DM Farstar's page

Totally necroing this post but from what I see on the rules about damaging items You cannot repair a destroyed item

"Damaged Objects

A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item’s hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.

Damaged (but not destroyed) objects can be repaired with the Craft skill and a number of spells. (eg. make whole or mending)"

Now make whole says
"Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less)"

But as the arrow is no longer magical after it is fired as Umbranus' post says and therefore cannot be fixed with make whole, and as the text clearly exempts destroyed items, they cannot be repaired with craft skills nor mending as make whole and mending both specify in the text they can fix destroyed MAGIC ITEMS not mundane.

DM Farstar wrote:

Necromancy is indeed the logical choice for healing magic, but when 3rd edition was designed, for whatever reason, those designers decided to move healing magic OUT of necromancy and into conjuration. (Healing magic WAS necromancy in 1st and 2nd edition D&D.) When we created Pathfinder, we wanted to preserve as much backward compatibility with 3.5 D&D as possible, so we didn't change healing magic back to necromancy.

The quote that healing magic is always divine is blatantly wrong, though. It's usually divine, but not always. Bards and witches can cast healing spells, and they're still arcane spellcasters.

...

Thanks for the response!

Any insight into what is being conjured to provide the healing? Or are you saying that the subschool description for healing in the core rulebook is so wrong that the arcane casters don't actually conjure anything at all to heal and it just was placed under conjuration for mechanical compatibility?

So to clarify:
[It just works, it is true arcane healing, not a divine conjuration, and there's not really any implication here just a mechanical choice] is what i'm getting.

John,
I love the system, the world, the stories. Thank you so much for Wrath of the righteous, it was like it was written for my Mythic Bard, Cavalier, Battle herald, Evangelist! Never thought I'd say that was the perfect fit lol. Simply put, the End of book 5 was the best tabletop RP experience of my life. Twas Gloriously Epic!

Anyway I have a question that came up during my Rise of the Runelords campaign during the skinsaw murders.
How does arcane healing work? "Conjuration: Healing: Certain divine conjurations heal creatures or even bring them back to life."
Seems like this is an odd school for a healing subschool when necromancy says "Necromancy spells manipulate the power of death, unlife, and the life force."

This seems to imply something more than what is written. Wouldn't the life force be the way to heal someone? We see that certain items can that use necromantic spells Martyr's Tear for one. (my paladin player just tried to buy this and use it only he found out it was necromancy and panicked)
But you have to take life away to give it with necromancy and yet conjuration just gives it. It also says it is from a "Certain divine Conjuration" seemingly implying there is NO WAY for the arcane to do any real healing. ALL healing is divine in origin and you simply conjure a divine healing mcguffin and use it to fix whatever ails you. This leads to the conclusion that necromancy is the arcane attempt to wield godly power or a counterfit to divine healing and thus a total perversion of divine power! A veritable attempt to play god as a school of magic. We can clearly see opposites in raise dead and animate dead, two seemingly similar spells that are from TOTALLY different schools and with WAY different results.

So whats the real implication? The party lead in my campaign is a Necromancer given diplomatic protection by the pure legion to go and raise evil men to undeath to serve purgatorial sentences because they don't believe those men will ever pay for their crimes due to a lack of belief in the gods. I call him a Soul Warden. He has recently been shaken in his belief that necromancy is a tool without a moral inclination by the events at the misgivings and during a side quest where they followed a map left on traver's desk to a location on grubber's hermitage and found the first section of the gluttonous tome hidden in a former mountain top ruin beneath the church there (seems like V was trying to find another way to fix the family error he made).

Anyway Necromancy is clearly a huge theme from here on out with the possibility of Zutha on the horizon and the party just keeps digging for answers into the schools of magic and the moral nature of the school at large. I think it could be ok for a paladin to use a matyr's tear to siphon his own health to give to others. It could also be perceived as an evil perversion of divine healing. I haven't made a ruling on it yet. The necromancer of the pure legion uses wands to heal people, but if it is indeed from a divine source then is he actually violating his belief system? He doesn't know yet, and its gonna be a great story to see unfold.
I have plans for what they could find in the ruins of thassalon concerning these things but I am eager to know if you have an official explanation or any fragments of one before I make up my own. Lord Zutha needs to know his stuff MUAHAHAHAHAA!

Thanks