[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) Healing spells in TFT.

Re Charles' "illogic" argument (copied below)

I don't mean to argue that there shouldn't be any healing spells in TFT. However I think GMs can either add them, or not, without deserving to be accused of illogic.

The nature of magic is to be somewhat mysterious, nebulous, and fickle. The whole argument could be fairly dismissed by the GM on such grounds. The GM should also not feel obligated to add spells to a magic system because a player argues that it should exist. An IQ 20 wizard needs a magic lab and months of work to research a new spell, and even then there are no guarantees. The player's qualifications are undoubtedly inferior.

Note again that this isn't to say that you haven't make very good points, because you have - points that healing spells would be logical to include. I only disagree that it would necessarily be illogical to not add healing spells.

Actually, I don't think there is a much actual disagreement here. Even the GM's expressing insistence that healing spells should be included, are proposing quite limited spells (compared to, say, GURPS Magic). In practice, we just have some different tastes in how specifically to limit the specifics. The major differences in the specific house rules tend to be in the rules about when someone is dead or not (and the proposed healing rule where anyone heals naturally in 3 days).


At 10:33 PM 9/7/03 -0700, Charles Gadda wrote:
Further augmentation to my main point, that occurred only after I sent out
my last.

What I am noting is the fundamental internal logic inconsistency. This
exists in large measure because of the Revival spell, as I will explain
anon. For the nonce it is sufficient to be aware that it is, I believe,
impossible to come up with a *good* explanation as to why healing does not
exist. And by "good" I mean rational and internally consistent. Sure, any
number of mumbo jumbo B.S. reasons can be invented - you can just say "the
God Goober the Mostly Omniscient has forbidden the use of healing magic" and
leave it at that. But that is not only a bad reason, it is really nothing
more than lazy, unimaginitive GM fiat. More elaborate reasons may eliminate
the "lazy" and "unimaginitive" monikers but the result is still not
internally consistent or logical.

And this is mostly (though not exclusively) due to Revival. Read the
description closely, and in particular the following:

"The spell cures all minor wounds and diseases and leaves its subject
unconscious with a ST of 1. It will NOT restore youth.
    For revival to succeed, most or all of the body must be present. If the
body has been severely burned, mangled, or otherwise damaged, or if limbs
are missing, the wizard must make his DX roll on FOUR dice."

It says right here that it "...cures all minor wounds..." which is a
straightforward reference to some sort of healing. The second paragraph also
mentions the possibility of reviving even badly damaged corpses. Think about
the logical implications, here: I find it rather improbable that a mangled
corpse would be "revived" as is - SOME sort of mending MUST take place or
the poor subject would simply fall back into a bloody bleeding pulp again!
Logically, some aspect of Revival must knit back together the pieces as best
as possible

As an aside, the wording of this spell is a little open ended as regards
severed limbs. The use of the word "missing" is the problem - do they mean
simply that if the limb is "detached" it cannot be reattached? Or do they
mean if it truly is "missing" (i.e. they recovered all but Bob's leg from
the troll, which said troll promptly ate)? The former case would imply a
victim of decapitation could not be revived, since the head is "missing" -
the latter case would imply that if the severed limb is present for revival,
it could be knitted back with the body during the casting of the spell
(though the mage must now roll 4dice to cast). It also by extension implies
that revival may be used to reattach a severed limb to a still living person
(whether or not this would cost 5 points is an open question - I would rule
not, though perhaps a 1 or 2 point loss is not out of the question?)

I find the latter explanation more convincing, overall (since you may
otherwise revive mangled bodies) but am curious to other people's views.

> > It's a magic system, so like all speculative fiction, it's not hard to
> make
> > up whatever explanations to get what you want. Disease doesn't
> > involve microorganisms in a fantasy/medieval world. Reversing aging with
> > magic doesn't necessarily imply that the wizard understands it on a
> > medical level, or even that aging works the same way that modern
> > thinks it does. The dead-raising magic in TFT either results in a
> > or someone with -5 attributes and ST 1 - I don't think I'd necessarily
> > volunteer for their first shots at a wound-healing spell.
> Yes, but it is difficult to make a good explanation, given the above,
> was my point.

> > I don't think it's very hard to explain, if that's what you want to do.
> > E.g. for your points above:
> > 1) Yeah, there's magic.
> > 2) Yes, alchemists and physickers can make healing potions. They take a
> lot
> > of time, effort, equipment and ingredients, and have fairly modest and
> > well-balanced effects. It it takes so much effort to make (and keep
> > unbroken) such potions, naturally it must be even harder to try to
> generate
> > something instantly out of sheer force of will, no?
> > 3) Youth potions are even more massively expensive/difficult to create,
> > I recall correctly. Each dose is a major treasure. Whether the effect
> > anything to do with healing, or understanding of science-like principles
> > about how to do something, I strongly doubt. Magic tends to be more
> > arcane secrets, calling on dark powers, etc., especially in the Advanced
> > Wizard magic system, where a few unrelated spells can be learned based
> > IQ level and devotion of a fraction of your intellect to each spell.
> > 4) The cleansing spell is also quite primitive and demonstrates a lack
> > ability to heal injury by magic, as it actually causes damage as it
> > disease. So a trick has been learned to boil the blood or drive out evil
> > spirits or whatever - I don't see that implying a way to re-attach
> > muscles, arteries and nerves correctly.
> > 5) Revival is very powerful but it also does permanent damage and leaves
> > the victim completely injured - I don't see how it implies the ability
> > conjure up first aid. It probably has more to do with spirits than with
> > healing flesh, it seems to me.
> A good answer, but..... ???
> You are totally missing my point, which was that wizards had obviously
> a lot of potent and profound magical research covering a lot of areas,
> including various types of "healing" as I noted. (note that I did not
> mention even more potent wizardry, such as the summoning of Demons, etc.)
> suggest that something as obvious as a simple Healing spell would be
> overlooked beggers the imagination. To draw a modern analogy, it would be
> like having a hospital capable of administering advanced cancer treatments
> yet wholly unable to staunch the bleeding and stich closed the wound of a
> stabbing victim...
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"