Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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?

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

Good call; I hadn't thought of that last effect. Interpreted that way (that the person is completely crippled in one limb/blind in one eye/etc. for a month regardless of their condition before the casting of the spell), it would be an extremely powerful offensive spell.

And it gets worse. By Magic p. 13 -14:

It says a spell of any type, not any spell, can be resisted, and no "attribute or other trait" is "indicated in the spell description" for Restoration.

So as long as the spell caster has a minute to cast the spell, the subject can be crippled in one arm or leg, blinded in one eye, deaf in one ear, etc. for a month! And can't resist! (Even if the GM rules they can resist, still a very nasty spell).

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

A minute to cast the spell makes it basically useless as an attack. The subject can get up and walk away, delivering at least a -60 to your casting roll even if they just toddle off at a light walk of 1 yard per second.

The suggestion that I can cast it on uncrippled body parts also does not pass the sniff test. The spell specifically talks about crippled limbs and such, not random body parts, so if you want to get all nitpicky, your nits cannot be picked off that particular pelt because it's not crippled.

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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...

Re: Restoration Spell Makes It Worse
 

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.

And even if we allow that restriction, it could be cast on someone who has limited vision, say from cataracts, near nearsightedness, or from someone who has a limitation on hearing, taste, etc.

And of course this is dependent on accepting the idea that Restoration makes a usable eye, limb, etc. completely unusable for a month. In many cases, that makes magical healing much less useful than real-world healing.

My relative could see better a day after cataract surgery--with that interpretation of Restoration, it would have left him blind for a month. When I sprained my ankle, I could still walk on it if I had to. I once caught myself from falling by stepping on it--it hurt, but I didn't fall. With the interpretation that magical Restoration would mean it was completely unusable, I couldn't have used it and would have fallen.