Can the mending spell repair a somehow ruined, broken, branded or otherwise hampered holy symbol tatto as long as it isn´t fully erased?
Mending targets "one object of up to 1 lb./level".
A tattoo is not an object, nor is its bearer.
So Mending cannot repair a tattoo.
By RAW, probably not, since I don't know what kind of eagle-eyes you'd have to have to target the tattoo separate from the creature it's inked into.
But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea, either, even if I can see an argument against it. Here's why.
A is an artist, and he decides to paint the portrait of his long-time crush, M the milk maid. At some point after the portrait is finished, but before he is able to show her the final result, the portrait is torn down the center. Now he's in a dilemma! He can't very well show M this ruined piece, but he doesn't have the tools to fix the canvas and doesn't have the time to start anew.
So what's he do? Why, he pays Conveniently-Timed Adventurers (INC) for their cleric to casting Mending on it for him! Ah, but here's where our "A tattoo is not an object" argument comes under scrutiny.
I can't imagine a GM who would say that the spell would fix the canvas, but somehow not repair the painting ON the canvas. But the paint itself is not *PART* of the canvas. It's merely a dried fluid ON the canvas. And with that argument, you can't very well target paint, only the canvas.
But logically, I think the vast majority of us as both players and GMs would automatically assume that the "Painting" is the resulting object of the effort, and so casting mending on it fixes it. Because we understand that paint is an object - it is an inanimate entity in the universe that has physical mass. It reacts to forces with all the normal laws and properties of physics that we expect. Because it's an object, not some kind of "entity" or "not-thing."
And so is ink, which tattoos are made from. They aren't any different than the painting, since we can all agree that ink is a physical substance - and as such, acts just like the paint to any force or influence. Hell, ink is even an item you can purchase right out of the CRB, granted as a vial of ink and not just the ink itself.
So, really, it probably all comes down to how fine a detail your GM (or you, if you are the GM) wants to put to the situation. As I said, I would probably agree that by RAW - no. No, it doesn't. But as far any individual group, I would probably say that it wouldn't be completely nonsensical to let it work that way, either.
There are no rules for repairing tattoos because there are no rules for ruining or destroying tattoos. How did that occur in the first place?
There are no rules for repairing tattoos because there are no rules for ruining or destroying tattoos. How did that occur in the first place?
The inscribe magical tattoos gives some rules for destroying them.
A tattoo that is a holy/unholy symbol cannot (I presume) be repaired by mending as it only heals hit point damage to the object. Does the tattoo have hit points? Also:
"This spell does not affect creatures (including constructs). This spell has no effect on objects that have been warped or otherwise transmuted."
You are a creature with a tattoo an thus a physical part of the creature bearing little difference to an arm except in funtion.
Or you could just use a cure spell to restore the skin (and with it the tattoo) without scarring. As long as the skin has only been cut not peeled off this should be enough.
Think of cure spells excellerated natural healing. If a broken bone is "healed" but the bone wasn't set, there would be a discernable deformity. If it was in the leg, the person would have a limp. If somewhere else, then an appropriate difficiency. If the skin should scar, then it would scar. Healing spells heal raw damage and nothing more. A Regenerate spell in theory would work, but the tattoo is not a natural part of the body. It is also an expensive route.
Think of cure spells excellerated natural healing. If a broken bone is "healed" but the bone wasn't set, there would be a discernable deformity. If it was in the leg, the person would have a limp. If somewhere else, then an appropriate difficiency. If the skin should scar, then it would scar. Healing spells heal raw damage and nothing more. A Regenerate spell in theory would work, but the tattoo is not a natural part of the body. It is also an expensive route.
At the risk of sounding like wikipedia (and a thread derailment)... Citation please?
Going by those rules, every 'healer' class would need to have ranks in heal to be able to make sure the bones were aligned before they cast cure, or to clean the wound properly so you don't get gunk cured into it (leading to infection and other lovelyness). Heck, technically every heal spell cast should have a heal check before it to ensure you sorted out the wounds you were closing. If that's the way you play it, that's completely up to you and your GM. I've though run clerics who were deliberately built without even a basic understanding of non-magical healing because his god was the source of magic and healing and this rubbish about poultices and herbs is the stuff of hedge witches, not a true servant of the gods.
But I don't ever remember seeing any rule in any rule book to suggest anything like the above. If I'm wrong (have been before), I'll swallow my pride and go back in my box. I know I can't find any reference in 20 seconds of hunting on the SRD one way or another (which probably makes sense that they'd leave it up to the GM and world to decide the flavour of it).
I´m playing a razmiran sorcerer in PFS on level 1 at the moment who is using a holy tatto as focus for false focus. Holy tatto says it can be specifically damaged, erased or made unusuable with brand which negates it´s use as a holy focus and would leave the character without a focus to cast.
This is for PFS and i don´t think there is a possibility to have a tatto repaired somewhere midscenario if i can´t repair it like that.