Healing vs. Cure Disease

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

It's set up to fix temporary side-effects, not permanent ones.

If it is meant to fix permanent effects it was badly written.

I'm a little confused as to what you mean but it is true that Healing Affliction doesn't seem to be intended to handle crippling as a result of physical injury. Vanilla Healing does that, and has set limitations on it, that would take cosmics to get around.

[Facial Tentacles]

My opinion for restoring lost body parts is to use the preexisting advantage from the Basic rules. I'd allow either Affliction (Regrowth) or Regrowth with the Affects Other enhancement from Powers, depending on the campaign. I use RPK's Regrowth price of 10pts, so these wouldn't be a huge character investment.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Facial Tentacles

My opinion for restoring lost body parts is to use the preexisting advantage from the Basic rules. I'd allow either Affliction (Regrowth) or Regrowth with the Affects Other enhancement from Powers, depending on the campaign. I use RPK's Regrowth price of 10pts, so these wouldn't be a huge character investment.

The problem with Regrowth, is that you really need to add permanent to the affliction that gives it, or afflict regeneration on top of it, as otherwise the effect will fade before the limbs have grown back

[Facial Tentacles]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

The problem with Regrowth, is that you really need to add permanent to the affliction that gives it, or afflict regeneration on top of it, as otherwise the effect will fade before the limbs have grown back

How is that a "problem?" If you instantly want your parts back, I'm going to make you pay for it.

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

I don't see anything that suggest that if the Affliction has Permanent, it can not be removed with Cure Affliction. Now, a permanent condition caused by a non-affliction effect, that, I agree that it won't be cured by Cure Affliction.

Lets take a disease that causes blindness, and is transmitted by saliva. Character one carries in a bottle and splashes it on people. Character two being a clever genetic engineer can rather easily make more of the disease when ever he want. Character three happens to be a symptomless carrier and can spit on people to give it to them. Character four actually has the disease, and obviously can spread it like character three. But now lets look at their builds, character one has it as a piece of equipment, character four simply has the disease. Character two has an affliction with gadget limits, and character three has an affliction (or toxic attack with a side-affect or whatever).
Your arguing that the blindness can be cured by only if they get it from character two or three? How does that make any sense what so ever?

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

The problem with Regrowth, is that you really need to add permanent to the affliction that gives it, or afflict regeneration on top of it, as otherwise the effect will fade before the limbs have grown back

Regeneration is only an extra ten points. If your making the affliction an AA to healing it only bumps up the cost by a total of 12 for fixing dismembered limbs. (And then use healing so they go to full HP). FAR less than getting an instant regeneration spell and energy to cast it.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Facial Tentacles

How is that a "problem?" If you instantly want your parts back, I'm going to make you pay for it.

Well, I'd say that it's problematic if an Affliction required Extended Duration to be of any use, but that's just me.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lamech

Lets take a disease that causes blindness, and is transmitted by saliva. Character one carries in a bottle and splashes it on people. Character two being a clever genetic engineer can rather easily make more of the disease when ever he want. Character three happens to be a symptomless carrier and can spit on people to give it to them. Character four actually has the disease, and obviously can spread it like character three. But now lets look at their builds, character one has it as a piece of equipment, character four simply has the disease. Character two has an affliction with gadget limits, and character three has an affliction (or toxic attack with a side-affect or whatever).
Your arguing that the blindness can be cured by only if they get it from character two or three? How does that make any sense what so ever?

That's a disease. You cure it like any other disease. Since Vanilla Healing will cure both diseases, and organ damage caused by one, that's not an issue. Now the psychopath who goes around cutting people's eyes entirely out, that's another matter.

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

That's a disease. You cure it like any other disease. Since Vanilla Healing will cure both diseases, and organ damage caused by one, that's not an issue. Now the psychopath who goes around cutting people's eyes entirely out, that's another matter.

No blindness is not a disease. The disease itself can be cured. I'm talking about curing the blindness caused by the disease. Two different things, one is a disease, one is damage to the eyes/nerves. (Also vanilla healing says nothing about fixing the damage done by a disease.) An innate attack can "cure" the psychopath cutting peoples eyes out. It definitely can't fix the eyes.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lamech

The disease it self can be cured. I'm talking about curing the blindness caused by the disease. Two different things, one is a disease, one is damage to the eyes/nerves.

And _both_ are cured by vanilla healing which can cure any damage short of actual amputation or death.

[Facial Tentacles]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

Well, I'd say that it's problematic if an Affliction required Extended Duration to be of any use, but that's just me.

Regrowth with Affects Other would be my preference.