DF: Spell healing limits.

[adm]

I am putting together a DF campaign, and I think the rate at which you can use Minor Healing and Major Healing are too restrictive for the genre. Would the following be too generous?

Minor Healing
Regular
Restores up to 3 HP to the subject. Does not eliminate disease or poison, but will cure damage caused by these things. This spell is risky if used to heal more HP than the receivers HT per day by the same caster on the same subject. If you try, roll at -3 for the first repetition, -6 for the second, and so on…

I like this setup, because the limit is based on how sturdy the recipient is, i.e. hulking Barbarian who takes more damage, can be healed more easily, puny bookworm Wizard still needs to watch himself.

If this does not work well, why? What would you suggest?

EDITS

I will also allow a second casting of Great Healing for those individuals with Very Rapid Healing.

Current version 14:52 2/20/15, based on suggestions below.

Minor Healing
Regular
Restores up to 3 HP to the subject. Does not eliminate disease or poison, but will cure damage caused by these things. This spell is risky if used to heal more HP than the receivers HT per day by the same caster on the same subject. If you try, roll at -2 for the first repetition, -4 for the second, and -6 for the third, and so on. If you have the Physician skill at level 15 or higher, a critical failure with this spell counts only as an ordinary one. If the subject has Rapid Healing add 5 to HT for the amount that can be healed. If the subject has Very Rapid Healing, keep track as above, but the amount of HPs healed is doubled per casting, note that the HT and +5 bonus for Rapid Healing are doubled as well.
Cost: 1 to 3. The same amount is restored to the subject.

[simply Nathan]

I would also have Rapid Healing give an effective +5 to HT for the purposes of the threshold. That, and it should still scale with high Magery/Power Investiture when such Advantages are bought in the high levels available to DF.

[Anthony]

I would just remove cost reduction for high skill (and maybe change major healing to 1:1 instead of 2:1) and remove the penalty for repeated casting. The main reason for the repeated casting penalty is so people don't just spam cost 0 heal spells.

[Dwarf99]

I use Powers and have absolutely no restrictions on healing whatsoever.

[adm]

Originally Posted by Kenneth Latrans

I would also have Rapid Healing give an effective +5 to HT for the purposes of the threshold. That, and it should still scale with high Magery/Power Investiture when such Advantages are bought in the high levels available to DF.

Good catch, thank you.

Originally Posted by Anthony

I would just remove cost reduction for high skill (and maybe change major healing to 1:1 instead of 2:1) and remove the penalty for repeated casting. The main reason for the repeated casting penalty is so people don't just spam cost 0 heal spells.

Originally Posted by Dwarf99

I use Powers and have absolutely no restrictions on healing whatsoever.

I would like to preserve some limits, to encourage a bit more caution and care in planning. I also don't like that my HT 9 wizard can get back 1/3 of his HPs without risk, but my HT 15 knight, can only get 1/5 of his HPs back without risk.

[Dwarf99]

Originally Posted by adm

uld like to preserve some limits, to encourage a bit more caution and care in planning. I also don't like that my HT 9 wizard can get back 1/3 of his HPs without risk, but my HT 15 knight, can only get 1/5 of his HPs back without risk.

I don't like the fact that getting back HP imposes risk, but to each their own.

[Kromm]

Since HP = ST (not HT), you might want to use ST or simply HP as your limit. Using HT won't do anything to make a beefy ST 20, HP 20, HT 13 barbarian better off than a skinny ST 11, HP 11, HT 13 swashbuckler.

Beyond that, some limits and risks are necessary or you'll have the PCs facing every encounter at full HP and with no fear of injury, as they can easily reset to full HP afterward. That's isn't objectively wrong, but it's Hurting Wrong Fun for some gamers. Limits on healing exist not to prevent free-healing spam at high skill (whether healing magic costs 0 FP or 10 FP, FP are quick and easy to recover, and effectively "free" out of combat), but rather to deliver a resource-management dynamic that's essential to traditional hack 'n' slash: Each fight "uses up" limited daily healing capacity, and unless the GM lets the heroes make camp for a day after each battle, that means going into later fights in progressively worse shape and with a greater fear that new injuries can't be fixed immediately. That in turn inspires planning, tactics, and resource management which are a traditional part of the dungeon-crawl subgenre.

However, if your encounters are frequent and/or deadly enough, then GURPS' default limits are too stingy and its default risks are too severe. By all means set larger limits! It might be simplest to say, "Once you've been healed your full HP by magic, whether by one caster or many, one spell or several, future Healing spells are at a cumulative -N," where N need not be 3.

[adm]

I can see going with ST or HPs, but I like using HT to show the intrinsic limits of the body to heal itself. I feel that a healthier body is more capable of accelerated healing.

I shall see how this works out in play, and try to remember to mention it here.

[simply Nathan]

I think the fact that all the amounts by which you will be healed are doubled at HP 20-29 and tripled at HP 30-39, high HP helps itself out with healing plenty well enough. It's just 11-19 that sucks to be healed at the most (as people building certain unconventional Barbarians have discovered).

I think I may use something close to the OP's version of the listed spell, keeping healing and FP cost at 1:1 but having the Very Rapid Healing advantage double received healing from the spell just as it doubles received healing from natural rest. Having just one "Heal Wounds" spell that acts as Minor for most people and Major for those with naturally good healing ability makes plenty of sense to me, at least.

[adm]

Thank you Kenneth, I have edited the above a bit.