|
Ok starting a new thread for random in game questions. Most posts on other threads seem to be regarding rules and class info, what I am looking for is a general Q&A about trade, services, places, people, and all things Pathfinder. Ill start with a question of my own that didnt seem to fit in any of the other threads.
Last session Urie, the third Lv. Human Ranger was punched in the mouth by a Monk in Riddleport (2nd darkness G.G. raid scene). While no serious damage was done, one of his teeth was knocked out. How (And for how much) could a tooth be healed or replaced in such a fine and upstanding place as riddleport? While a missing front tooth may be seen by some as "Hard Core" Urie does miss bieng able to eat solid foods.
Any idea's?
Cure X wounds should suffice - the spells basically heal you back to full, without any scars or anything like that involved. A missing tooth should be the least of your worries with that sort of healing power involved.
Cure X wounds should suffice - the spells basically heal you back to full, without any scars or anything like that involved. A missing tooth should be the least of your worries with that sort of healing power involved.
Actually he has a point - cure wound spells don't replace bodyparts - even Raise dead doesn't do that, you need regenerate. Although if he can find the tooth, it can probably be healed.
In any case, the temple of Calystria would probably have motivations to restoring Urie's handsome mug.
My take on the cure spells has always been that they regrow nothing.
They stitch wounds closed (without actual stitches) and fill in the damaged tissue with fresh new tissue (scar tissue). Then this scar tissue heals too (all part of the spell) leaving ultimately no scar, or a scar so faint that it's barely noticeable.
Though, if you're only healed part way by a cure spell, and heal the rest of the way naturally (camping over night, etc.) then it does leave scars like any other natural healing, though the rapid magical healing from the cure spell reduces the amount of eventual scarring.
As for regrowing anything, that's the province of Regeneration.
Although, I've always been willing to say that while the wound is fresh and new, reattaching whatever was severed (holding the severed part in its proper place) and then casting a cure spell would cause the same effect - new tissues would fill in the wounded area, attaching to both the severed part and the living part, filling the gap/seam/sever with fresh new tissue, effectively reattaching the lost part.
Doing so requires the appropriate cure spell:
Bone damage is either moderate or serious, depending on the bone (femur, humerus, spine, pelvis, skull are all serious, others are moderate).
Organ damage is always critical except if it's one kidney, which is only serious.
Severed major limbs are critical, minor extremeties are serious, and digits (fingers or toes) are only moderate.
Teeth would be light, probably - plenty of people go through life missing one or more teeth and being none the worse off for it.
Replacing the lost tooth means they would have to find the tooth, clean it off, put it back in the mouth where it goes (pushing it down into the socket it was knocked out of - ouch) then cast at least a cure light wounds spell on it.
If the character swallowed the tooth, better induce vomiting quickly or the tooth won't be available for a few days, during which time the empty socket will close and begin natural healing - too late to replace it.
None of that is RAW, though. Just a bit of common sense applied to the idea of what magical healing might mean, combined with a destire to be more vicious in combat without forcing the PCs to reach double digit levels before they can fix the vicious damage.
|
Hah, so that's your Paizo forums name "Urie"! :)
I'm the DM for the game in question, unless there is some other ranger named Urie playing Second Darkness. The tooth being knocked out was purely for flavor, but yeah, I had said that technically Cures wouldn't replace it.
Now whether or not their exist 'dentists' of a sort in Golarion...I imagine getting a Silver filling wouldn't be bad, if it was important. :)
Also, missing one tooth shouldn't impair your ability to eat solid foods much at all, especially since it was never clarified which tooth it was. I've had a few friends go throughout life with a missing tooth, one of which has had it missing for the last few years and is only now getting a metal replacement (it was near the back, so didn't affect his ability to eat at all).
While I guess it makes more sense to have one of the 'frontal' ones be a missing tooth, it really doesn't matter much to me.
Edit: Looking above, I think DM_Blake (my namesake) has the right idea. I suppose if you had put the tooth immediately back in and had it Cured, then it would seal back up. Which I believe you could of done, since the tooth bonked the tiefling in the head.
|
|
Haha hey Kage! Yeah the whole thing is flavor, (Number of teeth shouldnt affect combat all too much) Still, with Urie's interest in a certain half elf Cypher Mage looking good is important! So with magic seeming to fail him what would Urie's more mundane options be? Nothing says trustworthy like a riddleport dentist! Still a silver tooth (Especially with this characters background) is better than nothing.
-Attic
(Number of teeth shouldnt affect combat all too much)
Ha! - tell that to the barbarian you might meet in about 2 modules, who got crit-decked and lost his bite attack...
As for regrowing anything, that's the province of Regeneration.[...]
Organ damage is always critical except if it's one kidney, which is only serious.
This would mean that if a dragon got a crit on you, tears out your, say, spleen or both kidneys or something like that, and incinerates whatever he got with dragonfire, that you'd be screwed.
Since you can't regrow it with cure spells, you will die.
That doesn't work for me - not if we have hit points, and hit point damage.
So unless you have special effects for crits and/or massive amounts of damage being incurable, healing magic should be able to regrow stuff.
If a simple pill from Star Trek can do it, magic should have no problem with it.
|
So unless you have special effects for crits and/or massive amounts of damage being incurable, healing magic should be able to regrow stuff.
Canonically, cure spells CAN NOT regrow anything more complex than tissue - entire organs are beyond it (muscles and bones are technically organs). If the GM describes the Dragon's crits as biting off limbs and removing organs, then the GM is (perhaps unintentionally) cutting cure off as an entirely valid healing option. A removed limb may still allow a PC to function, and in fact, the PC may be at full hit points and still be missing that limb.
Many GMs ignore the limitation that cure cannot regrow more than tissue, because it limits the cinematic option when describing damage. This is why you see so very few PCs taking regeneration; ignoring the main limitation on cure spells makes regen redundant.
Do you have a link or page reference that confirms that in 3e/PF, cure spells do not heal more than flesh wounds?
Because it doesn't make any sense in a system with hit points. The system only tracks damage in hit points. There are no damage locations, no rules or even guidelines about the nature of the damage taken. Damage can mean getting more and more winded (without being actually injured), getting scratches, getting flesh wounds, sustaining damage to, or even losses of, limbs and organs. Depending on your maximum HP and your current HP, the amount of damage you take can mean any of the above (10 hp will not bother a tough fighter 20 in the slightest, but a weak child commoner 1 will be mortally wounded).
And if the damage doesn't specify the kind of injury, the healing shouldn't be limited to a kind of injury, either. Especially since a cure light wounds could bring said child back from near-death to completely fine while it might be insufficient to let said fighter regain consciousness if he's dying.
It's not realistic, but hit points aren't realistic to begin with. If you want damage types, hit zones, and all that, then don't just use HP.
And for the record: I'm not a fan of using HP but deciding on a whim what kind of damage it does and whether magic can fix it. It's completely arbitrary and half-hearted to boot.
|
|
Do you have a link or page reference that confirms that in 3e/PF, cure spells do not heal more than flesh wounds?
Cure Light Wounds:
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
So what, you say, that doesn't say anything about tissue damage vs organ damage. HP are an abstraction, and healing HP can be described as regrowing damaged organs or ears. Well, let's take a look at Regenerate:
The subject’s severed body members (fingers, toes, hands, feet, arms, legs, tails, or even heads of multiheaded creatures), broken bones, and ruined organs grow back. After the spell is cast, the physical regeneration is complete in 1 round if the severed members are present and touching the creature. It takes 2d10 rounds otherwise.
It also does some other stuff that cure critical wounds does, three spell levels back, but that's not important. You could just cast cure critical wounds and save your 7th level spell slot. The point here is that, if cure spells regenerated damaged or missing organs, why does it only make talk about regrowing parts when you reach this otherwise redundant 7th level spell?
Explain that last question to my satisfaction, and I'll concede the point.
Because it doesn't make any sense in a system with hit points.
No offense, KaeYoss, but it doesn't make any sense to describe HP damage as anything except HP damage given the abstract nature of the system.
The fact that one spell spells out that it does something doesn't necessarily mean that a spell that doesn't spell it out doesn't do it.
I always considered regenerate a "roleplaying" spell, to help people who have suffered crippling wounds and recovered without the help of a magical healer.
As for regrowing anything, that's the province of Regeneration.[...]
Organ damage is always critical except if it's one kidney, which is only serious.
This would mean that if a dragon got a crit on you, tears out your, say, spleen or both kidneys or something like that, and incinerates whatever he got with dragonfire, that you'd be screwed.
Since you can't regrow it with cure spells, you will die.
Well, now, that's really interesting, since the RAW doesn't support anything about dragons tearing out your spleen or both kidneys or anything like that.
That doesn't work for me - not if we have hit points, and hit point damage.
By this argument, with hit points and hit point damage, your spleen and kidneys and teeth and every other organ/body part are perfectly save from being severed/damaged/torn out.
So unless you have special effects for crits and/or massive amounts of damage being incurable, healing magic should be able to regrow stuff.
But first you have to alter the RAW to allow for special Crit effects that damage these things.
Why would you use a non-RAW critical hit system to argue that a RAW interpretation of the curing system is broken?
Cure X Wounds does not need to regrow limbs, replace organs, etc., because the RAW doesn't sever limbs or tear out organs.
With the exception of swords of sharpness or vorpal weapons, your body will die intact, regeneration or no.
If a simple pill from Star Trek can do it, magic should have no problem with it.
Yep, the Star Trek "Regeneration" pill can regrow kidneys, and the D&D "Regeneration" spell can do it too.
What's simple to the technology of the 24th century is also simple to the magic of the spellcasters who can handle 7th level spells.
Do you have a link or page reference that confirms that in 3e/PF, cure spells do not heal more than flesh wounds?
Only if you have the link or page reference that says a dragon can tear out your spleen or both kidneys.
Because it doesn't make any sense in a system with hit points.
Neither do spleen-eating dragons.
The system only tracks damage in hit points.
Which is why dragons don't eat our spleens in D&D.
There are no damage locations, no rules or even guidelines about the nature of the damage taken.
Again, you're arguing my point that there are no "spleen" damage locations, no rules or even guidelines to damage or tear out your spleen.
Damage can mean getting more and more winded (without being actually injured), getting scratches, getting flesh wounds, sustaining damage to, or even losses of, limbs and organs.
Yeah, it could be all that.
But really, it's just numbers on the character sheet.
If you want to describe it as any, or all, of that, then be my guest. A HP system is flexible enough to call the damage whatever you want.
But, if you're going to tear out spleens, you might want to consider what it takes to heal that spleen.
If you're OK with a Cure Light Wounds regrowing a spleen, then so be it. Be OK with it.
But it makes one wonder why there is a 7th level spell that does just what a simple 1st level spell can do. Might as well drop "Regeneration" from the spell list and memorize something more useful. Heck, your cleric can't even spontaneously cast Regeneration.
And if the damage doesn't specify the kind of injury, the healing shouldn't be limited to a kind of injury, either.
You're the one talking about dragons tearing out spleens.
Not me.
And not the RAW.
Why would you alter the damage rules and expect the RAW healing rules to suit your altered damage rules?
More interestingly, why would you feel that such a scenario is a valid argument that curing/healing/regenerating needs no further interpretation in light of kinds of damage not covered by the RAW?
It's not realistic, but hit points aren't realistic to begin with. If you want damage types, hit zones, and all that, then don't just use HP.
You're still arguing my point.
If you want to tear out spleens, then don't just use HP.
But if you do tear out spleens AND you use HP, then maybe you might want to consider how the HP healing system applies to torn out spleens.
And for the record: I'm not a fan of using HP but deciding on a whim what kind of damage it does and whether magic can fix it. It's completely arbitrary and half-hearted to boot.
Agreed.
100%.
But it is quick and easy, which might account for the fact that D&D has what, 100x more players than Rolemaster (yeah, I made up that statistic, I have no idea what the real multiplier would be, but I'm sure it's a fairly big one).
|
|
The fact that one spell spells out that it does something doesn't necessarily mean that a spell that doesn't spell it out doesn't do it.
I've decided Fireball actually changes your hair color to pink when you're hit with it, and Summon Monster IV (JUST Summon Monster IV) changes the alignment of everyone in a four-square radius from the caster.
We don't get to add mechanical effects to spells just because we want them to have them; spells do what they say on the tin, and nothing else. That's why we HAVE an exhaustive list of hundreds upon hundreds of spells, dozens of which are just a minor mechanical improvement over another spell. Cure Light Wounds can't heal 4d8 hp + 1/level just because you're a 7th level cleric; you've got to take Cure Critical Wounds to do that. Cure Critical Wounds can't regrow a severed limb, you've got to take Regenerate. That's how the magic system works as written!I always considered regenerate a "roleplaying" spell, to help people who have suffered crippling wounds and recovered without the help of a magical healer.
Who, in D&D, suffers a crippling wound and doesn't have access to magical healing?
I always considered regenerate a "roleplaying" spell, to help people who have suffered crippling wounds and recovered without the help of a magical healer.Who, in D&D, suffers a crippling wound and doesn't have access to magical healing?
Depending on the campaign, it could be lots of people.
A low magic campaign might have entire communities of people who have no temple near enough to get magical healing.
Evil communities might have temples, but the evil priests may not be willing to heal the injured.
A society that values concepts like "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" may not condone healing the sick or injured - let the weak ones die and the strong ones endure to become stronger.
Even in a traditional campaign, with regular D&D magic and good-guy clerics on every street corner, healing might require "contributions" at most temples, and some poor peasants just may never have the funds to contribute sufficiently to afford healing magic.
People could be far away, adventuring on some lost continent, their cleric dies, they run out of potions, they suffer injuries, then they get back on the ship and sail for home, healing throughout the long sea voyage.
Sure, I know. Almost every one of those examples the immediate question is, if they don't have access or can't afford a Cure Light Wounds, how will they ever get access/funds for a Regeneration, but that is a separate question to the one you asked and a different consideration than the one that KaeYoss proposed.
|
|
Sure, I know. Almost every one of those examples the immediate question is, if they don't have access or can't afford a Cure Light Wounds, how will they ever get access/funds for a Regeneration, but that is a separate question to the one you asked and a different consideration than the one that KaeYoss proposed.
It was also a rhetorical question. :D I don't care who doesn't have access to magical healing; I'm more concerned why a purely "role-playing" spell is consigned to the dusty reaches of the 7th level in a game that rigidly stratifies its spells by game effect.
|
|
If a DM is having creatures rip out organs when you're at a level that Reincarnate is not possible (or even if you are), then he is being a bad DM. HP is specifically an abstract system that, for all we know, does not even cause actual wounds all the time. It can be anything from a near miss, to a scratch, to an actual wound. Whatever.
If the DM's specifically saying that organs or whatever are getting taken out when you lose HP...well, I'd walk. Personally. Unless he changes the Cure spells to heal Organ damage too, but then Reincarnate is out of a job.
|
|
HP is specifically an abstract system that, for all we know, does not even cause actual wounds all the time. It can be anything from a near miss, to a scratch, to an actual wound. Whatever.
I agree with this entirely.
The problem, in large part, is in DMs wanting to add some flavor and spice to their descriptions. "The dragon hits you for 49 points of damage!", while accurate lacks a certain cinematic quality. "The dragon roars and rips your arm off and beats you with it until your spleen falls out!", gives us that exciting, visceral nausea we've all come to expect from cinematic ultraviolence, but then we either have to kill and maim characters in horrific ways, or put poor Regenerate out of a job.
I'm for keeping all spells on the payroll. Sorry, ultraviolence!
|
|
I’m pleased that this has sparked such a lively conversation! My take is that HP is just a way of to gauge your character's well being. While a D8+3 sword strike may nearly kill a 1st level character it would only be a scratch to a 10th level hero. This can be explained by that hero's ability to dodge, soak up, or otherwise minimize that damage, or maybe that the hero's flesh is something akin to wood by that point. How it is explained is merely flavor. Some players may like the flavor of spleen ripping dragons, while others like to think of their characters just being very tired after a big fight. (I personally don’t mind my character nursing a few wounds for a few days or until healing can be found. It adds a slight element of realism). If your big into specifications there is always the vitality and wounds system popular in the Star Wars RPG among others. When Vitality runs out your too tired to dodge and then things start getting broken or severed... then you get to buy cool robot legs! Fun for all!
Attic
|
|
I think one of the simplest ways to explain it off is to say that the lowest 10% of your HP is when the wounds start to matter. The rest of it is narrow misses, scratches, or other lucky breaks.
That way a level 1 character with 8 hp taking 7 damage *feels* the blade, while a higher level guy with 80 hp can just shrug it off. He won't feel it until he's at 8.
I might bump the percentage up to 20 or so on second thought, but either way, it's all abstract.
Any particular reason for your hostility, blake?
Any particular reason for your hostility, blake?If you think Blake's being hostile, sir, you are brand new to the Internets.
Not a relative issue.
HP is specifically an abstract system that, for all we know, does not even cause actual wounds all the time. It can be anything from a near miss, to a scratch, to an actual wound. Whatever.
I agree with this entirely.
The problem, in large part, is in DMs wanting to add some flavor and spice to their descriptions. "The dragon hits you for 49 points of damage!", while accurate lacks a certain cinematic quality. "The dragon roars and rips your arm off and beats you with it until your spleen falls out!", gives us that exciting, visceral nausea we've all come to expect from cinematic ultraviolence, but then we either have to kill and maim characters in horrific ways, or put poor Regenerate out of a job.
I'm for keeping all spells on the payroll. Sorry, ultraviolence!
Which is why it is important to consider what that kind of damage would mean in a 'real' sense. Having your arm ripped off is a rather serious injury. It's not a energy sword hit that immediately cauterizes the wound. There would be additional bleeding, splintered bone fragments, and a good deal of shock. Most of which isn't really covered very well in the 3.5 OGL combat system.
Although a GM who is using this kind of house expansion in extra wounding has a number of examples to work from in existing game mechanics, bleeding wounds and other status conditions (Shaken, Dazed, and/or Sickened).
Having a dragon remove a spleen (and the surrounding tissue said tooth or claw would pass through) would be a good description for a near fatal hit (reduced to 0 or less HP). This is the kind of wound that will put someone out of a fight. Like having your intestines blow out. You may not die right away (0 HP or Diehard feat) but you will die in short order.
Personally if one wanted to introduce such a system I'd start by reworking the Massive Damage rules. Instead of save or die at X amount of damage you could apply other conditions to indicate serious body injuries. Of course you'd still have to define how Cure and other healing spells interact with such a system. Much like how healing non-lethal damage from fatigue works.
|
|
I had always thought of HP system dort of basic, but hey it works.. but I do see some points.
Monsters that can Rend your bloody arms off, or Constrict, Crush, evisserate etc would do major damage. However we are no just ordinary, we are Heroes, evil or good and those with high Cons can justify basicaly having their entrails hanging out while the cleric of Sune is puking while saying some words of healing for the poor bastard. :)
I love the roleplaying aspect of taking damage.. Hell I hate when I get attacked.. I think of my body and face and think.. Holy Shi.. if that was real I would be so messed up beyond recognition..
Hurray for the Healers!
Any particular reason for your hostility, blake?
Sorry, didn't mean to seem hostile.
Your point just seemed odd, and I felt inclined to write a rebuttal, point by point.
It wasn't meant to be taken as hostility.
I just knew I should have included a smilycon...
:)
|
|
Your point just seemed odd, and I felt inclined to write a rebuttal, point by point.
actually his point is a good one
just we play with abstract number since a few editions back
but truth to be told... axes and swords cut parts... dragons cut bigger parts, or chew in pieces or burn you to cinders...
yes... we play like in a movie or animation where the main characters enfer suffer anything more grievous than geting their har messed and some brusses that dissapear for the next encounter, chapter, sesion, etc
but KaeYoss point is realism... ok not everyone would agree... but the damage a dragon would do is beyond a few bruises... is the damn thing brings you to half your hps with a tail slap or a claw... realistically you would have broken bones, internal or external bleeding, and a lot a lot of small wounds...
yes cure X wounds does heal that...
so a broken tooth applied instantly would receive the same threatment... if takes longer and the wound seals, then not...
for examply in our RotRL campaign a Hellknight cut a boys 4 members (both arms and legs) to punish him for robbing... but my cleric used cure critical wounds, in that instant after the cutting the DM allowed the healing... later it would have needed regeneration (the poor bastard has been robbing to feed his family)
for examply in our RotRL campaign a Hellknight cut a boys 4 members (both arms and legs) to punish him for robbing... but my cleric used cure critical wounds, in that instant after the cutting the DM allowed the healing...
** Clarifying the issue (I GM that game), the boy didn't "grow new limbs" (that would have required Regenerate). What this cleric did was gathering the mutilated parts, which then were re-attached using one Cure Critical Wounds per limb. Yeah, I know the spell doesn't -explicitly- say you can, but I make judgement calls for "cure" spells based on the wound's context.
Same goes for OP's missing tooth example. Any dentist can re-attach a tooth if you bring it with you (in a glass of milk) within 30 minutes of having lost it, so for CLW this same thing should be a cakewalk (as long as you still have with you the teeth to be re-attached, that it).
Insert flames and nay-saying after the dotted line
.........................................................................
|
|
** Clarifying the issue (I GM that game), the boy didn't "grow new limbs" (that would have required Regenerate). What this cleric did was gathering the mutilated parts, which then were re-attached using one Cure Critical Wounds per limb. Yeah, I know the spell doesn't -explicitly- say you can, but I make judgement calls for "cure" spells based on the wound's context.
Same goes for OP's missing tooth example. Any dentist can re-attach a tooth if you bring it with you (in a glass of milk) within 30 minutes of having lost it, so for CLW this same thing should be a cakewalk (as long as you still have with you the teeth to be re-attached, that it).
Insert flames and nay-saying after the dotted line
.........................................................................
No worries, I think the Naysayers have to remember the golden rule of D&D in all its incarnations...The DM is right. If that's how it works in your world that's how it works. If you are going to use such graphic examples for dramatic effect, then you had better have your dramatic answers. It's your world you do with it as you will.
Any particular reason for your hostility, blake?Sorry, didn't mean to seem hostile.
Your point just seemed odd, and I felt inclined to write a rebuttal, point by point.
It wasn't meant to be taken as hostility.
I just knew I should have included a smilycon...
:)
No harm done.
My point is just that all HP is abstract, so the healing should be equally abstract.
Damage is dealt by attacks, damage is healed by healing spells. That's how it should work. If you want to explain the damage further, that should not affect the rules.
So if you're hit by a dragon in full power attack mode doing a crit, hammering you down from merely bruised (and half your HP left) to dying, the GM should be able to explain that in sufficiently grisly detail, but without changing the rules in the process.
That means that said crit should be something like "he gores you with his horn, ripping open your belly and spilling guts and organs everywhere". But unless cure spells heal HP regardless of how they're lost, you can't do that because now you suddenly need a high-level spell.
My point is just that all HP is abstract, so the healing should be equally abstract.
I completely agree.
But that isn't what the original question was assuming.
Damage is dealt by attacks, damage is healed by healing spells. That's how it should work. If you want to explain the damage further, that should not affect the rules.
Now this is where you and I disagree.
You are already affecting the rules when you choose to "explain the damage further" - especially if you get gory about damage to organ or limb.
If you're going to houserule specific gory damage, then it makes sense, at least to me, to also houserule healing for that specific gory damage.
So if you're hit by a dragon in full power attack mode doing a crit, hammering you down from merely bruised (and half your HP left) to dying, the GM should be able to explain that in sufficiently grisly detail, but without changing the rules in the process.
Maybe, but again, this is what I disagree with.
That means that said crit should be something like "he gores you with his horn, ripping open your belly and spilling guts and organs everywhere". But unless cure spells heal HP regardless of how they're lost, you can't do that because now you suddenly need a high-level spell.
And I still say that if you want that level of descriptive realism in your wounds, then adding the commensurate level of descriptive realism to the process of healing those wounds makes sense.
If your "guts and organs are everywhere", then does the cleric have to take the time to scoop them up and push them back in? What if he puts the spleen behind the stomach, and the kindeys in front? What if he tangles the intestines? Even a twist where one should not be twisted would create a fatal intestinal blockage. Does the cleric have to reassemble the internal puzzle to cast his Cure X Wounds spell?
No?
Then does the spell suck the spillage back into the wound like a kid sucking spaghetti noodles off of his plate? Or maybe like filming them falling out, then playing the film backward as they suck back into the body?
Or does it grow new stuff?
If it grows new stuff, what about the old stuff that is still hanging out of the gored belly? Does that shrivel and fall off like watching fruit in long-term time-lapse photography?
(No, I'm not attacking you. I think these are interesting questions that I would like to plan ahead if I were the DM, or ask if I were the player in this game - I would like to know the cinematic visuals that would accompany this kind of healing.)
And still, when all is said and done, what is the point of having a 7th level Regenerate spell when any old 1st level Cure Light Wounds can regrow anything that Regenerate can?
And still, when all is said and done, what is the point of having a 7th level Regenerate spell when any old 1st level Cure Light Wounds can regrow anything that Regenerate can?
This thought goes back nearly 30 years (ya'll keep making me feel old! LOL) ... the cure line was for fixing damage now, or nearly now, and the regen was for fixing it later, because you were out of "fix it now" spells. Also, regen was for fixing the limb or other body part that not only was ripped off, bitten off, or mauled beyond recognition, but was digested, missing or melted, fried, etc.
Just as the old Heal skill had to be used before any healing spell was applied to get use out of it, the cures had to be used within a reasonable amount of time after the wound was incured to do some good. Yes, this got fuzzy later when more damage was applied and a new cure healed not only the "new" damage but some of the lingering "old" but it worked for us, and didn't amount to massive bookkeeping or tracking of points done.
And sometimes the DM just said, "Cure won't fix that" and we lived with it :)
|
|
And still, when all is said and done, what is the point of having a 7th level Regenerate spell when any old 1st level Cure Light Wounds can regrow anything that Regenerate can?This thought goes back nearly 30 years (ya'll keep making me feel old! LOL) ... the cure line was for fixing damage now, or nearly now, and the regen was for fixing it later, because you were out of "fix it now" spells. Also, regen was for fixing the limb or other body part that not only was ripped off, bitten off, or mauled beyond recognition, but was digested, missing or melted, fried, etc.
Just as the old Heal skill had to be used before any healing spell was applied to get use out of it, the cures had to be used within a reasonable amount of time after the wound was incured to do some good. Yes, this got fuzzy later when more damage was applied and a new cure healed not only the "new" damage but some of the lingering "old" but it worked for us, and didn't amount to massive bookkeeping or tracking of points done.
And sometimes the DM just said, "Cure won't fix that" and we lived with it :)
ahh I can live with this concept Gamer Girrl
Here is one more thought for this thread.
According to RAW:
No matter how many HP you lose, even if you take a massive x4 crit from titan wielding a war pick, you can lay down in a bed and heal back every one of those HP, all the way to your full total HP.
Even if you were at -10, or even lower (assuming you have the CON to go lower and survive), as long as you don't die, all you need is bed rest to recover fully.
Recover every lost HP fully.
Now, basing this on the actual real-life human body, there is no way your spleen could be ripped from your body and you can simply lay down in a bed and recover back to full health.
There is no way you can survive having your guts and organs spilled everywhere and just lay down in a bed and recover fully.
Severed limbs, lost eyes, teeth, etc. - none of that recovers fully with bed rest.
Consider:
If you're a 10th level barbarian, with an 18 CON, and you roll fairly well on your d12s each level, you might have a total of something like 130 HP. You fight a dragon and he crits you to -10 HP. But you stabilize and don't die. And you survive the massive damage rule too.
Your friends drag you back home and throw you in bed, but nobody gives you any magical healing of any kind.
By RAW, 7 days later you are fully healed. Completely. Like it never happened.
That's too fast to even consider a broken bone. Way way too fast to recover from a ripped out spleen, or your guts being spilled everywhere.
So, by RAW, lost HP can be recovered fully with normal, natural bed rest.
Or in 4 days or so if someone with a heal skill takes care of you (bandages, not magic).
So a few bandaids and poultice, properly applied, can recover you from -10 to 130 HP (actually as high as 150 HP) in just 4 days.
4 days.
No matter what level you are, no matter how many HP you have, no matter what damage you take, by RAW, you can heal from all that damage naturally in about 4 days of constant bed rest and bandaids.
Which means, by RAW, whatever damage that dragon did to you, it was mostly superficial and flesh wounds. It was all damage that can heal naturally in 4 days.
Which means, by RAW, your bones, organs, and major systemic functions were not damaged or impaired by the injuries.
Which means if your DM describes your injuries, even critical hits, as such that it seems unrealistic to heal fully, nauturally, without magic, in 4 days, then he is deviating from RAW.
Which he is welcome to do - he's the DM.
I just wanted to spell all this out to show you what the Pathfinder RAW considers to be the appropriate healing rate for the ambiguous, simplified HP system, and what HP damage means to Pathfinder RAW.
As a follow-up note.
By RAW:
The various Cure X Wounds spells restore the same HP that you could naturally heal in 4 days. None of these spells describe, in their RAW text, fixing any damage that cannot be naturally healed in 4 days.
Regenerate (7th level spell) specifically does describe repairing the kinds of damage that cannot naturally heal in 4 days of supervised bed rest.
That's all RAW, and your game and/or DM may feel differently, but if you/he/she does, then you're moving into houserule territory.
As was I when I described varying limited regenerative capabilities of the various Cure X Wounds spells in my post above.
|
|
If you're a 10th level barbarian, with an 18 CON, and you roll fairly well on your d12s each level, you might have a total of something like 130 HP. You fight a dragon and he crits you to -10 HP. But you stabilize and don't die. And you survive the massive damage rule too.
Your friends drag you back home and throw you in bed, but nobody gives you any magical healing of any kind.
By RAW, 7 days later you are fully healed. Completely. Like it never happened.
Or in 4 days or so if someone with a heal skill takes care of you (bandages, not magic).
So a few bandaids and poultice, properly applied, can recover you from -10 to 130 HP (actually as high as 150 HP) in just 4 days.
4 days.
No matter what level you are, no matter how many HP you have, no matter what damage you take, by RAW, you can heal from all that damage naturally in about 4 days of constant bed rest and bandaids.
Holy flurking schnitz! That really well and truly illustrates both the completely abstract nature of HP and the superheroic/cinematic milieu in which PCs operate.
I find this interpretation way too restrictive. It means no creature can ever seriously hurt you without some special ability, but they can kill you with that minor injury.
It's best to accept that HP and damage are abstract, that cure spells - and even a hero's constitution - can do wonders as you recover from anything (not that this happens more than once every hundred blue moons, usually, there is magic involved).
So I have no problem whatsoever with an attack that deals 100 points of damage to a guy with 90 HP left to rip out intestines and all that, and mere cure spells healing it all again. No collecting of lost party needed, no anatomical knowledge needed. It's magic.
For if you want more realism, you better forget the HP system altogether.
|
|
I find this interpretation way too restrictive. It means no creature can ever seriously hurt you without some special ability, but they can kill you with that minor injury.
But those are the rules as written. Anything else is a discussion of your house rules. Which are surely interesting and worth hearing about, but are necessarily of limited help in advising folks with their games.
actually for massive damage they would have to roll a system shcok.. i mean fort saving throw... to see if they live or die
Yep, that's why I mentioned it in my post.
Wasn't it an optional rule at some time in in 3.x? Or at least a sidebar suggesting a DM consider whether or not to ignore the rule?
In any case, it's not optional in RAW Pathfinder or the SRD (although, in truth, every rule is opotional if the DM doesn't like it).
As for me, I don't like it or use it.
I've never understood why a level 1 character can take half his HP of damage and shrug it off. So can a level 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and probably level 8. At level 9, for those really tough barbarians, 10 for really tough fighters and paladins, and highter, suddenly taking half your HP in one hit is potentially lethal.
Why have abstract HP representing everything from luck to fatigue to endurance to physical damage, then have an arbitrary rule that essentially says "when you're wimpy, a single hit for half your HP is nothing more than an irritation, but when you get big and strong, a single hit for half your HP can kill you outright"?
No, this rule isn't for me.
I know, I know, the classic argument is that without a sudden death rule, high level characters will jump off of 200' cliffs because they know they can't be killed and their cleric will heal them at the bottom.
When the day comes that I have a player try this stunt, he and I will have a talk about metagaming and verisimilitude and whether or not he wants to continue in my game.
Hasn't happened yet.
Meanwhile, I'm still ignoring this rule, thought that didn't stop me from giving it a passing mention in my post about healing massive damage in 4 days.
|
|
I've never understood why a level 1 character can take half his HP of damage and shrug it off. So can a level 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and probably level 8. At level 9, for those really tough barbarians, 10 for really tough fighters and paladins, and highter, suddenly taking half your HP in one hit is potentially lethal.
It's not that half your HP suddenly becomes lethal damage, it's that 50+ damage all at once is lethal.
And that's the same for those early levels too. Unless you somehow have more than 50 HP at early levels. :) The benefit from being higher level is that now you have a chance to survive it, whereas when you had 40 or less HP, you just died.
Something I think people forget in the rush to defend the massive damage death is that the character is going to react to taking 50+ damage in a single hit. Even for a fighter that is a large chunk of HP to lose in one hit, usually you can see a natural reaction from the player in his response -- The wizard/rogue panicks and tries to get away, the fighter desperately tries to smash the living daylights out of the cause before he succumbs the next round (possibly the wizard does something similar with a big spell). These are the sort of reactions I would expect to see in such a situation from someone a cut above the norm...
*************************************************************
Random in game question: If a design focus paladin is hit for a lot of damage and uses his lay on hands on himself as a swift action, could he then use his lay on hands on himself as a standard action too (as if healing someone else)? I don't see anything saying he can only LoH once a round...
I've never understood why a level 1 character can take half his HP of damage and shrug it off. So can a level 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and probably level 8. At level 9, for those really tough barbarians, 10 for really tough fighters and paladins, and highter, suddenly taking half your HP in one hit is potentially lethal.
It's not that half your HP suddenly becomes lethal damage, it's that 50+ damage all at once is lethal.
And that's the same for those early levels too. Unless you somehow have more than 50 HP at early levels. :) The benefit from being higher level is that now you have a chance to survive it, whereas when you had 40 or less HP, you just died.
Yeah, I get that.
It's just that at low levels, 50+ HP kills you because you are out of HP.
At upper single-digits (melee types anyway) 50 HP won't kill you outright, but it's most of your HP, and a fortitude save or die.
In low double-digits, 50 HP is not even half of your HP anymore, but it's still Fort or die.
At level 20, a solid melee class could be approaching, even exceeding 200 HP, and to that guy, taking 50 HP is about as irritating as it used to be, way back when he was level 1, when a child stabbed him with a dull dagger. Except it still requires a Fort save to survive it.
A 1st level fighter loses 1/4 of his HP (roughy a 4 HP hit) he says "ooh, that tickles" and he keeps on fighting.
But a 20th level fighter loses 1/4 of his HP (50) and suddenly he has to save or die?
Why?
On the other hand, your level 20 party gets hit with a 100 HP dragonfire, and the fighter fails his save but the mage makes his. The fighter takes 100 HP and the mage takes only 50. But, the fighter's Fort save is so good he will only fail on a 1. The mage's Fort save, however, is only +9, so he will die on a roll of 1-5.
In this example, for some reason, the mage takes only half as much damage as the fighter, but he is 5x more likely to die.
It's arbitrary and silly and way out of place in an abstract HP system.
And to further illustrate the silliness, have you ever played a really high level game?
Every day, every game session, characters are exposed to hits that cand and will do 50+ HP damage in one hit.
That means every day, every game session, there are many opportunities for that natural 1 to appear.
Heck, last time I ran a near-epic group, someone brought up the Massive Damage rule, and we had fights where we were laughing about the fact that we would have had to roll those saves a dozen or more times. In one fight. That's at least a 60% chance (yeah, I know, that's not statistically true) that someone would die every fight.
Oh, look, the DM whipped out a great wyrm red dragon. Heck, even a mere ancient red dragon will do 110 HP (save for 55) on an average roll for its breath weapon. A great wyrm will, with even just a little power attack or a magic item or a buff spell or two before the fight, dish out 50+ with most of its tail slap and its crush attacks, and could conceivably do 50 on a bite with just a little preparation (magic items or enhancement buffs).
The fighter in the group will be rolling his Massive Damage save just about every round, and on rounds the dragon can catch more than one foe with a crush or a breath weapon, there will be multiple save-or-die rolls that have to be made.
If this fight somehow goes 10 rounds, that fighter will run about a 50/50 chance to roll a 1 and die outright, even if he has an army of clerics backing him up with full heals every round.
Sooner or later, those saving throw dice are going to turn up 1s.
That's an awful lot of arbitrary and unnecessary resurrection over a silly rule.
In return, consider that the great wyrm red dragon has 660 HP, yet a mere 50 HP (not even 1 thirteenth of his total HP) could kill him if it rolls a 1 on its save.
In fact, at very high levels, fights aren't about who can make the other guy run out of HP anymore. Instead, fights come down to who can avoid rolling 1s on their Massive Damage saves.
Almost makes HP obsolete.
Nope, I don't care for this silly rule at all.
Random in game question: If a design focus paladin is hit for a lot of damage and uses his lay on hands on himself as a swift action, could he then use his lay on hands on himself as a standard action too (as if healing someone else)? I don't see anything saying he can only LoH once a round...
Probably not by RAW, unless I have missed something.
He can use his swift action to LOH himself, then he can still attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item, or whatever he wants.
You can take a move action in place of a standard action.
Pathfinder (and the SRD) call this one out specifically.
But no other actions are cited as being able to replace other actions. Nowhere does it say, for instance, that you can take a swift action in place of a move action or standard action.
You can perform only a single swift action per turn.
Because it says this, and because it doesn't say you can take a swift action in place of a move or standard action, it would seem fairly clear, per RAW, that the paladin can only heal himself twice.
|
|
I think you're able to get such weirdness because you're comparing 1/2 HP and such, but that's not what it's about.
Your average fighter will probably have a +2 con. Let's assume it doesn't change, for the sake of argument.
A level 1 fighter has 12 HP and a Fort of +4. He takes 50 damage. He dies.
A level 3 fighter has 27 HP and a Fort of +5. He takes 50 damage. He dies.
A level 5 fighter has 43 HP and a Fort of +6. He takes 50 damage. He has a 60% chance of being unconscious and bleeding, and a 40% chance of death.
A level 9 fighter has 73 HP and a Fort of +8. He takes 50 damage. He has a 70% chance of being conscious, and a 30% chance of death.
A level 13 fighter has 103 HP and a Fort of +10. He takes 50 damage. He has a 80% chance of being conscious, and a 20% chance of death.
So the idea is it's not the percentage of hit points that matters, just that it's massive damage. At low levels, there's little to no chance you will survive. At higher levels, the chance that you will survive gets bigger and bigger.
Makes sense to me. Even when if you want to say that the damage is only a quarter of a high level Fighter's HP, and more than half of a low level's. The higher level Fighter will still have the better chance at survival, just from the bigger Fortitude save.
I see what you're getting at, that a level 1 fighter could take 50% his hp and keep going, but you can justify that just as easily as you can un-justify it. If you really think it's wrong, that it should be based off a percentage of your HP, then go with it, house rule it.
HP is one of these things that means something different to everyone, after all.
But those are the rules as written.
Not really. I don't recall any instance where the rules write down what damage looks like. Just that attacks do damage and healing spells heal damage.
The rules never restrict the cure spells. If it's HP damage, they can heal it.
Just to point out, the rules for Massive Damage have been changed in Beta PFRPG:
Page 141:
"Massive Damage: If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save."
So, basically a 103 hp Fighter who sustains 50 hp of damage laughs and walks away (now, if he takes 51 or more hp, this could be a problem again, but still...)