HEAL spell?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JLV

The RAW say everything is against DX, though I've always thought rolling against IQ made a bit more sense in terms of the background story...

Making DX a free dump stat for wizards, and letting them use lots of armor because who cares if AdjDX is 4, has definite balance issues.

[Tolenkar]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Comments?


Heal (T) (IQ 14)
For each 3 points of ST that the wizard puts into this spell, he/she can cure one hit of damage on himself or another. Heal will also restore lost fatigue from spellcasting, etc., but rarely is it practical to use it this way.
Heal will cure HT already lost to disease and poison, but it will not cure the disease nor make a poison go away.

I'm all for a Healing spell. I think it just adds to the flexibility of creating interesting characters. I was just pondering what a Critical Failure roll of 15,16,17, or 18 would do when casting this spell <chuckles>. I might have to create a chart especially for that instance, because I know someone will blow it, really badly, at some point.

Anyone have any thoughts on some nasty critical failure results for a Heal spell?


Yours, in rascality,
Tolenkar

[zot]

Originally Posted by Tolenkar

I'm all for a Healing spell. I think it just adds to the flexibility of creating interesting characters. I was just pondering what a Critical Failure roll of 15,16,17, or 18 would do when casting this spell <chuckles>. I might have to create a chart especially for that instance, because I know someone will blow it, really badly, at some point.

Anyone have any thoughts on some nasty critical failure results for a Heal spell?


Yours, in rascality,
Tolenkar

We house ruled that for critical failure, wizards take 1 die damage and armor doesn't protect, just like a bare handed fighter would.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Making DX a free dump stat for wizards, and letting them use lots of armor because who cares if AdjDX is 4, has definite balance issues.

Except, of course, they still need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time ("Oops, you slipped on that banana peel and fell off the bridge -- roll 8d6 for damage since you fell umpty-dozen feet"), and that the rules specifically limit their ability to wear "lots of armor" because it interferes with their spell-casting ability; but yeah, otherwise you're right.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Tolenkar

I'm all for a Healing spell. I think it just adds to the flexibility of creating interesting characters. I was just pondering what a Critical Failure roll of 15,16,17, or 18 would do when casting this spell <chuckles>. I might have to create a chart especially for that instance, because I know someone will blow it, really badly, at some point.

Anyone have any thoughts on some nasty critical failure results for a Heal spell

Yeah, I've done a few versions of such a table to counter the GURPS Magic healing spells. As much as I dislike strong/fast healing magic, it can be fun watching players get scared of potential bad side-effects from over-use of it.

I like systems where moderate use is mostly safe, but the more you push it, the riskier it can get, and you can't entirely rule out serious complications, so it gets used when needed but shouldn't be over-used.

There are so many possibilities... but it's yet another play style preference category - the people who want a super-fast healing spell don't tend to want their buzzsaw to include medical side-effects...

[JLV]

One of the things mentioned on this forum in the past has been a "magical backlash table" for exactly this kind of effect. There was one published in the Space Gamer eons ago that was pretty good. I've always liked that sort of thing too. I think magic should be dangerous! I mean, you're messing with powers that "man was not meant to know" when you start zapping people and teleporting and all that sort of thing...

[Jim Kane]

I agree that this idea does have an exciting appeal; however, we are not completely without this same effect, as represented by the Critical Failure(s) at 16, 17, and 18. Impromptu creativity on the part of the GM on describing how those failures manifest in the game may be the better place to look for improvement without altering the rules-set. Perhaps a sub-table of random prescribed typical-hazardous-effects incurred for when a Critical Failure occurs for a Wizard would be a solution.

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by JLV

One of the things mentioned on this forum in the past has been a "magical backlash table" for exactly this kind of effect. There was one published in the Space Gamer eons ago that was pretty good. I've always liked that sort of thing too. I think magic should be dangerous! I mean, you're messing with powers that "man was not meant to know" when you start zapping people and teleporting and all that sort of thing...

Hi JLV,
I totally agree. That said, I like that the higher IQ spells are more dangerous than the lower IQ spells. However, doing so adds complexity...

Warm regards, Rick.

[Random Goblin]

I'm confused--when did HT get separated from ST? I thought damage was done straight to your ST, and a Wizard's use of ST to power spells was basically the same. What am I missing?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Random Goblin

I'm confused--when did HT get separated from ST? I thought damage was done straight to your ST, and a Wizard's use of ST to power spells was basically the same. What am I missing?

They are during combat, but Advanced Wizard (see last page) has exhaustion/fatigue from spell-casting recover at 1 point per 15 minutes (and is recoverable with the Drain Strength spell), while injury (the part remaining after physicking, see ITL) heals at 1 point per 2 days.

(A common house rule is also to not have wizards die unless their actual wounds go up to ST, not wounds + fatigue, but that's not what the original rules say.)