Broken Bones

Raven, you've brought up exactly the point I wanted to make.

A society in a FRPG campaign, just like the real world, is going to progress over time. We've seen too many campaigns where there are thousands of years of history, but the use of magic has not progressed. If there is a need for something, someone will try to "invent" the solution. Most game rules cover investigating and developing new spells. Someone will use the "technology" to meet what society needs.

And healing dieties will have an interest in providing spells to give their disciples capabilities that other clerics lack.

This doesn't mean that there will be vast jumps in the magical "technology" in society. But the magic will be applied to common uses as well as adventurous uses. We see most mages safely holed up in their laboratory, studying in a calm environment. Their efforts will be focussed on something, and not necessarily something to make an adventurer's life more comfortable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Absolutely.

Of course, in most game worlds, we do not see thousands of years of uninterupted magical research, do we? That point is rather critical. Most fantasy worlds postulate a "golden age" where more was known than is at present. It was this era that built all of those underground ruins and destroyed cities that adventurers like to loot for....well, for relics of that lost era.

Also, magic is not science. It is utterly reasonable, within the context of "magical thinking" to claim that Principle A applies only to a subset of problems. With science, of course, any principle that applies to one problem can be applied equally to any related problem. This may or may not be true with magic.

Actually reading some pre-scientific era philosophers would be a tremendous boon for many DMs, allowing them to present a world which is consistent in theory, but which is not scientific in nature.


RC



PS: How, exactly, do we know that the technological level of magic hasn't changed, anyway? Perhaps the current world norm leans toward a higher standard of magical arts than previous centuries....?

PPS: I should also note that I am not saying that a D&D game has to assume a pre-scientific society/philosophy. After all, Eberron makes a strong case for post-scientific fantasy worlds, as do series such as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novels. 3.X, in fact, is the first version of D&D that does this well. That said, though, a post-scientific society should not be considered a "given" either.
 
Last edited:

I have an idea... magic is pretty strong ya know... Let the healing spells heal the wounds(broken bones).. but for each point of broken point damage.. the heal should use 2 or 3 'healing points' to heal it. so to mend the bone it would require 16 or 24 healing...
And btw... in order of healing... the wound heals first.. then the bones.. that makes it abit more reasonable..
Else make a mend bone spell.. 1st level or something.. maybe higher?
 

Goolpsy said:
I have an idea... magic is pretty strong ya know...


Ah, but that's the point, isn't it? You don't "know" that magic is pretty strong. You don't even know that "magic" is in all cases the same thing. Evocation detects differently than necromantic magic....perhaps because "detect magic" is actually a spell that detects several different possible things. And, it could well be that, within the context of a given campaign world, necromantic magic's ability to heal isn't very strong at all.

Note that there is nothing wrong with your idea. It is only the root assumption that is not necessarily true.


RC
 

I appreciate everything you have put in so far, I want to go ahead and explain further. The rule in question was never brought up directly, but a different critical hit against a different character produced a similar effect. An arrow through the hand disarmed him and caused a similar effect(-2 attack until healed naturally). He had no problem with the hindrance, it didn't take him long to naturally heal 7 points of damage and it added to role play(everyone loved the system and had a great time watching what happened next). I do allow them the same critical tables and if they go ahead and crit and happen to dehead that persistant evil necromancer right before he teleports, than they feel exceptionally well off and accomplished. It's the same excitement that happens as the party monk fights off a swallow whole attempt by a purple worm(who can't cut or pierce his way out). Broken bones are more real than putting hash marks next to your character, and I feel that should be taken into account. I dont know...........I do understand everyones point, but i dont feel like I'm taking away from the cleric, they have many other things going for them also. My question now is, if I do allow them the ability to immediately shrug off the effects(which I think is unfair and overpowered) then how do I treat their crits against others and how do i work the encounters without just rolling dice. D&D is still a ROLE PLAYING game right?
 

also.......just to put it out there, if cure spells also healed bone damage, what stops a character from using it to reattach limbs or god forbid, negate the effects of a dreaded vorpal blade?
 

Eloi said:
If critical hits are happening more than once every other session, the Cleric is going to feel a need to remove the lasting penalties resultant from those critical hits.

I haven't had or been in a game session yet that didn't have at least two critical hits in a session(10+ hours). There is only a negative effect for roughly half of the critical hits(varient uses D% after a confirmed nat 20)
 

In the Harry Potter series, one can not only mend broken bones, but recreate bones that are magically removed. That's a pretty powerful healing ability! Of course, it isn't instantaneous....and that, I think, is your point.

Healing a broken bone in the time it takes to heal 7 hp of damage is also extremely generous. I would say that you should require magical healing to use the limb with a mere -2 penalty, and to heal that fast. Until the magic is applied, call it a -8, and heal at 1/4 normal rate.


RC
 

Raven Crowking said:
In the Harry Potter series, one can not only mend broken bones, but recreate bones that are magically removed. That's a pretty powerful healing ability! Of course, it isn't instantaneous....and that, I think, is your point.

Well, that is called regenerate! Ya, i explained that one to them. Well, I know that healing 7 or eight hitpoints is extremely generous. It was a relatively weak critical. If a hill giant were bear with a strength of 49 crits with a maul with the same results, and deal 93 points of damage.......thats 93 points of damage healed naturally after setting and magical help. If they should leave it be......it would never heal(93 points of damge on an arm would pretty much make it explode, pulling it back together to implode, and create a rift in space and time where asmodius would walk through and walk right back into hell with whatever was left of your arm).
 

Madam Pomfrey required a night to regrow all of the bones in Harry's arm. Not mend, regrow. Potter-style magic is way advanced in some ways (wizards can heal), and way behind in others (they have to have a wand in hand to pretty much cast at all).

However....

In the debate on how powerful magic is or is not. With Divine magic, I tend to go at it like this....

A cleric is channeling the awesome might of his/her deity. So long as the cleric uses the spell correctly, the magic itself is perfect (as it's from a god). Arcane magic, however, has to be studied (except in the case of sorcerers, but we were talking about the sage in the lab-kinda thing) and could take years to develop he proper spell. I don't think this is so with the cleric.

One thing, however, if a bone does get broken in one of my games, the cleric is required to set the bone before healing, or else he healed it as though it healed naturally without setting properly. That's why the Heal skill isn't skipped over by anyone brave enough to play a cleric in our games! :P
 

Remove ads

Top