Re: HEAL spell?
 

Dragons will not sell their dung because of the danger they see in gunpowder.

What do you think dragons as a group would do to someone who creates or wields a magic item that requires the hide of five 14-hex dragons?

They are all dead men walking. Probably before the amulet is even partly enchanted.

Campaigns where magic this powerful is commonplace are too high powered to worry about magical healing breaking the game.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Yes it does, for the problem of single combats. (If you consider it also a problem if it can be done during a couple of days or less or rest & spellcasting, that problem doesn't disappear.)


Those are great and valid tactical points.

But imagine both sides have a Zaxzax or three, and lesser warriors. Both sides will want to use in-combat healing on their Zaxzaxes as much as they can, because it multiplies the durability of their super-star combatants. The same applies to powerful wizards, or whoever your best people are. The healers multiply their effective hit points unless they can be killed before they can be healed.

So if whoever your best person is, can have their combat lifespan more or less multiplied in combat by a during-combat healing spell. Then tactics can become about how well you heal people or prevent enemies healing people during combat.

And that's what I don't like - yet another game where one of the main things determining success in combat, is efficient achieving and preventing of surreal healing. To me, that's a curse of D&D-like gameplay that has infected way too many games (there are even many computer lite wargames where one of the main needed tactics is constantly healing things so they never die even during combat). For me, TFT was always a refreshing counterpoint that didn't do that, and instead provided a game that was about fighting tactics and making choices and using tactics to mitigate the risk of getting injured, and to actually have to deal with the consequences when you do get injured.


In TFT, it's using tactics (and/or magic) to not get hurt, and taking out the most deadly opponents before they hurt you, and possibly healing potions, or keeping people going temporarily with Aid spells, or at the far extreme, wishes.


I've played in campaigns where one religion has healing magic and the others don't. Can be pretty interesting, though it really shows what a massive advantage it is to be able to heal up without needing to rest.


Yes, also in our TFT campaigns, we kept magic items uncommon, partly for rational reasons (e.g. powerful wizards don't like spending time enchanting, and magic items for sale tend to get bought by the most powerful & wealthy people (NPCs) in the game world, whom the PCs probably don't want to antagonize) but mainly because we didn't like the way the game starts to play the more magic items get added, especially if they're commercially available. Players even chose to stash quite a few magic items rather than carry and use them - again partly so as not to attract too much attention to themselves from powerful NPCs/guilds/rulers/thieves/etc., but I think even moreso because as players they didn't really care for the power game created by using a lot of magic items (both in terms of the way it plays out and marginalizes people without them, and in terms of the natural consequences of attracting attention from the most powerful people who want those items for themselves, and who plan intelligently to get them with nasty tricks or other powerful magic (q.v. another reason I don't like playing with the Trance spell available).

Zaxzax was an intentionally extreme example, intended to make the issue clear rather than be an example of something that would typically exist. However it starts to be a more and more rational strategy to put all your resources into single apex fighters if you can magically heal them.

My actual apex PC (though out-done by NPC allies) had several magic items but his "final form" (before converting him & the campaign to GURPS) chose to use one combat magic item (not the most powerful one he owned, but the others he left in storage) - a self-powered Stone Flesh ring, which was enough to bring him to total 9 hits stopped with adjDX 15 and a fine greatsword (3d+3), it was rare for anyone who wasn't rather experienced themselves to even get a chance to attack him, and the majority of ordinary people would do little or no damage even if they managed to hit him. He liked to do sweeping blows (reducing adjDX to 11) just for fun and to actually experience missing and getting hit a little, sometimes. (At least our house-rule EP system meant he only got 1 EP for slaughtering each typical 32-point foe.) Even this level sort of removed interestingness from lower-level opponents and meant that interesting combat challenges for him tended to mean more and more powerful people. If he got a bit injured, that started to be interesting, but if someone could zap it away, that would remove that element, multiply his effectiveness and already-great ability to wade through foes, and mean that in order to be challenging, someone would have to actually be in a position to kill him, rather than merely injure him. I don't like having that be the only thing that's really challenging or has any degree of lasting consequences to face - it also gives the players an experience of "well, again we killed every one and didn't die, so there were no consequences, so we might as well keep non-stop engaging tough foes, who also will have no real consequences due to our fast healing, until we over-do it and get killed."


Yes, though that's not really the point. Also even 6 dice averages 21, which will average 3 points damage. Significant if it accumulates, but if Zaxzax is on your side, healing those 3 points on Zaxzax during combat is probably what you want to do even at great risk or cost, as it negates the effect of a 21-point hit, and keeps Zaxzax mowing through opponents and drawing attacks.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Well yes, and thank the Mnoren (or SJ) that dragon hide is a spell component of Iron Flesh. (But it's not of Stone Flesh, or Spell Shield.)

On the other hand, some dragons might be willing to yield some dung or a 14-hex dragon skin they might happen to have, in exchange for some items with Spell Shield, Stone Flesh, Reverse Missiles, Hammertouch and/or Speed Movement...


1) It's an extreme example to make a point.
2) The point also applies to much weaker/cheaper champions. Even people with non-self-powered or simply spell-cast Stone Flesh with armor and/or some low-level armor enchantment.
3) The more healing magic is available, the more it makes sense to invest in strong champions, because healing magic can multiply their combat longevity.
4) It applies to PCs, who are a kind of champion whether they have armor or not, wizards too. If you can heal people during combat, it's like being able to multiply the combat longevity of your best people, which makes it possibly more powerful than having another star person in the first place.

And that's why I don't like healing in combat (which Zaxzax is just an exaggerated extreme example of): it can make your ability to heal your best people during combat (and to deny the enemy doing so) as (or more) important than how good your people are in the first place. And it's done to death in other games, and I just personally really don't much like the game where a major aspect of tactics is being able to magically heal people during combat.

(I mean, it's even common in computer games and collectable card games supposedly about high-tech military combat, that some sort of during-combat healing ability that's can be about as fast as doing damage, is a common and vitally important ability to use. I was playing a computer game supposedly about fighting the Afrika Korps in World War II, and was facing a Panzer III tank with several Allied tanks, and thought surely we should win, but the Panzer III was apparently invulnerable - why? Yep, the damage system involved a bunch of hit points being slowly removed by each hit, and the enemy tank was parked next to a "supply depot" or something that was repairing it as fast as my three or more tanks were able to damage it. Oh great, the curse of D&D damage & healing strikes again...)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

And...we've come full circle. Some people like healing spells, some don't.

I say include the spell and let the GM decide if he wants to allow it in his game. Then we're all happy.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Target priority in a multi-character combat is highest ratio of offense to defense. Usually that means killing mages first. Healing spells do not affect that calculus.

Apex fighters only make sense if you can make sure that they are actually able to protect the squishies, usually by not having the squishies on the battlefield at all.

The tactics of fast and surreal healing.
 

>> Discussion of combat healing.
Hi everyone, Skarg.
I agree. A World of Warcraft raid, where a dozen people are attacking some boss, and half the party is constantly screaming "HEAL ME! HEAL ME!". Meh.

It is harder to fix things than to break them. If healing spells all had a 6 turn casting times it would make me happier.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I tend to agree with Rick. As someone who preferred to play Wizards, I don't want my spellcaster to be turned into a medic. A wizard has a limited store of ST to use anyway and I'd rather he was using it for cool stuff like illusions, summoning, invisibility etc. If the Heal spell is available there'll be tremendous pressure on the Wizard to use it a lot thus reducing their ability to do the cool stuff. That's why D&D had Clerics, but they were handy fighters and had other abilities too.

It's easy to say "just include it and then the GM can decide to use it" but once it's there, it's there and I think it will be widely used, which I think will be to the detriment of the Wizard character.

So either I'd like it as a clearly identified "optional rule", or have some other restriction on it. In any case, if the characters are going into a particularly deadly dungeon let them buy a load of healing potions before they go in.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Not at its cost. There will be lots of pressure to use it after combat, but there's almost always better things you can do in combat.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Are you sure? Because I look at Zaxzax and I think the battle is being won by the person with more combat magic items. Which is a perfectly reasonable complaint, but not primarily one about healing magic.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Maybe maybe not, but not the point I was hoping to communicate.


Well that too, but Zaxzax is just an example to illustrate the issue I have with the one issue of healing during combat.

Even if you merely have someone who has a strong attack and who is hard to kill (even less powerful than the actual PC we had that I mentioned, or even another strong wizard), if you can heal the best people during combat, that becomes a very powerful thing to do (which I'm just saying I don't like because it's been done in so many games and adds strong tactics about arranging magic healing rather than fighting, which isn't something I want battle tactics to be about).

And it also tilts tactics towards making sure opponents are _dead_, since you can't just heavily injure some powerful foe, since a healer could find them and then you'd have to fight them again. I don't much care for that, either.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

It's the important point. Yes, a badass fighter with healer support is better than one without. A badass fighter with lots of other sorts of support is also better than one without, and in fact many of those support options will be superior to healing at the ratios of this spell.

Heal spells and -2 DX for stunning.
 

Hi David,
I tend to agree with you here.

I think that the point Skarg was trying to make, was fast healing allows combat buffing. If the party is made of a high level guy who can deal out at lot of damage, and everyone has a fair bit of armor (so damage is being done slowly), then buffing the big guy with healing is a big deal.

The big guy does not necessarily have to have a lot of magic for this situation to arise. (And for that matter, if both sides had a big guy with equal magics, it could happen.)

However, such situations come up pretty rarely, in my experience.

But fast healing brings up other questions. If I take 5 hits (so I'm stunned at -2 DX), and I get healed for 2, am I still stunned? We never needed this rule before.

Wizard will be wanted to drop a healing if someone is at permanent negatives.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Yes, yes it is. Because I think players should be allowed to chose for themselves. More importantly, I pretty much guarantee that many people have already invented a healing spell or two of their own for the game, and telling those people "You're playing wrong," isn't exactly the most inclusive argument I've ever heard.

Why should you, or anyone else for that matter, care what anyone else does in their game? Why this need to "police" the issue so much? If you don't allow it in your game, I certainly don't plan to get all up in your face about your choice. After all, it's your game, isn't it? Why, then, this intense desire to force everyone to play your way?

Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

Hi all,
With fast healing, TFT has gained new tactics. Healing the big guy who is doing the heavy damage. Healing guys who are stunned. Healing guys who are at permanent negatives.

An area spell that stops all magic in an area is now increasingly useful. A cheaper spell that stops all healing magics in an area would be very handy.

Anyone want to take a crack at some healing debuff spells?

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

None so far??? Well I will have to give one.


In July of 2013 I took over the Thail TFT pbem game that Dave Seagraves had been running. I had a very experienced character 'Flinch' in it. Flinch had no combat talents, but was a combat monster. (That is another story.) Anyway, he was the leader of the "Company of Adventurers", and I had a story that would eventually take 37 months to complete.

But I had a problem, Flinch was the leader of the adventuring group, and I was the GM. I would be just dumb to try to run the party while also GM'ing, so I needed to get rid of my character.

I had Flinch get shot in the face by a cursed crossbow bolt. They pored healing salves on the wound and had Flinch drink healing potions. The wounds would heal for a second and then reopened!!!

The party had never had to deal with such a thing. They panicked a bit, how do you heal serious wounds without magic??? Then they hauled him to a healer's who removed the crossbow bolt and cauterized the wound thru his mouth and nasal cavity. (Flinch, never pretty, got a lot uglier then.)

Flinch's shattered face promptly became infected, and the ship to go into enemy territory was leaving in a couple days. Dan Nicolson's character, Simon, took over control of the party, and they went on to glory.

***

Tho none of the players knew it, the cursed crossbow bolt had this spell cast on it:

IQ 13
S Weapon of Vitiation Cast on a weapon, it enchants all wounds that are made with that weapon so that they may not be healed by magical means. This includes healing potions, the various healing spells, Revival spells and it prevents Cleansings on wounds that become infected. Wounds made by this weapon must be healed naturally at the normal rate. Casting a Dissolve Enchantment on a wound made by this weapon, will allow magical healings to occur for that wound only.
The enchantment on the wound ends when the wound heals naturally.
This spell calculates DX adjustments and range like thrown spells (but is not affected by the Thrown Spell talents).
This spell will last on a weapon for 1 week or until the first time a sixteen or higher is rolled.
This spell is an enchantment so it is affected by the Rule of Five. The cost of the spell doubles for each previous enchantment on the weapon.
Cost: 7 fST + 7 fST / week

***

When magic gives you a problem, it is traditional to have magic give a solution.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

So is this the MAE doctrine of Mutually Assured Enchantment?

Re: HEAL spell?
 

On your first point, the rules as they stand don't currently contain a Healing Spell. Steve has suggested a Spell which we are discussing here. That's all I'm doing; discussing it and pointing out some potential pitfalls. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just expressing an opinion.

On your second point, my answer is similar to the first; we're discussing whether there should be a Healing Spell in the new edition. To that extent, I want to express my opinion, but only in so far as it relates to the new rules, because my current thinking is that I'd rather they don't change in this respect. What you, or anyone else does with the game after that is entirely up to you.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm trying to tell you what to do. Steve has asked us what we think of including the new spell and we're telling him. Ultimately he will make the decision. We can house rule to our hearts content after that.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

Hi Zot, that is exactly what this is. :-D

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

You may be right. Again, with the Zaxzax post, I was trying to describe how/why I don't like magic healing that occurs during combat. Part of it is that it multiplies the survivability of strong hard to kill people (or wizardly hard-to-attack people), which adds incentive to something I don't like. And a lot of my point is that I just don't like that (and it's done in SO many other games that I'm especially sick of it, and TFT traditionally is a haven from that, and all the published adventures have surviving a series of serious combats without much/any healing as a major element of play).


Yes, and that it encourages stacking whatever buffs you can and then healing the person you've buffed (though you do probably really want the spell shield, or else he can be taken out with a thrown spell).

And I don't mind combat buffing anywhere near as much as I mind combat healing. Blur and Stone Flesh someone with spells - OK, at least you're using wizard ST, and we can try to avoid him or counter that - it's using combat magic that does something in combat. But having serious wounds vanish has been overdone in so many games, and having played traditional TFT where magic healing is a big deal and mostly limited, rare, expensive and/or not available, I have a great appreciation for what play is like when wounds can be lasting and you need to deal with that and not blink it away.

The conversation gets a bit messy though because as we covered a few pages ago, there are many different levels of magic healing possible, starting at original TFT's level of maybe sometimes a weak healing potion (category A), on up to serious wounds can all go away between fights (category D). I don't mind level A or B (magic can speed healing and heal minor wounds, but serious wounds still need some days to heal unless you have a lot of healing potion), but don't enjoy playing at level C (a whole badly wounded party can heal completely in a day or two using magic).


Yes, I think it starts at about total armor 8 (1d+2 weapons won't do anything without a 2x or 3x result), and gets seriously worse with each additional point of armor. That's not so hard to get.


It would come up a lot less if armor enchantment were capped at +2, and if Stone/Iron Flesh were impossible to make self-powering. (Our magic item breakdown system also did well.)


Good question. I would say & hope not.


Yes, and I actually wouldn't mind, if there were a healing spell that could heal someone for 1 or 2 points during combat, but then the wound was "treated" and couldn't be healed by magic or physicker again (I think that patch puts SJ's spell close enough to B for my comfort). I'd prefer it at least required touch, but wouldn't whine too much about it being Thrown. After all, you could always do this with Aid, just not lastingly (though that's also a reason why a new spell that can do this isn't needed).


I don't want to tell people how to play. However adding a powerful category C healing spell to TFT is just as much telling TFT players who like the lack of magic healing that they're playing wrong. Of course anyone can house rule what they want. On the other hand, any published adventures will be greatly affected unless they're all written for single-combats with full healing allowed between by whatever method. All of the existing TFT adventures were written with a major element of play and balance being that there is limited or no healing adventure available between encounters. If you add fast healing to those, the balance will be off. If you balance adventures for trivial healing, they'll be really hard for people playing without healing. So if healing is included and meant to be optional, all adventure design/balance needs to take into account the major role that magic healing (or its absence) plays. I would say it also impacts world design, how GMs run adventures and game worlds, how people behave, what/who they take to go adventuring, economy, etc etc. Since TFT has a nice theme of things making sense and observing cause & effect, if magic healing is optional, there probably should be some stuff written in the new ITL about the differences.


I don't think Chris was doing any of that.

However, I agree with Chris that TFT's lack of a healing spell is an interesting and unique quality, and that playing without it gives players an interesting (and rare in RPGs) experience. Simply adding a healing spell would remove that experience for many new players, and I agree that seems a shame to me. Yes, players can of course play however they like, but the assumption of such a spell's existence or absence impacts the assumptions of many other aspects of play, and those will either mess with the existing sections, or those sections need to be adjusted or (hopefully) be written to mention how the existence or absence of a healing spell would affect those areas. (e.g. healing potion cost/effort/effectiveness, adventure balance, and other costs and practices and mentions of people needing to take time to heal or not, or what people's tactics and strategies and capture/kill policies would be like.)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I wouldn't have any issues with making the spell either not castable in combat, or not useful in combat, nor with limiting total daily healing. For example:

Regeneration (T): accelerates the subject's healing. Lasts 1 hour per 3 ST the wizard uses to cast it. Heals the subject by 1 ST per hour. Cannot be stacked.

However, I don't think the spell as proposed would dramatically affect combat, it's mostly what you call category D even if it's castable in combat because you generally won't cast it in combat.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Chris, those are fair points and I take them. Second, the part where I was expressing a concern about people telling others about the "one true way" was not directed against you specifically, but in response to all the people saying this is a "bad idea" or leads to "badplay" (whatever their definition of that might be).

What I'm really trying to say (and expressed poorly above) is; "Why not give it a chance and see how it works?" There's a lot of opposition here, and from what I can see it's mostly based on those min/max players that do crop up from time to time, and on a strong feeling that "it isn't TFT the way I remember it!"

Both of those are valid concerns, but remember, we are hopefully getting a game that will appeal to a whole new generation of gamers, who don't have our experience or fond memories of the original system, and many of them will want healing spells of some kind. All I'm saying is that I don't see what the big deal is about putting the spell out there. If I don't like it, I don't have to use it, but a lot of people will want to, and that's okay by me.

(Actually, if I'm going to be completely honest here, depending on how the Spell looks in it's final form, I may nerf it anyway so that it converts "healing wounds" to "changing wounds to fatigue damage" instead. That tracks with most of the Fantasy/Sci Fi books I've ever read that discussed the topic -- most of the energy for healing comes from the patient, and afterwards, he/she needs a heck of a lot of rest (and probably a ton of food and water) to recover fully, so that idea makes a LOT of sense to me.)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

JLV, absolutely agree with you. I'm in two minds myself and I'll be happy to go with whatever Steve decides. Having tinkered so much with the rules over the last 35 years, it's refreshing to go back to the source and I've been enjoying my plays with the original 1977 Melee set. I intend to do the same with the new edition and play it RAW. I won't be making any changes till I've given it a very thorough run out, that's for sure. I always appreciate your input as another passionate TFT fan.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Healing magic is fantasy has been a thing since stories of King Arthur when Vivian takes Arthur to Avalon so his greivous wounds can be heals, but we never see him again. He is magically healed, but it's going to take years and it's that or die.

If healing magic takes significant time to cast that or the effect is outside the scope of combat (1ST/hour or longer) then that's not a game breaker. At least not more than having a Master Physicker in the group.

Even having an in combat touch spell that mearly brings a character to ST1 (and unconsious) and will not die from bloodloss, but still counts as 'treated' in respect to physickering would be OK as it still requires someone to do something other than make an attack for at least 1 turn of combat, maybe more.

What we don't want is some cleric casting Cure Serious Wounds 6 times in combat from as far away as 10 hexes without a roll 'to hit' and basically refiving the super soldier over and over to aid his march of death through the enemy ranks.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Make Well (S) [10]: This ritual must be performed in a sactified area (in a church or holy site at least neutral to the deity providing the spell or an area where Sanctify has been cast), requires $150 ci, and 5 hours. On a successful roll, the subject is completely healed of all wounds as well as curting diseases and and expunging poisons.

The effects of a failed roll may be nothing and a critical might mean character death, depending on the deity.

Definitely not an in combat spell and it requires that the wounded person be moved to a santified location or someone able to sacntify that location for the duration of the casting.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

"I'm in two minds [about it]" That EXACTLY expresses my own feelings! ;-)

And I have to say "me too!" about both the tinkering and the getting back to my roots (playing the original game) part. It's been an absolute blast playing some good old fashioned Melee and Wizard fights again... (I feel like I'm 18 again, and that was 40 long years ago!)

And, yep, exactly my feeling again about playing the RAW when I finally get the latest version in my hot little hands -- but that doesn't mean I won't start tinkering around again too (because I literally can't stop myself)! Still, I'll want to see how things interact BEFORE I launch any major surgery on anything.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

My main issue with Healing spells is that it will strongly encourage players to have a "party healer" who saves up all his ST for healing and doesn't get to have as much fun playing the game as a result.

Healing magic is "in genre" and a spell that costs just a few ST and puts someone into a healing trance where they recover at 2-4x the usual rate would let you create a "cleric" type character who does a bit of between-fights healing in the "downtime" without the D&D flaw of relegating someone to be the no-fun combat medic.

To keep players alive, a "die at negative ST" rule is probably the best solution. If we haven't replaced "die at 0 ST" (if SJ has done so, I missed it), we should!

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

In my game, the mage is also the physicer. He has Lightning, which he really worked for, summon Myrmidon, 3-hex Fire, and a few other spells he uses less often. And a Minor Heal spell. After a battle, Etica will physicer those injured, then rest. After abreather, he will then cast the minor heal on anyone injured, but not below 2/3 fST, just in case there is another combat.

Based on the game, every character is a Priest, being the Chosen of the Gods in this epic quest they are currently on and their prayers do have positive results, just not in the form of healing or protection. The Mother of All does not coddle her children...

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

This was more or less the starting motivation for my priest system. I wanted

1. ceremonial magic that takes time and doesn't overlap with wizardly magic OR feel like D&D clerical magic
2. some small, extraordinary powers during combat
3. access to regular hero talents
4. magic and powers with heavy flavor

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Mostly the spell as proposed would tend not to be particularly useful in combat... though it could be, if there were enough Aid spells, ST batteries, or Staff ST available. That proposed new Staff ST means possibly more available ST (up to IQ, or IQ x 2 for Staff of Power). It still might not be the best use of power, but it could be used to zap a near-dead person back to full ST in one turn.

I like your Regeneration spell a lot better. It's still unlimited and amounts to up to 24 healing per day per patient, so it's category C.

Even more, I'd like SJ's initial version well enough IF something limited it to at most 4 or 5 points (maybe 3, or 4 if the caster knows Physicker or 5 if Master Physicker) AND that it can only be cast on untreated wounds, and casting it counts as treating the wound, so it can't be stacked with Physicker or other castings, so people can still have lasting wounds when they get hurt badly enough.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

That's only really an issue for combat-effective healing; otherwise it's just everyone casts aid and the person who knows heal draws from everyone.

It's worth considering what issue healing is intended to address, though. It could be thought of as tactically interesting (though IME it generally isn't), but I think the usual reason is because it lets you have more challenging fights that don't bring the adventure to a halt. RPG combat tends to follow lanchester's square law, meaning a 4 on 4 fight (with characters on both sides equal) is a coin-flip and likely results in major wounds to the winning side, a 4 on 3 fight averages to the side with 4 taking 2 casualties, 4 on 2 averages 1 casualty, 4 on 1 averages 0.25 casualties.

If your adventure plan is 'fight, fight, fight, boss fight', and we know the boss fight is going to be 3 characters (or the equivalent), absent healing, the first three fights all need to be 1s, because if any of them is a 2 the PCs probably don't reach the boss fight with enough strength to win. With healing, each preliminary fight can be a 2.

However, there are means other than healing spells to allow PCs to make it through multiple moderately challenging fight. For example, you could introduce active defenses (block, dodge, parry) that cost fatigue, meaning the likely outcome of a fight is taking a bunch of fatigue damage but no actual wounds.

Anthony's Regeneration Spell.
 

Hi Anthony,
I like this spell a lot, but your spell description leaves a few things out... What IQ is this spell? What is it's cost? How long does this last? (24 hours I suggest.) Also, 'Stacked' is not official TFT terminology. I would likely replace the last sentence with, "If this spell is cast on someone who already has Regeneration cast on them, the newer spell replaces the older version."

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Anthony's Regeneration Spell.
 

He left out the IQ but he did specify cost and duration: 3 ST / hour of duration.

I'm guessing he's intending for the same IQ as Steve's spell but only he can clarify that :)

Re: Anthony's Regeneration Spell.
 

I wasn't really intending this as a complete writeup, just as food for thought.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Magic Fist (M)
Cast: 1x ST
IQ: 8
A telekinetic blow. Does (1d6 - 2) damage or healing, at caster's discretion, for every ST used to cast it; can also trigger traps or carry out other unsubtle physical manipulations within line of sight that the caster could normally do with just his fist.

(Apologies if this was suggested already -- I've been away and this is a loooong thread!)

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

I wonder, though, does that inflate the importance of ST?

Since it's been a while since TFT was out, there's other mechanics from other games that could be adopted. I'm thinking of using a variant of the D&D 5E "death save" mechanic:

Death Saves:

When your character is reduced to 0 ST, you are in danger of bleeding out. Make a 3d6 roll. A roll of 10 or less is a success. On each round, roll again. If you make 3 successes before you have 3 failures, you stabilize and do not need to make any more rolls. 3 failed rolls means the character dies.

A roll of 3 indicates the character stabilizes immediately.
A roll of 4 or 5 counts as two successes.
A roll of 16 or 17 counts as two failures
A roll of 18 indicates the character dies, regardless of current failures.

A Physicker using his action in combat on a bleeding out character does... what, I'm not exactly sure. Allow the downed character to reroll a failed roll? Raise the check to 12? Something, definitely. They couldn't heal the 2 points as described in the talent; that takes longer and is an out of combat action.

And a First Aid talent.. really liking that idea. Maybe that talent would let a bleeding out character re-roll 1 (and only 1) failed check, or raise the check to 11. First Aid might also be something attempted untrained.

If the Heal spell Steve suggested comes into play, it would work as is. If only 3 points are spent, the target would still be unconscious at 1 ST, but stable.

Also, new talent: Hard To Kill - a success on a Death Save for you is a 12 or less.

Re: Anti Magic zones and healing debuffs.
 

Not really. Durability is still linear in ST.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Actually, you know, this "dying at negative ST" thing might be a lot more important under the new attribute caps.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Death at ST 0 is very severe, especially if you're just being beaten up in a fist fight.

Death at full negative ST would be quite excessively soft, it seems to me. It's that way in GURPS, but GURPS also has common damage multipliers which range from 50% to 400%, mortal wounds, people who sometimes keep their feet and keep fighting even when below 0 ST, optional bleeding rules, infection, etc, that TFT does not have. With death only at full negative ST in TFT, many foes would be "no risk of death unless they chop you after you fall unconscious", and many more would be little risk of that, because it basically means you'd need to hit someone who was near death with more than their ST in damage in one shot. So it'd go from "most people who fall are dead" to "almost no one who falls is dead unless they get hit when down".

Seems to me there should be a much smaller cushion than full negative, and maybe a die roll involved. Maybe negative 1/2 ST, or roll 3 dice versus ST minus how negative you are, to still be alive, and maybe a further roll(s) to see whether you'll recover or not, modified by what help you get when.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

100% agreed. Delivering death while avoiding death is the key tension in TFT. The further you move that line away from death at ST 0, the further you reduce the inherent game tension level. This is same problem with an overly efficient healing spell.

All these things are an attempt to extend game-time, but do so by proportionally reducing game-tension.

JK

Re: HEAL spell?
 

We have played it both ways, sometimes as GM in a situation where the game is special, such as players flying in for one holiday game, etc. and it's just too harsh to kill a player giving him no hope for the next 48 hours to be involved in play.

I was a firm rules adherent for most of my childhood games, the biggest offender I saw were kids in the neighborhood that played Monopoly with taxes and so forth going in to free parking for others to collect. This ruined the bankruptcy approach inherent in Monopoly and made games last through many long Texas summer days.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I like this idea! It seems to fit the mechanics of TFT very well, and it still provides some tension in the game. There's some variability built in -- it gives much the same effect as GURPS, but without all the fiddly rules. And luck plays a part -- which means the player has to decide just how far he wants to push it. "How lucky do you feel, punk?" ;-)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I was thinking that once you go negative, you only have a limited number of turns left to live, say 5 turns, unless someone with at least First Aid spends an action to "stabilize" you (get your body situated so you can breathe properly, etc.). Transporting a stabilized person might be dangerous and if a stabilized person takes damage, they need to be stabilized again.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I like this, but I’d rather add some variability to it, maybe 2d turns.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Thanks, 2d turns works too -- I'm just throwing the idea out there because I think it makes First Aid and the Physicker talents more important and fun. Plus it throws an urgent need right into the middle of combat!

Healing figures below 0 ST???
 

Hi all,
I discussed this in the huge TFT thread, but it is worth briefly mentioning again.

In my campaign:

At ST 1, you might fall unconscious. (3vsST roll.)

At ST 0, you fall helpless and might fall unconscious. (3vsST and a -3 ST modifier.)

If you are at negative ST, you might fall unconscious (3vsST with your -ST as a modifier or -3 ST which ever is worse.) Additionally, you fall helpless. Also you are mortally wounded, and will take a point of damage per minute. When you reach your ST x -1, you die.

A physicker can try to save people who are mortally wounded. (This gets much harder the further below zero you are. Down to -3 or so it is not too hard, below -5 it is very hard.)

***

I do think that saying you go unconscious at 1 or 0 is a very easy to make improvement. It doubles the chance of being knocked out with out being killed, which is more fun, and more realistic.

As for surviving at negative ST, like the idea it is possible to save people who are mortally wounded. (More dramatic and also realistic.) My only concern is that it not be TOO easy to save people who are significantly below zero.

***

I'm happy with my rules but they are a bit complex. If Steve was to say, "Unconscious at ST 1 or 0. Healing is possible from -1 to -3 ST (death in 30 minutes if untreated). -4 ST and worse is instantly dead." Then that would be quite simple and an improvement (I feel) over old TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: Healing figures below 0 ST???
 

This is a good and workable solution. Easy to understand, quick to play.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Just want to point again to the idea of a "3 strikes" Death Save that I posted ealier. That would definitely set a time limit before death, but with some variability. (Bad/good rolls count as multiple strikes/successes.) Note additional damage while at ST 0 counts as another failed roll.

I prefer a 3d6 roll against a flat 10. This eliminates the need to track any other adjustments, like how far negative the character is. IMO, a ST 15 is already 5 points further way from having to make a Death Save than a ST 10 character. Plus, he's able to wear heavier armor which puts him even further from 0 ST. So, no need to factor ST in *again* for the death save.

However, it's easy enough to adjust the actual value being rolled against - like how far negative, unadjusted ST, etc., if preferred. The "need X number of successes" idea still works. Also, lethality can be dialed up or down too, simply by changing the number for strikes required before dying.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Sure, death saves could work but I'm not sure whether 3 successes with 3 allowed failures requires more or less tracking than X turns before you die (whether or not it's based on ST).

If I were using death-saves, I'd make a few changes to your stuff:

1) As I mentioned above, I want to require external stabilization from someone who has First Aid, at least, or you die so I'd make death saves only negative: you die on the third failed roll unless someone else stabilizes you

2) I'd make stabilization require an action but be automatic, just like Physicker's healing, there's already enough randomness with death saves, no need to add more

3) 10 or lower on 3 dice is exactly 50%, so I'd just change it to 3 or lower on one die with no critical results for the same reason as #2 -- I think there's already enough randomness with death saves

This is all just my 2 cents, of course. :)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Here are some Synergy suggests that you asked about way back when.

Benefit of Healing Spell for Physicker. Since a physicker knows the components of the body and how they interact and how things go wrong with it, a physicker wizard can fine tune a heal.

• Instead of healing 1 point instantly with the spell, they can cast it on a injured person to allow any past injuries to be healed by any physickers. (and if this is too powerful, modify as you wish)
• Or it can cut the natural healing times in half. (as suggested by others on this thread.)
• Or a Physicker can double his healing effectiveness.
• Or a Master Physiker with a Kit can stabilize a just dead zero HP figure to coma that can only be healed through rest and "Proper Medical Care."
• Or several weeks of this spell and doctor applications, can HEAL DISEASE.
  Or any combination of these.

Again, a physicker can do this because he KNOWS bodies and how they work.

Some other synergy suggestions:

• A physicker, in conjunction with a cook and proper food available, could halve the healing rate even if not in "proper medical care".
• If a physicker IS also an Alchemist, perhaps he could concoct "amphetamines" which eliviates exhaustion?
• Would you consider a Mundane Talent Herbalist to be "Proper Medical Care"?

AW39 "If you make it back to the surface alive and get proper medical care, you will recover at the rate of one hit every two days."

• What is Proper Medical Care?
• What if you don't get a Doc? How long does it take then?
• Can you longterm heal while on the move in a caravan? on Horseback with a doc watching you?

Would you consider massive amounts of sleep beneficial? If a Physicker SLEEP SPELLed (acts like a sedative) someone over several days (while providing nourishment), would this quicken healing?

On the "you will recover..." Does that mean you can do other things like study or perform magic (as long as he's not causing fatigue to himself) or build things (as long as he's not injuring or fatiguing himself), travel etc.? Any restrictions on this recovery?

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Hey, does this spell work on animals too?
My guess is it should as its magical and doesn’t need the knowledge of physiology to do it.

You can heal that attack dog of yours without a Veterinarian.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Keep healing out of the hands of wizards! I’d much rather have this healing concept transferred to a Cleric miracle!
I don’t want this wizard spell to be done with ritual magic for more curepoints.

If a Wizard HEAL spell needs restricting
I'd go with Touch the victim and perhaps an unarmored body is needed. Armor has to be taken off to apply the spell.

As others mentioned another possible restriction for Wizard healing, make it that the wizard converts injury to fatigue. The victim is still down a point, but it can be rested in 15minutes.

====================

Non-Magic Healing
Perhaps allow bandaging as a 50/50 chance of success on IQ for 1 point healing. Can only be done on those not healed by Physicker. Can only be done after combat.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Apropos of another post I made.
If you’re saving someone’s life, you have a choice
1. bow out of combat or
2. let them die.
You can’t say I’ll slap on a bandage in one turn (5 seconds) and then go back to fighting.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

The spell you give is instant and the recipient is fully healed for that portion of wound. Here is an additional lower level heal spell.

How about something of lower IQ that converts an injury to some negative reaction.

Transmorgification Healing Spell (S) (IQ 12)
For each 3 points of ST that the wizard puts into this spell, he/she can transform two hits of damage into some temporary disadvantage in the recipient. Can be attempted only once per combat per person. The spellcaster needs to touch the victim.

Negative Reaction:
Limp = -1 MA
Spasms = -1 DX
Weakness = -1 ST
Headache = -1 IQ
Other variations can occur.
For each 3 points, the negative increases by -1.

The type of inconvenience should be appropriate to the type of injury/wound received.

This affect lasts 24 hours or until 8 hours of continuous sleep is done.

Comments: This spell allows for some healing, but doesn't make it free for the recipient. Its not a major penalty until you heal a lot. and if you have time to sleep, the penalty goes away.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

The Transmogfrication Healing Spell is nice. I might use it, though I'd make the effects last until the damage it replaces heals. :-)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Weighing in a bit late on this, but here's my take.

Healing magic should be exceedingly rare, labourious, and costly. Instant healing is fine in video games, where frequent combat is often the raison d'etre and you can level up a character to the point where they can kill a dragon with a grapefruit spoon. But in a pen-and-paper RPG it should be much more realistic.

I would almost say that Master Physicker should be a prerequisite for Heal, as one would need to know how and where to direct the healing energies. Regenerating muscle tissue is very different than repairing nerves or organ damage. Critical failure could lead to permanent damage to the areas being repaired, with lose of function or attribute as a result. Select experts of this magic may also learn Regeneration, which allows restoration of lost organs or limbs. This spell would further be necessary to undo the effects of a Heal critical failure.

Lastly, Cure Disease and Cure Poison should also be separate spells. Cure Poison is probably the lowest and easiest to learn of these four, with no prerequisites apart from IQ. It could also be boosted by the Naturalist talent. Cure Disease is a targeted form of the Cleanse spell, and likely should require Physicker as a base so as not to damage the patient. Heal and Regeneration both require Master Physicker, with the latter also requiring the former.

The places one could obtain the services of a Healer at would need to be either well protected under the aegis of a strong ruler/government, or otherwise remote. The rarity of the art and the vitality of it would make true Healers very sought after, with some of them imprisoned by tyrants who desire to ensure their services for themselves.

As a final note, it's quite probable that Heal and Regeneration are intensely painful spells, or at least disturbingly uncomfortable, unless the patient is numbed or sedated. Otherwise they can feel their flesh knitting quickly, with all the accompanying sensory experiences of that.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Also chiming in late, but I'd like to add my 2 (well, 4) cents:

- It's generally important to me that Physickers keep being a party's major, first-line source of healing. I definitely wouldn't object to the house-ruled version that can treat 2 or 3 points per wound rather than per combat. TFT is pretty unique in having most healing be non-magical; I'd like to keep that flavor.

- I like Rick Smith's approach of long-duration healing spells that simply accelerate natural healing processes, and IMO this should be the most accessible form of healing magic - because it shortens downtime between adventures, without supplanting the tactical role of Physickers. The two approaches to healing become complementary, and you avoid the question about whether magical and non-magical healing should be allowed to stack.

- I'm surprised that the new Regeneration spell is only IQ 15. I would have expected it to be higher. That said, I like it - it fits really well with the paradigm of "magic healing is thorough but takes time; Physicker healing is a quick but limited Band-Aid."

- I'm generally against the idea of introducing a priest/cleric "class", healing or not. I happen to like original-flavor TFT's atheistic worldview. The question of whether gods should be introduced should be decided by the players and GM, not the rulebook.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

And when the players and GM do decide, they should be able to go to a rulebook that has standardized, playtested TFT options for Gods/cleric "class". Probably in an TFT Supplement that has 4 or 5 different grades of Gods/Cleric world effects.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I could adapt to a variety of answers to this issue, but I think it is worth noting that there is something special about TFT's approach: Magic will not come to save you if you mess up. There are modestly useful healing potions, and physickers can be helpful now and then. But in the end you are going to have to deal with the consequences of your bad choices. This is different from pretty much any other game of this genre that I can think of, and it is part of what makes TFT unique. For this reason alone, if I were in charge I think I would say, 'screw it; we're staying the way this game always was, and people can just deal with the hardships'

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Amen to that!

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Absolutely. Here's another vote for simply cleaning up the contradictory and vague rules. There's a whole lotta "improvements" that are just going to remove the features that made TFT unique.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

So, this spell was dropped?

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Regeneration is IQ 15, but Summon Lesser Demon, which the caster can use to get a Lesser Wish (which can act like Regeneration only instantly) is IQ 14 and has a lower ST cost. Admittedly getting there via summoning a demon is more risky and fraught with danger, but the Lesser Wish is definitely the way to go if you have the choice.

(The Lesser Wish also can be had by anyone for 500 XP. And it's specified elsewhere that Wishes are only granted by demons. So does that 500 XP involve consorting in some way with a demon? Answer: No, it's more meta than that. But that also means that a Lesser Wish can be seen as a form of "drama points" as seen in some other RPGs. Which IMO is a good thing.)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Yes, the lesser wish EXP rule is very good. Very very good. It assigns a substantial but reachable cost for something desirable and cinematic yet not wildly over powered. This will act as a release valve for PC's who have functionally saturated their stats and have all the talents or spells they meaningfully want or need given their IQ level. People will get to this stage after ~10,000 EXP, or about 2 years of normal play, and the they will feel frustrated unless they have something fun to work towards.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

It's a higher IQ requirement than Drain Strength (IQ 12) used in "reverse", and costs less than Drain Strength. I might make it cost at least as much as Drain Strength. I think the IQ requirement is fine; maybe require Drain Strength and Physicker as prerequisites, and make it cost a total of 5 ST, 4 of which are magical fatigue and 1 as a wound, to heal 1 ST. Maybe Master Physicker reduces it to 3 ST to heal 1, but 1 of those is still taken as a wound. And the wounding portion of that must be incurred as a wound by the caster (or by someone, and it must be voluntary); you can't use additional ST via Staff II, Powerstone, or Aid to offset that, though you can for the 4 magical fatigue. (Though... you can use a Healing Potion to offset it, because that's what Healing Potions are for...)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I'd also recommend that when a Physicker or Master Physicker uses a Healing Potion on someone, they can heal additional ST with it. Because they know what they're doing; they're essentially reducing the amount of potion required to heal a given amount of ST.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

I'm so relieved and happy NOT to see that healing spell in the new ITL.

I do not think that ability 4) of the Lesser Wish means that you can restore lost body parts that wouldn't grow back naturally - I think it just restores all your ST and cures diseases.

I think the Lesser Wish for XP thing is a good idea, but I would tend to restrict it to ability 2 & 3, and more limited versions of 1 (like you get to take the best of three rolls if you wish in advance, but not specify a 3 or 18), 4 (like, you get to not die from damage once, and maybe somehow you weren't hurt as bad as you should have been, but no your wounds don't magically vanish), and 5 (spending XP for an insight sounds ok, but not a forced answer to any question).

I don't want my world to know a regeneration spell - too easy, too cheap, and makes crippled people only for the poor or foolish - greatly reduced significance of severe injury - no more nobles or veterans who lost and arm or leg in their adventures. I don't want that, at all. At most, I'd want limb restoration to require something rare, uncertain, dangerous, expensive, and/or interesting to be invested, if possible at all. Otherwise it's too much of removing something I like and find interesting (and realistic/immersive - losing an arm is an actual thing not a temporary setback) from the game.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Fair enough, though when I suggested the spell it was with the caveat that such healing magic was rare and those who practiced it tended to either dwell in remote locations or be protected and controlled by powerful political interests. So if one wanted to regain some lost aspect, it involved a labourious trek or cajoling/bribing the local lord to grant it to you. It's not a simple "run down to the market for some healing" thing, at least not as I propose it. But certainly making it commonly available takes away a lot from the game, as does any kind of magic that lets one escape the consequences of their actions.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Sure. In such a world, where finding someone who can cast it is an interesting non-trivial adventure, I'd not mind that at all.

And since about 1989 I've been in the habit of tracking what spells are known by who where in my homebrew campaign worlds.

The default setting assumption in Cidri though is that there are powerful wizards for hire organized into Wizards Guilds which you can find in practically any city, so the default assumption would be that if the spell is known, the guild would do what they could to get it, write it down, teach it, and offer it as a service.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Yes, in that situation it makes healing magic too potent and prevalent. I view it in a campaign setting as more like health care in our world - not every procedure is available, when it's available it might not be accessible, and when it's accessible it may not be affordable. So a talent like Regeneration might exist, but only a handful of mages have put in the work to master it, the waiting list to see one such mage may be years long, and a new arm might cost an arm and a leg. ^_^

I concur that making it common takes away a lot of the colour and character of life in the world. I definitely intend access to the powerful forms to be quests unto themselves, such as "take the old blind scholar to the remote temple so that his sight can be restored and he can translate the mysterious scroll for you". But generally speaking, old Hragnar down at the pub who lost an eye in battle is going to have to content himself with an eyepatch.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Well, the PDF we backers received is only a draft at this point. Never say never ;)

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Same. It would basically turn TFT into something that is still distinctive in its mechanics but that has a 'feel' similar to dozens of other fantasy roleplaying games. I already know what it is like to play a game where everyone gets patched up by magic between (or even within!) every encounter. I don't need another one.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

amen to this

I wan't TFT to feel like it did 40 years ago

Re: HEAL spell?
 

You absolutely can! Most of the "new" rules are things that have been in the system since forever; most people have probably house ruled them the way they want them.

As far as I can tell, the only substantive changes are:

• Addition of a number of spells as seen in the thefantasytrip.game site
• Separation of "dead" for purposes of revival into "immediate action" and "heroic magical revival" levels of dead
• The new staff spells including the "staff battery"
• Changing of the original wizard's staff to-hit from DX to better of IQ or DX
• Increasing XP costs to increase attributes, and giving other things to spend XP on besides attributes

I'd say just keep house ruling things the way you always have. Ignore the new spells and new staff features, etc.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

The 'nearly dead' category is a pretty significant addition, as lots of combatants get off'd by just a couple of points. If you have a physicker handy, they will be patched up and ready to lose another fight before you can say 'evil hyperintelligent octopus' ten times fast.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Other changes I'm noticing:

* The changes to moving through dead bodies seems to me a major good improvement/tweak to a detail that matters a lot in practice for those who play out a lot of multi-figure battles.

* The (unconscious?) removal of the Changing Options line (in original Wizard p.5 and Advanced Melee p.4) saying that you can change option to Dodge or Defend any time before you've acted, if you have moved 1/2 MA or less, seems a pretty major change/mistake, to me.

* Some of the new spells would affect play a fair amount. E.g. the minor glamour to get positive reaction rolls... I can see whole cities full of people using that...

Re: HEAL spell?
 

It's all personal preference and as Chris said:

I'll definitely be adding Heal in as a house rule spell.
Who's right? We both are!

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Agreed. But I like the lack of a healing spell because it is the classic TFT way, and it is different rather than just being like almost every other magic RPG, and I know that way does work and is fun, and so... it means that new players will get the suggestion and rare experience of a fantasy game without a healing spell, which otherwise they would not get and mostly would never think to remove a published healing spell. (But many will think to add one.) I think the same goes for some of the other interesting differences from D&D-like games, such as no "clerics are wizards" content, and no "everyone gets piles of hitpoints with experience". If you added that stuff, almost no new players would ever think to remove it, and so they get the chance to see how a game can be without it, but they're free to make up such stuff if they really think they need it.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Well, The Lawyers of the Wizards Guild could set up new spells with an Intellectual Property Clause. The spell name could be listed on the Wizard Guild book of records, but the process of how to do the spell is restricted to only those who sign a non-disclosure form. And if they want to actually perform the magic, they have to pay a substantial fee for one time use. If they don't, its infringement and liable to a visit from Luigi's local demon brothers.

So even though these spells are well known as far as their capabilities, not very many wizards know how to do them. And even then, not many want the hassle of confronting Wizard Lawyers to practice it.

How about that?

Re: HEAL spell?
 

That's a creative and interesting way to limit spells... but if there's a revolution eradicating IP Law, or enough black market distribution (e.g. one person in the PC's party) or something, there's no practical limit backing it up.

Re: HEAL spell?
 

Balanced Heal spell

Heal(S) The wizard pays 5 fatigue then spends one minute (12 turns) in casting while in physical contact (hands or staff) with the still living target. During the casting the target suffers no further damage from blood loss. At the end of the minute the wizard rolls and on a success the target recovers one hit of damage. The wizard may immediately perform another casting so that the target suffers no blood loss. This spell doesn't regrow missing parts. See the regeneration spell for that.