surgeons (until they die / are replaced) while all others are immediately replaced by 'NPC' Surgeons who have no effect either way?

It would certainly cut down on the number of die rolls needed for battle determination - without disadvantaging anyone - and streamline the whole Regimental Surgeons area.

[Alain Andre Durant]

Sept 1, 2019 14:09:36 GMT gaston said:

So why should the Medical School require one ?



> How about if becoming an actual doctor requires 24 weeks of study, much like a Student of Theology?

You know,there might be something there.

Each four weeks of study could equate to a Medical Skill of 1, i.e., 4 weeks = Med 1, 8 weeks = Med 2, 12 weeks = Med 3, etc. A loss means they orgot something and need a refresher. This is true of doctors today and why there is specialization. Practicing doctors do not forget what they commonly practice.

As far as honorifics are concerned. How about Student of Medicine for Med Skill up to 3, Physician for a Med Skill less than 3 - 6, Doctor for 6 - 9, and Surgeon for 9 - 10?

[huillaume]

Nov 26, 2019 0:02:06 GMT Alain Andre Durant said:

As far as honorifics are concerned. How about Student of Medicine for Med Skill up to 3, Physician for a Med Skill less than 3 - 6, Doctor for 6 - 9, and Surgeon for 9 - 10?

Just one point here: at this time, medicine and surgery were two fully diferentiated things. Medicine was seen as a science (and so learned at university), while surgery was seen as a trade/art, and so being learned as an appetice (not unlike what Noah Gordon describes in his novel The Phisician, as it had not changed too much from medieval times).

While some mixup existed, and Medicine started to also treat surgery in modern age, a Surgeon was not seen as a better phisician (as you clasification would mean), but as another thing (and usually more effective than most medical treatments, if infection could be avoided).