Restoration Spell Makes It Worse

[Alden Loveshade]

The Restoration spell in Magic p. 93 takes a month to work to restore a crippled limb, damaged eye, or lost hearing, smell, etc. It says, "The part may not be used at all until the month has passed...."

That makes perfect sense if the part is unusable at the time the spell is cast. But what if it's still partially usable? For example, what if you can still see through an eye, but not very well. Taken literally, the spell would cause you to go blind in that eye for a month.

Should your use of a partially usable eye, limb, hearing, etc. continue through that month? Or should you lose it for 30 days?

[Anthony]

It's perfectly realistic for immobilization to be a part of healing, so I don't have a problem with it (if you used it, presumably it would work but abort the restoration spell), though it's Magic so allowing use is also reasonable.

[Alden Loveshade]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's perfectly realistic for immobilization to be a part of healing, so I don't have a problem with it (if you used it, presumably it would work but abort the restoration spell), though it's Magic so allowing use is also reasonable.

I can see the possibility of some brief "immobilization." But by comparison, a relative got cataract surgery a few years ago, was given sunglasses to wear on the trip home, and was seeing better the next day.

[tanksoldier]

Magic healing isn’t cataract surgery.

If your gm wants to mitigate this for minor injuries that’s up to them, but I’d stick with the injured part needing to be covered/splinted/whatever.

Think of it as imobilizing so it doesn’t heal wrong. The tissues are knitting, if the eye moves it may knit in the wrong place. I’d even argue both eyes need to be covered.

[starslayer]

Restoration is also not the spell for 'its badly damaged, but will recover'.

If your eye is blurry all you need is a healing spell to repair damage, if you hand is badly cut to the point where you can't pick thingsup, same deal.

If your eye is a ruined and you have no vision in it because you failed your HT check for a crippling injury to the eye than restoration will restore functionality in a month.

Similarly if your hand has been absolutely mangled and will never work again without external aid- restoration = working hand in one month.

[Dalzig]

Are there any standard rules for not-quite-crippled body parts? Absent those, I'd read Restoration as a reminder that, yes, the body part is still crippled for the entire month. You need to wait for the magic to work.

In the same vein, a not-quite-crippled body part would still be not-quite-crippled for however long it takes to heal. It probably shouldn't be a month at that point.

Though if you're going crazy RAW with the idea, how about a psychotic healer that goes around crippling people's limbs for a month by casting Restoration? That seems like a fairly efficient use of energy.

[Varyon]

Does Restoration specify that it can be used to remove Disadvantages such as Hard of Hearing? Or does it just reference crippling? If the former, then that means it does make you worse off for a bit. There may be specific instances where modern technology is arguably better than the Restoration spell, but that hardly strikes me as a bug.

If it just references crippling, then you're talking about going from no function to full function in much less time than you'd be looking at for Lasting or Permanent Crippling. Of course, I have to wonder how - or if - Restoration would interact with "Lasting and Permanent Injuries" from Martial Arts, which use the crippling mechanics for certain Major Wounds to see if the character develops infirmities due to internal injuries.

As for resistance, it seems to me that, unless a spell is specifically meant to be irresistible, there should always be the possibility of a resistance, even if the spell is completely beneficial. After all, in some settings Healing spells can harm the undead and similar, and even without that someone who is dying from torture may not want a healing spell to keep them alive for still more torture. In the case of Restoration, Resisted by HT (like Wither Limb) seems appropriate.

[Dolarre]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for resistance, it seems to me that, unless a spell is specifically meant to be irresistible, there should always be the possibility of a resistance, even if the spell is completely beneficial. After all, in some settings Healing spells can harm the undead and similar, and even without that someone who is dying from torture may not want a healing spell to keep them alive for still more torture. In the case of Restoration, Resisted by HT (like Wither Limb) seems appropriate.

I use the following guidelines under this circumstance - spells used offensively that were not designed for that purpose.

Boons
Many spells are considered ‘harmless’ and are not automatically resisted. They become resisted spells under three circumstances; check in this order:

First, if the intent of the caster is to do harm or hindrance, the subject may resist with the greater of Will or HT. The baleful intentions of the caster infect a spell not designed to be used in a hostile way.

Secondly, if the motives of the caster are pure, but a suspicious or prideful subject rejects the magical aid, he, if conscious and aware of the casting, may resist with Will.

Finally, subjects with Magic Resistance resist all spells regardless of the intent of the caster or subject. They must resist and if the spell is a Boon, they resist with HT. A subject with magic resistance who actively resists a boon gains two resistance rolls, one versus Will and one versus HT. Both must fail for the spell to take effect.

[AlexanderHowl]

Hard of Hearing does not necessarily represent crippled ears and Bad Sight definitely does not represent crippled eyes (use One Eye for that). I would personally not allow Restoration to repair disadvantages from character creation, as they should represent unhealable disabilities in a magical society, as the character should have otherwise had them repaired. At 15 energy, Restoration is a very cheap spell, and a healer could cast the spell ceremonially with the assistance of the family and friends of a target over 10 minutes without spending any of their personal FP. Even with realistic wages for magical healers ($50 per hour at TL3), even a Poor peasant could borrow enough money for one hour of time to repair a crippled body part.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

The Restoration spell in Magic p. 93 takes a month to work to restore a crippled limb, damaged eye, or lost hearing, smell, etc. It says, "The part may not be used at all until the month has passed...."

That makes perfect sense if the part is unusable at the time the spell is cast. But what if it's still partially usable? For example, what if you can still see through an eye, but not very well. Taken literally, the spell would cause you to go blind in that eye for a month.

Should your use of a partially usable eye, limb, hearing, etc. continue through that month? Or should you lose it for 30 days?

A Healing spell is supposed to heal, not harm. If you wanted to discommode a target that way, you should be looking at Body Control. It seems reasonable to me that a partial loss of sense due to damage to the organ would remain as-is for a month, while the Restoration worked, but you could certainly rule otherwise if you wanted.