Restoration Spell Makes It Worse

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by ericthered

In a setting where healing magic is cheap, it might make a decent minor punishment for crime. As for the limb not being crippled, that's reasonably easy to fix...

If you're already half-breaking peoples legs as punishment, casting Restoration on them isn't exactly the problem here. You could just completely break their legs instead.

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

I can see that as a possible interpretation. However, you can cast healing spells on someone who's not injured. Many spells specifically list situations where they have no effect, but Restoration doesn't.

There is no crippling injury to act on. Fast Fire and Extinguish Fire don't need to list that it has no effect when there's no fire, why should Restoration need to list that it has no effect when there's no crippling injury? Why would you need to list that you can't cast healing spells on someone who isn't injured?

The rules are not written with the idea that you can abandon all common sense in reading them and still get sensible answers.

Originally Posted by Alden Loveshade

My relative could see better a day after cataract surgery--with that interpretation of Restoration, it would have left him blind for a month.

Your relative has the benefit of TL8 surgery. All the way up to a TL 6 environment, having the eye corrected pain free, surgery free, and with no chance of infection is a pretty big deal. Do one eye at a time and you don't even have blindness.

I know people who would have to take this option over surgery, due to the infection risk. I also know people who would voluntarily take this option over the idea of having someone poke around in their eyeballs.