This topic is never covered in the rules, but magical healing traditionally does not leave scars.
I'd let the individual player decide if they get scars. Some folks like that look.
Use infernal healing for scars and cure light wounds for none.
Well the way hit points and damage work is intentionally kind of nebulous so the system doesn't really go into detail about scars or things like that. Usually it's left up to the people in each individual game as others have said.
This is true. Loss of hit points doesn't necessarily mean you were even scratched.
Its a conjuration spell. It literally creates new flesh. No reason for it to scar.
Its a conjuration spell. It literally creates new flesh. No reason for it to scar.
Actually, what it's literally conjuring is positive energy.
That said, is this the proper thread to wish wistfully to return to the days when healing spells were part of the Necromancy school instead of this Conjuration nonsense?
The magic school system definitely has some logic gaps. Personally, I think cure/inflict spells should be Evocation school, as they manipulate positive/negative energy, but everyone will have their own interpretation.
The magic school system definitely has some logic gaps. Personally, I think cure/inflict spells should be Evocation school, as they manipulate positive/negative energy, but everyone will have their own interpretation.
Your position makes sense, but I should clarify that I miss the previous editions where positive/negative energy wasn't really a thing and necromancy just directly knitted or damaged flesh, and the reason cure hurt undead was because undead were opposite or something. Who cares? We didn't need metaphysical explanations for the cure/inflict thing.
The magic school system definitely has some logic gaps. Personally, I think cure/inflict spells should be Evocation school, as they manipulate positive/negative energy, but everyone will have their own interpretation.
I'd go with necromancy, myself.
For my 2 cp: magical healing could fit in several schools, conjuration(conjure new flesh), evocation(manipulating positive energy), abjuration(magically sealing an injury to protect from further harm), necromancy(because it's cool), transmutation(reforming or fusing flesh).
About the scaring; I always ask a healer if his healing leaves scars. If he has a deity, I may decide it based on the deity. Actions or "state of mind" may also factor in. Another GM allowed a party member of mine to be cursed with bestow curse to always leave hideous scars when casting healing spells - I would also allow this. And I allow restoration spells and similar to remove scars.
If so wished, it's a good opportunity for adding description to a healing character - not all healers heal alike.
I always wondered what a near-death character looks like after someone heals him magically to full health. Presumably he's still covered in blood and looks horribly injured to a casual glance.
I've always treated the various Cure xxx Wounds spell's healing as flavor depending on the source of healing. In Golarion, I'd expect CLW from Zon-Kuthon or Gorum to leave scarring ... from Shelyn or Calistria, not so much.
Occasionally I will apply this to disposable magic items. A wand of Cure Light Wounds (Zon-Kuthon 22 charges) will probably stay at 22 charges through most of the game as the players' characters find reasons to defer its usage ;-)
My general guideline is this:
Each time you are brought to negative hit points, you have some manner of scar. Maybe nothing major. Possibly nothing even noticeable. But a 'memento' of the event.
Healing done to take you from 18hp to 30hp wouldn't leave scars.
-10hp (if the character hadn't died yet) would result in a significant and noteworthy scar (player's choice)
(My barbarian has a large burn scar on his right side from being blasted by a poorly aimed burning hands spell)
I've always treated the various Cure xxx Wounds spell's healing as flavor depending on the source of healing. In Golarion, I'd expect CLW from Zon-Kuthon or Gorum to leave scarring ... from Shelyn or Calistria, not so much.
How about from an Alchemist, Bard, Druid, Oracle, Ranger or Witch? None of those characters have deities and still use Cure X Wounds just fine.
There's an achievement feat called 'armor of scars'. To take it, you have to have taken 1000 cumulative points of damage. Every 5 points of magical healing you receive subtracts 1 point from that total. Basing a judgement on that would suggest that magical healing reduces scarring but doesn't eliminate it.
|
My general guideline is this:
Each time you are brought to negative hit points, you have some manner of scar. Maybe nothing major. Possibly nothing even noticeable. But a 'memento' of the event.
I like this. One of my characters picked up one scar for each of the three times she was brought to negatives, plus one from a "massive damage" attack.
I generally play where magical healing doesn't leave scars, just like magical Mending or magical Make Whole doesn't leave fractures. I once played a Whisper Gnome who tattooed his body with a caricature of every monster that injured him to (or past) the brink of death - his preferred tattoo was to put the face/silhouette of the monster in the exact spot where the injury occurred.
How about from an Alchemist, Bard, Druid, Oracle, Ranger or Witch? None of those characters have deities and still use Cure X Wounds just fine.
Yes, and?
There's still a source of healing, and one can create appropriate flavor (fluff) as required. A druid's healing might simply mimic natural healing. Both oracles and witches have a patron, and the theme might be appropriate (or not), in which case the witch / oracle should decide how cure light wounds manifests when cast. Ranger similarly. Not everything has to have the same level of fluff :-)
MI