planex |
I'm playing a character who relies a lot on his charisma and good looks. In the last session he was hit in the face with an acid attack. Post-combat our group's Cleric healed him with Channel. The GM says that he now looks like Twoface, but I feel like that wouldn't happen. Maybe if his face healed on its own over time, but I feel like if he (or any character) is healed by magic then the healing process wouldn't leave scars or deformations. Otherwise there wouldn't be a handsome character in all of Pathfinder. Afterall, who hasn't been slashed across the face or caught in a fireball at some point?
AndIMustMask |
theres actually a rules example for healing and scars--there's an achievement feat where your collection of them actually gives a bonus--it requires you take a boatload of HP damage and allow it to heal naturally over time (points healed by magic dont count towards it).
implies (to me) that magical healing restores them back whole and hale--and scar-free.
edit: clarity
thegreenteagamer |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like a case of the GM being a bit of a dick, to me.
It was him, after all, who had the acid thrown in the player's face, right? A player you said previously relied on his looks and charisma. Sounds like a calculated plan to take down a player's abilities, rather than just finding other ways to deal with it.
Cerberus Seven |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scars are what happens when the body heals itself naturally. Magical curing is not natural, therefore there is no reason it should leave a scar. If your GM is being very particular about this, ask him if all the characters illustrated in the CRB, GMG, APG, etc. had some kind of elective surgery, alchemical treatment, or other magical restoration done to eliminate the damage to their skin, because they've certainly taken some over their lives as adventurers. At the very least, a lesser or normal Restoration should be allowed to fix the way you look.
The Human Diversion |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a friend who played a character in Living Greyhawk who was in his mid 30's and just recently come into worshipping Pelor. He would comment about his characters back story that he was from a poor, malnurished family and as he progressed in levels he would describe him as being a bit more healthy/fit looking each time you saw him, to the point of old scars from fairly mundane injuries gradually going away.
Matthew Downie |
You could ask your GM if there's a cure. If a scar caused Charisma drain you could fix it with Restoration, but there's no rules for curing injuries that aren't in the rules. (There's no rules for being hit in the face either.)
If your GM continues to be unhelpful, you could say you're wearing a Phantom of the Opera half-mask, which is at least more attractive than the Harvey Dent look.
planex |
Scars are what happens when the body heals itself naturally. Magical curing is not natural, therefore there is no reason it should leave a scar. If your GM is being very particular about this, ask him if all the characters illustrated in the CRB, GMG, APG, etc. had some kind of elective surgery, alchemical treatment, or other magical restoration done to eliminate the damage to their skin, because they've certainly taken some over their lives as adventurers. At the very least, a lesser or normal Restoration should be allowed to fix the way you look.
I was startled by our Wizard's Familiar and accidentally killed it. This prompted a fight during which the zard hit me in the face with acid.
I should point out that the GM isn't being a dick. It's friendly teasing more than anything (although it does seem to hamper my chances when making a pass at the bar wenches).
thegreenteagamer |
It's an oft debated subject, whether charisma is affected by appearance, and vice-versa.
I would say that one's facial appearance is affected by charisma (or vice-versa), but you can't say that someone with crazy good strength/dex/con doesn't have a good body.
And let's face it, for some characters (and people in general), that's all that matters.
Zhayne |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notice that Charisma doesn't necessarily say you look good if you have a high one. It could simply be that your appearance is, in some way, striking and attention-getting, rather than being plain. This can be handsome or hideous.
In 3e, Mind Flayers had an 18+ CHA, and it sure wasn't for their good looks.
PIXIE DUST |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Notice that Charisma doesn't necessarily say you look good if you have a high one. It could simply be that your appearance is, in some way, striking and attention-getting, rather than being plain. This can be handsome or hideous.
In 3e, Mind Flayers had an 18+ CHA, and it sure wasn't for their good looks.
I don't know what your talkin about :P
Them face tentacles man, they just suck you right in :P
Dave Justus |
Pathfinder does not have any rules at all (not counting critical hit decks or something similar) for scarring. Therefore healing, magical or otherwise, doesn't address scarring either.
Generally speaking, I would allow a player to determine if they want to have scars or not, with only something truly exceptional imposing them.
I will note though that if an acid attack left scars that couldn't be healed, it would seem that the brand spell is pretty weak compared to acid splash.
It sounds like your GM is mostly just ribbing you, which is fine, but if it is actually interfering with you fun of play then let him know that.
swoosh |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scars are a biological process.
Magic is Magic.
Unless either the attack spell had some component that made part of it unhealable or the healing spell was cast in such a way to intentionally leave a scar... there's no reason for it to happen.
Hell, if you look like Two-Face that kind of by definition implies that the healing spell failed, because two face's... face certainly doesn't look healed or healthy to me.
Thelemic_Noun |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Scars are caused by the formation of keloid tissue.
Magical healing doesn't form keloid tissue; that would be a transmutation effect, because there was no keloid tissue to start with.
Magical healing doesn't jump-start the body's repair system--if it did, then remove disease would not work if you had late-stage AIDS, and AIDS is a non-magical disease, and can therefore be removed with remove disease.
Also, no amount of jump-starting can bring you back from the dead after three weeks.
Conjuration (healing) takes advantage of the fact that the body knows what it's supposed to be (either from its hereditary blueprint or mind-body dualism), and provides it the energy to get there without half-measures like scarring. In the case of true resurrection, where there is no body, the spell uses the template provided by the soul rather than the genes of the creature.
The association between healing and warmth, and with the sun, is appropriate, given that instantly healing wounds requires cell division, which releases energy in the form of heat.
Mythic Evil Lincoln |
Well, first, Hit Points are partly abstract by definition, so it's a matter of whether or not the HP loss even represented a physical injury.
What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
Let's unpack that for a minute. What this is saying is, a damage attack could mean you got hit directly in the face, but if you have a lot of hit points then you're more able to throw your arms up and let your clothes/armor take the brunt of the damage. HP is like a defensive skill in this way, as you go up in level you are more able to turn lethal attacks into less-lethal ones. So, the amount of damage dealt relative to your TOTAL HP, or maybe even your remaining HP at the time, might give your GM an insight into what the damage actually represents.
Then, there are lots of type of physical injury. A milder acid burn could leave no scar while still being painful enough to limit combat effectiveness and therefore remove hit points. We're talking 1-3 points of damage -- on the level of a cat scratch or scalding hot water. (Then again, I have cat scratch scars on my body, sooo....)
My personal preference as a GM is to rule that critical hits are in fact physical punishment, while lower HP totals simply represent distraction and compromised defenses. But even if you discount that, I'd say that the amount of HP damage done in the acid attack is the most fair way to determine if it leaves a scar when healed naturally.
Magical healing, all bets are off. You GM decides. If your GM won't listen to reasoned arguments as given above, you might be out of luck. If cure spells don't manage it, regeneration certainly will. That spell evidently returns people to a philosophical level of "wholeness", so I'm pretty sure it, or even lesser magic such as restoration, will return you to your flawless looks.
If the GM still won't let you remove the scars with that level of intervention, send him here. I'll straighten him out.
Arikiel |
In the games I run Cure spells do leave some degree of scarring. Whereas Regeneration spells remove everything. Though I would never let scarring get in the way of a player running the character they want to play.
In my setting Orcs get really pissed when you cast Regeneration on them as scars are badges of honor for them.
thorin001 |
RAW there is no provision for scarring.
RAW magical healing brings you back to the state you were in before you were injured, thus no scars.
I play it that it depends on who is granting the healing. A deity of beauty would leave no scars, but a deity like Gorum would definitely leave a battle badge.
Mythic Evil Lincoln |
RAW there is no provision for scarring.
RAW magical healing brings you back to the state you were in before you were injured, thus no scars.I play it that it depends on who is granting the healing. A deity of beauty would leave no scars, but a deity like Gorum would definitely leave a battle badge.
Maybe not CORE, but there are rules written for scarring in Skull and Shackles.
The rule is printed on this page just search for "scar".
Now, that shouldn't overrule what this GM is doing, necessarily. But it is there as a relevant rule for the situation. For all we know, the GM was already using this rule behind the screen.
voska66 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I view hit point as more avoiding the blow entirely. It's when you run out of hit points that real would occur that can kill you. That's why you have till negative con before you die. Some people can shrug off lethal wounds and that is why you have feats like Die and the Deathless feats as well as racial features.
Mythic Evil Lincoln |
I view hit point as more avoiding the blow entirely. It's when you run out of hit points that real would occur that can kill you. That's why you have till negative con before you die. Some people can shrug off lethal wounds and that is why you have feats like Die and the Deathless feats as well as racial features.
The rules support this view, at least in the definition of hit points.
The rules for healing hit points are a little weirder. But then, still very abstract.
Fergie |
I would say it is just like healing in real life using technology. Some doctors can sew you up so there is barely a scar, and others slap it together and leave a mess.
If you want to apply mechanics to how battle scarred you look after healing, use the heal skill.
I would personally rather play in a game where combat actions had more then just a temporary mechanical effect. As long as it isn't the gm messing with you, it sounds interesting, and probably isn't more then a restoration spell away from being solved.
Kazaan |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aeric Blackberry wrote:Being ugly does not reduce your Charisma in Pathfinder.Debatable.
"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
From Paizo's Critical Hit deck:
"Ugly Wound: Normal Damage and 1d3 Cha damage and 1 Cha drain."
Charisma is a numeric value so it's determining the relative value of your appearance, not the type of your appearance. Pretty, ugly, intimidating, unassuming, any quality you could use to describe a person's appearance, Charisma determines how strong that quality is. If they are good looking, low Charisma means they're still good looking, but not as much as a person with average Charisma and not nearly as much as a person with high Charisma. If they look ugly, a low Cha character is ugly in the "eww, gross" kind of sense, an average Cha character is ugly in a "kill it with fire" sense and a high Cha character is ugly in a "it's so ugly it's breaking my mind but I still can't look away" kind of sense. Boil it all down and Charisma means Confidence. It's confidence that leads to a strong personality, strong ability to lead, and strong appearance. Lack of confidence can make an otherwise beautiful person seem lackluster and an otherwise competent leader unlikely to be followed. In this regard, damage to your Charisma involving the Ugly Wound isn't about the damage to your appearance being physically ugly; it's a shot to your confidence. "Wow, I very nearly failed and this ugly scar is a constant reminder of that," is a shot to your Ego moreso than your physical appearance because even hitting an ugly eldritch monstrosity with an Ugly Wound, while one would think it makes them more ugly (higher Cha), it actually shoots down their Ego and sense of confidence. By contrast, there are feats where a cool, manly scar is an Ego booster, buffing up your confidence. "Wow, I nearly failed but I pulled through anyway and this scar is a constant reminder of how awesome I am."
So, to sum it all up, don't confuse qualitative with quantitative.
"He did great things. Terrible, but great."
"That fella is going places. Not good places, mind you."
Jeven |
It should be the player's call.
I think the only time scarring should come in to play is if the character is reduced below 0 hit points by a single high-damage attack. Otherwise magical healing should knit together all the wounds.
But again, its up to the player. A near-death close call with a major foe leaving behind a scar as a permanent memento is a character story element really and not something for the rules to impose or deny.
Charon's Little Helper |
I'm with voska66 on this one. Unless a blow gets you down to either negative or at least down to your bottom 10%, it's representative of near misses etc. where your heroic awesomeness gets you out of the way.
The d20 modern/future FAQ had a bit in it where it talked about why middling high level characters and tanks had the same HP. The tank is actually getting hit every time, while for the character it's almost entirely heroic near misses, scratches, etc, and they're only really getting hit as their HP gets low.
Now as to how magical healing works... the % thing was one of the things I actually liked about 4e.
phantom1592 |
I'm with voska66 on this one. Unless a blow gets you down to either negative or at least down to your bottom 10%, it's representative of near misses etc. where your heroic awesomeness gets you out of the way.
HP are best not to be thought of too closely. It's a necessary evil of the game and will never fit a logical thought pattern.
As such they are NOT near misses. They are actual 'hits.' They cause bleed damage. They cause poison damage. They cause sneak attack damage (often combining with others), Every weapon is listed as 'damage'....
People do not rush across the battlefield to 'cure luck'... they are curing 'wounds'... If you're wearing armor... then you're just getting rattled around inside there and probably look ok...
If you're a monk or something wearing just a silk shirt.... that shirts probably in shreds by the end of the fight ;)
As for scars... They NEVER should effect your stats. You may go from pretty boy to awesome eyepatch dude... but you're charisma is the same regardless. it just comes from different places now. I wouldn't be interested in a game where a DM can nerf your paladin or Sorcerer with a nat 20 or something.
I think scars should be in the hands of the players. I've had characters who didn't wear armor, and after a memorable battle with something awesome, would add a 'scar mark' on his sheet to remember the battle. (Spear through side, Owlbear chomped shoulder, poisoned in leg...)
As for magical healing? The way I tend to think of it, is 'did you get completely healed or not?' If you're low level, and took 10 damage, and were healed up 8... Or higher level; down 95 and healed for 86... then there may be a scar. If you were hurt for 10 and were healed for 12... then the magic took care of it. (unless the scar is fun enough to mark down ;) )
1) have Fun.
2) don't screw people over...
Mythic Evil Lincoln |
Charon's Little Helper wrote:I'm with voska66 on this one. Unless a blow gets you down to either negative or at least down to your bottom 10%, it's representative of near misses etc. where your heroic awesomeness gets you out of the way.
HP are best not to be thought of too closely. It's a necessary evil of the game and will never fit a logical thought pattern.
As such they are NOT near misses. They are actual 'hits.' They cause bleed damage. They cause poison damage. They cause sneak attack damage (often combining with others), Every weapon is listed as 'damage'....
People do not rush across the battlefield to 'cure luck'... they are curing 'wounds'... If you're wearing armor... then you're just getting rattled around inside there and probably look ok...
Actually Phantom, the rules themselves are quite explicit in defining hit points as partially abstract:
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
What follows is my own extrapolation from that definition, which I don't claim is RAW, but it works really well: Hit Points are best viewed as a rating of "defensive readiness". Getting hurt diminishes your ability to protect yourself, but so do many other things. You ultimately only fail to "protect yourself" when you hit zero HP.
A successful "hit" with an attack could be anything that diminishes the target's ability to defend itself. This means actual injuries, but also divided attention, temporarily compromised armor (helmet knocked off, shield strap loose), a tiring parry or dodge, superficial but painful cuts, bruises and pricks, dwindling morale or luck; a creature’s various defenses get worn down after many intercepted attacks, and this leaves them vulnerable to a more devastating hit.
Here's an easy way to envision it. You have 10 HP. Two goblins attack you. The first one hits -- the GM could describe this as being stabbed in the shin, but he could ALSO describe it as you parrying the attack, or even holding the little bugger at bay. You lose 5 hit points because the goblin successfully distracted you, leaving an opening for the second goblin who does 6 points of damage. That puts you at -1, and since you're now bleeding we would probably call that a wound.
Why does this matter? Well, if you're in an adventure that features a lot of big damage monsters, like giants, as a GM you'll quickly become thankful for alternate descriptions beyond "He crushes you with a club the size of a treetrunk... but you are miraculously still alive." Now the GM can at least rationalize you diving out of the way and still losing HP.
Regarding poison, a needle can easily do zero HP of damage and administer a poison readily enough. Bleed damage is certainly a bleeding injury, and it requires a heal check of its own, so you're right, there's no reason to ever describe those kinds of attacks as anything but direct hits.
The point is, by retaining the abstraction and letting the GM define the action on a case-by-case basis, it makes for more dynamic combat all around, without changing the game balance at all.
Now, the natural healing rate is a bit borked no matter which philosophy you hold. If all HP damage reflects injury, the natural healing rate is absurdly fast. If most damage is abstract with some injury, the healing rate is too slow or too fast depending on what the damage was. I think the RAW healing rate is a decent compromise between the two, since it virtually never comes up anyway, with potions and cure spells readily available in the majority of campaigns.
Jeven |
A lot of it has to be hero's luck. You can toss any high level character off the tallest cliff and he will get up and walk off without any long-term harm (not even a twisted ankle!).
Even bleed damage is level based. For example 6 points of bleed damage will kill off a lvl1 character pretty quickly, but a high level one can endure that for a long time. But they both have the same amount of blood, so the severity of the bleeding wound has to be comparatively less -- as in, a sliced artery versus a shallow flesh wound.
Grey_Mage |
As to the OP, its what ever you want.
Certain societies may prefer scars are they convey a sense of sacrifice/respect. In others, people want to look pretty. I would say it depends on the deity and the nature of the healing magic.
Mechanically, it makes no difference but a GM can use it to flavor the campaign.
Matthew Downie |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
prd wrote:What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.What follows is my own extrapolation from that definition, which I don't claim is RAW, but it works really well: Hit Points are best viewed as a rating of "defensive readiness". Getting hurt diminishes your ability to protect yourself, but so do many other things.
Note that it says the ability to turn a wound into a less serious one, not the ability to turn a wound into a non-wound.
It seems more logically consistent if you are always wounded by HP loss. The alternative is weird. "You dodge as the giant swings his club at you, leaving you badly distracted. Lose 24 HP." "I'm distracted? I drink a potion of Cure Serious Wounds!"The RAW version would be, "You dodge as the giant swings his club at you. It glances off your shield, still leaving you badly bruised and shaken. Lose 24HP."
Mythic Evil Lincoln |
Note that it says the ability to turn a wound into a less serious one, not the ability to turn a wound into a non-wound.
It seems more logically consistent if you are always wounded by HP loss. The alternative is weird. "You dodge as the giant swings his club at you, leaving you badly distracted. Lose 24 HP." "I'm distracted? I drink a potion of Cure Serious Wounds!"
The RAW version would be, "You dodge as the giant swings his club at you. It glances off your shield, still leaving you badly bruised and shaken. Lose 24HP."
As I said, this interpretation is best used on a case-by-case basis. It's nice to open the door to other descriptions if the obvious ones don't quite fit.
I actually use the "club leaves you badly distracted" quite often, though I use different language. It's more like "to evade the enourmous club, you must hurl yourself to the ground adjacent, and when you roll to your feet you must get you bearings." This would often be instantly followed by the next attack roll result as it relates to the previous one.
I'm not claiming this level of interpretation is RAW -- what you say is basically true. I tried to draw a clear line in my post to that effect.
In essence, I'm claiming that there are a lot of elements of a dramatic fight scene that are essentially "missing" from the mechanics, but they can be very easily accounted for in the abstract nature of hit points. This makes for way better descriptions, while not changing the balance of combat at all. It's a great solution for people who are a little bothered by hit points as literal wounds (a frequent higher-level campaign complaint).
This interpretation has made my game a lot more exciting, and a lot less stand-and-hack. The inclusion of parrying, especially Conan-style "straining of mighty thews" has breathed new life into some otherwise repetitive battles. It is for this reason I feel compelled to share the logic of my methods at length; perhaps someone else can benefit from it.
lemeres |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
theres actually a rules example for healing and scars--there's an achievement feat where your collection of them actually gives a bonus--it requires you take a boatload of HP damage and allow it to heal naturally over time (points healed by magic dont count towards it).
implies (to me) that magical healing restores them back whole and hale--and scar-free.
edit: clarity
According to the feat, history of scars, it still counts, but healing reduces your total. For every 5 points of healing, your total goes down by 1.
Which kind of tells me something- what if healing is applies when you aren't hurt? Then that should reduce the total- which represents the scars you have. Or what about spill over from healing spells applied to other areas (stab to the gut).
So just keep a count of how much healing you are taking- when you have been healed for 5 times the acid damage, then you will be pretty boy again (assuming there are not any other particularly noticeable face scars)
Anyway, I don't particularly like the argument that 'magic doesn't leave scars cause magic'. It seems short sighted. How is the healing done? If it just turns back cause and effect, then sure, wound never happened. But if it just accelerates the body's natural healing, then scars would form (and then fade) as normal. History of scars (and the fact healing spells go hit point by hitpoint instead of just negating x attacks) tells me it might be the latter. Not a perfect argument, but it has at least a small bit of validity.