[3.5/PF] Cure and lost limbs

[AlchemicalMyst]

After a long discussion with another GM in my area we discussed the ability for a Cure spell to 'reattach' lost limbs (inflict for undead). The way we view it, Cure spells restore damage to things that are still mostly there while the spell Regenerate regrows what is absent. Sword shreds your guts? Cure. Fire sears off most of your flesh? Cure. Wake up missing a kidney? Regenerate.

So, what about things that are 'there' just no longer completely attached? Would you allow a creature to hold a 'whole' alive/preserved digit, limb, or organ to where it's supposed to be and allow Cure to heal the sever?

Personally I would, although obviously 3.5 Cure Minor wouldn't work (maybe on digits), and anything missing would stay that way (rats gnawed a finger off your arm before reattaching? Ouch, at least you can count to 9).

I've yet to see a balance issue. Regenerate is still amazing for destroyed, worthless, and missing parts; Regeneration abilities still have the benefit of just holding part to stump without magic. What do you guys think? Overpowered, worthless, balanced?

[nightwyrm]

Whatever you want since 3.x has no rules concerning how you lose body parts....it's all abstract hps...

[AlchemicalMyst]

I'm well aware that as a GM in my games it's whatever I want, I just want input on the idea. Thus, posting on a public forum...

I know a lot of posters on here play with called shot house-rules or published variants. Not to mention some spells/abilities can result in destroyed or severed parts. If you don't play with any rules for severing limbs then obviously you won't have any input on this topic.

EDIT:
Also, regardless of the topic title if you know of any house-rule or spell that does what I described, I'm totally interested! In the years I've played this is honestly the first time anything of the sort came to mind.

[eggynack]

I know a lot of posters on here play with called shot house-rules or published variants. Not to mention some spells/abilities can result in destroyed or severed parts. If you don't play with any rules for severing limbs then obviously you won't have any input on this topic.
It's kinda impossible to know how this will impact the game, and how imbalanced this is, without a baseline understanding of how often limbs are being severed. If people are lopping off limbs with every blow, then this is completely game changing, because you're basically turning a 7th level spell into a 1st level spell. If we're talking about the actual game, where just about nothing can remove a limb, then you're still turning a 7th level spell into a 1st level spell, but no one cares, because the 7th level spell wasn't doing anything anyway. So, what level of limb removal exists in your game, and what impact does the removal of a limb have on mechanics?

[MadGreenSon]

This makes me miss the "of Sharpness" enchantment from 2e. A sword of Sharpness was the step down from vorpal, if you got a crit with one there was a random roll to see what was severed from the target.

Good times.:smallcool:

[AlchemicalMyst]

I'd like to apologize if it comes off that I have this all figured out, or if I am asking for someone to tell me every benefit and downfall of this house-rule as if they have tested it. I'm really just bouncing ideas an hoping for more feedback or personal experience than, "Limb Loss doesn't happen," which is bollocks.

In addition:
Posts may be really spread out for me as I'm currently in between a few cities repeatedly. So I also apologize for not replying promptly.


It's kinda impossible to know how this will impact the game, and how imbalanced this is, without a baseline understanding of how often limbs are being severed. If people are lopping off limbs with every blow, then this is completely game changing, because you're basically turning a 7th level spell into a 1st level spell. If we're talking about the actual game, where just about nothing can remove a limb, then you're still turning a 7th level spell into a 1st level spell, but no one cares, because the 7th level spell wasn't doing anything anyway. So, what level of limb removal exists in your game, and what impact does the removal of a limb have on mechanics?
Saying that the spell "does nothing anyways" in is not true. It does a lot; not just the part restore. But anyways in my games and most games I take part in (as well as many GM's I've read posts of on here and other forums) things that aren't cut-and-dry spelled out in the book are often used. In this context, traps that might take a limb,digit, etc very well could on a fumbled save.

Also, in my games I run with a variant rule from my SW:Saga days sometimes allowing fatal blows to instead 'permanently' maim targets, called shots allowing criticals to sever or 'destroy' specific organs/limbs accordingly, and even sometimes use it as a sort of "hand-of-GM" to save a character that is important to plot (Another Saga carry over of Destiny Points).

Honestly I find it shocking that anyone can say that limb loss occurs so infrequently that Regenerate would do nothing at all, even without the rest of the spell power. Call me old fashioned but I really enjoy those detailed wounds that enrich a campaign and, these boards especially, used to be covered with "I lost , what now?" posts. Saying it almost never happens in an [I]actual game makes me kind of sad as it sounds as if you're saying that all D&D is just by the book, can't do anything not written, which goes against pretty much everything I know of it. Also, there are plenty of traps, spells, abilities, and disadvantages/flaws that effect use of, remove, maim, destroy limbs/organs in official and 3rd party material. A handful of spells in BoVD come to mind, although away from books at the moment to quote.

Anyways, just taking a glance, Regenerate regrows entire limbs/organs if completely destroyed and/or absent. The benefit of having actual member (holding arm to stump) is it taking 1 round instead of 2d10.

So with that in mind, just looking at plain stats (ignoring minor), and using cleric lists:
Cure Spell:
• 1st = 1d8+1/cl (max +5); 2nd = 2d8+1/cl (max +10); 3rd = 3d8+1/cl (max +15); 4nd = 4d8+1/cl (max +20)
• Nonlethal removed equals above amounts
• (House-Rule): Restores use of preserved or still living severed limb present (pressed to wound, stitched, or otherwise where it should be) and intact. Any missing/destroyed members or organs are not restored (ie. missing fingers of reattached hand).

Regenerate:
• Any lost/ruined 'bits' are completely restored in 2d10 rounds (1 if present).
• 4d8 +1/cl(+35 max) HP restored
• All Nonlethal Damage removed.
• Fatigued removed
• Exhaustion removed

Essentially Regenerate is a 4th level spell with added benefits. Even without tweaking, with this house-rule it would not have the uniqueness of the underlined part. As far as spell levels go I'm pretty sure this has no real impact as the main benefit is the rest of the text, especially regrowing.


This makes me miss the "of Sharpness" enchantment from 2e. A sword of Sharpness was the step down from vorpal, if you got a crit with one there was a random roll to see what was severed from the target.

Good times.:smallcool:
We missed it enough to add it to our games :smallbiggrin: Vorpal remained, why not Sword of Sharpness?

[eggynack]

Saying that the spell "does nothing anyways" is not true. It does a lot; not just the part restore. But anyways in my games and most games I take part in (as well as many GM's I've read posts of on here and other forums) things that aren't cut-and-dry spelled out in the book are often used. In this context, traps that might take a limb,digit, etc very well could on a fumbled save.
It does next to nothing if it's not restoring a body part. Seriously, read regenerate, and then read heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm), and then read regenerate a second time for good measure. Regenerate is a higher level spell that does less stuff.


Also, in my games I run with a variant rule from my SW:Saga days sometimes allowing fatal blows to instead 'permanently' maim targets, called shots allowing criticals to sever or 'destroy' specific organs/limbs accordingly, and even sometimes use it as a sort of "hand-of-GM" to save a character that is important to plot (Another Saga carry over of Destiny Points).
So, death and critical hits? I dunno, that seems like a pretty big thing to be shoving down to low level cures. It turns this effect into something on raise dead scale. I'd need to see the specific stats on the frequency of maiming, as well as its impact, to know for sure.

Honestly I find it shocking that anyone can say that limb loss occurs so infrequently that Regenerate would do nothing at all, even without the rest of the spell power. Call me old fashioned but I really enjoy those detailed wounds that enrich a campaign and, these boards especially, used to be covered with "I lost [insert body part], what now?" posts.

I don't know why you'd find that shocking. You literally need to construct a house rule in order for it to see any play. You can like a part of the game, but that doesn't mean that it's a part of that game.

[delenn]

I think my only reservation is that 'severed body part' could be anything from a pinky toe to a leg cut off at the thigh - one is easily survivable and not an imminent threat, whereas the other could have you bleed out in seconds. The impact of losing a body part ranges from trivial to catastrophic, but they all require the same 7th-level spell. I'd probably house-rule that cure is enough to reattach an ear or a finger, but a serious wound should take more than one round. Even with the RAW Regeneration spell, I think 1 round is a bit absurd.

There's also the fact that cure is a touch spell, and once something is severed, it's technically no longer part of the creature being touched, so can it be cured? (that's open to interpretation, which is why I bring it up - I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a stitched-on finger is or is not a part of the creature, I just think it could go either way depending on the game/DM).

[Slipperychicken]

So, what about things that are 'there' just no longer completely attached? Would you allow a creature to hold a 'whole' alive/preserved digit, limb, or organ to where it's supposed to be and allow Cure to heal the sever?


I like to imagine that the Cure spells' targeting system isn't sophisticated enough to identify a severed member and reattach it: they can only mend fleshy bits which are still connected to the creature.

[AlchemicalMyst]

May I just say that if you have nothing constructive to add to this topic other than stating how I play such an open game is wrong, I respectfully ask you to stop altogether. So far nothing you've said is of valid discussion or on topic. That said...

It does next to nothing if it's not restoring a body part. Seriously, read regenerate, and then read heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm), and then read regenerate a second time for good measure. Regenerate is a higher level spell that does less stuff.
Both spells focus on different things... of course Heal is going to better at *gasp* healing. I never said there weren't better options. However, saying it does nothing is silly. It does plenty. If you want to make a munchkin one shot pony in a video game style campaign that's your boat floater.


So, death and critical hits? I dunno, that seems like a pretty big thing to be shoving down to low level cures. It turns this effect into something on raise dead scale. I'd need to see the specific stats on the frequency of maiming, as well as its impact, to know for sure.
First off, in SW:Saga the DP system is a one per level addition. This point can be used to AutoCrit on an attack, cause any attack roll to miss, turn a death into near death (in Saga enough was left to attempt a cyborg, in 3.5/PF I rule it as 1 HP from total death -9/-[con-1] respectively. You can save points from level to level but only one may be spent in reaction to an action.

Secondly, you're assuming that the players' characters always have 100% access to a lost part or that the part is always in perfect condition. Sometimes limbs are mangled even if reattached (ability power damage) and Cure spells do nothing, requiring greater spells.

Also Raise Dead? Really? Dead is dead... you can't Cure that. Are you speaking of being maimed instead of killed and then reversing the damage? Again, you're assuming a simple sever is the only damage done, that it's the player's choice. It's not btw way; why would a player choose what an enemy chooses to do?


Important:

You'll notice I asked a lot of questions. These are mainly rhetorical as I will no longer be able to read any of your responses, luckily. Though, feel free to add to this discussion if so inclined to talk with any others.

Honestly, I probably won't be much longer here anyways. I find myself longing for the deepest pits of WoTC forums. Somehow any discussion there seems relatively productive in comparison!


I don't know why you'd find that shocking. You literally need to construct a house rule in order for it to see any play.
Ummmmm...... no. I decided to implement a house-rule in which aids in the healing of severed limbs. From creatures able to quickly recover from the loss of limbs/heads/organs to spells that specifically remove/destroy/restore them, these things see play all the time and are in quite a few WoTC and plenty of 3rd party material.


You can like a part of the game, but that doesn't mean that it's a part of that game.The part of d20 systems like 3.5 and PF I LOVE is that it's ran by an actual GM and no campaign is exactly the same, EVER. Even two GMs running the same published module are going to put their own fluff, rulings, mechanics, personality, and flair into it. I really don't get where you get off telling someone what's a part of D&D and what's not.



I think my only reservation is that 'severed body part' could be anything from a pinky toe to a leg cut off at the thigh - one is easily survivable and not an imminent threat, whereas the other could have you bleed out in seconds. The impact of losing a body part ranges from trivial to catastrophic, but they all require the same 7th-level spell. I'd probably house-rule that cure is enough to reattach an ear or a finger, but a serious wound should take more than one round. Even with the RAW Regeneration spell, I think 1 round is a bit absurd. This is a world where you can get dipped in acid, bludgeoned repeatedly, and then a magic touch makes you feel brand new in 6 seconds... I'll be honest, I don't see any reason to fuss over stitching a limb to it's stump by powerful divine magic taking 24 seconds lol.

That said I've been debating using different levels of cure for more severe injuries. Thoughts?


There's also the fact that cure is a touch spell, and once something is severed, it's technically no longer part of the creature being touched, so can it be cured? (that's open to interpretation, which is why I bring it up - I'm not arguing one way or the other about whether or not a stitched-on finger is or is not a part of the creature, I just think it could go either way depending on the game/DM). Creature touched is the target, if the severed part is where it should be, it's healed, just like the hanging flesh of a sword wound is magically knitted back. Severed bit must still be....'salvageable' aka preserved, fresh, etc.

[AlchemicalMyst]

I like to imagine that the Cure spells' targeting system isn't sophisticated enough to identify a severed member and reattach it: they can only mend fleshy bits which are still connected to the creature.

Thus the house-rule bit. :smallamused:

[eggynack]

May I just say that if you have nothing constructive to add to this topic other than stating how I play such an open game is wrong, I respectfully ask you to stop altogether. So far nothing you've said is of valid discussion or on topic. That said...
I think you're missing the point. As the game stands, this houserule would be fine, because it does nothing. In some theoretical other game, with houserules, it can either be fine or not-fine. I don't know what that theoretical other game looks like, so I have no idea whether your houserule is fine.


Both spells focus on different things... of course Heal is going to better at *gasp* healing. I never said there weren't better options. However, saying it does nothing is silly. It does plenty. If you want to make a munchkin one shot pony in a video game style campaign that's your boat floater.

What? Regenerate does exactly two things. It heals, and it makes new body parts. If it can't make new body parts, because losing body parts isn't a game object, then it can only heal. If it can only heal, then it's a strictly worse alternative to the spell heal. I guess it can also plausibly do more nonlethal damage healing, but that seems pretty small potatoes, all things considered.

First off, in SW:Saga the DP system is a one per level addition. This point can be used to AutoCrit on an attack, cause any attack roll to miss, turn a death into near death (in Saga enough was left to attempt a cyborg, in 3.5/PF I rule it as 1 HP from total death -9/-[con-1] respectively. You can save points from level to level but only one may be spent in reaction to an action.
I'm still not entirely sure how common limb removal is, or what it does.

Secondly, you're assuming that the players' characters always have 100% access to a lost part or that the part is always in perfect condition. Sometimes limbs are mangled even if reattached (ability power damage) and Cure spells do nothing, requiring greater spells.
I'm also not entirely sure how often a character will or won't have access to their lost limb.

Also Raise Dead? Really? Dead is dead... you can't Cure that. Are you speaking of being maimed instead of killed and then reversing the damage? Again, you're assuming a simple sever is the only damage done, that it's the player's choice. It's not btw way; why would a player choose what an enemy chooses to do?
I'm talking about the scale of the effect. If this can only happen as some sort of death alternative, then it's a really big scale effect, and it should only have a big scale solution. If it's a really common thing, then maybe you want a more common solution, or not, because you want the loss to mean something. Basically, I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you to tell me what to assume, so that this conversation can progress into a meaningful space. I'm fine with arguing about how houserules work, but when I don't know how the game works, I cannot form such an argument.

[delenn]

That said I've been debating using different levels of cure for more severe injuries. Thoughts?

Creature touched is the target, if the severed part is where it should be, it's healed, just like the hanging flesh of a sword wound is magically knitted back. Severed bit must still be....'salvageable' aka preserved, fresh, etc.

That first part makes sense to me - the more severe an injury, the higher level cure spell required. Even if you use cure without limb-reattachment abilities, 3 HP damage could be a mild sword-slash to the thigh, while 20 HP damage could be a severed femoral artery (though not a severed leg). Both can be cured, though.

But once a part is severed, it's severed. It is literally no longer a part of the character. Like I said, I've got no problem house-ruling that holding it up to the wound or stitching it on or something is enough to make the spell work, but I don't think it's clear-cut (yes, intentional pun), and when it comes to this kind of nuance of maiming, it's best left to the players and DM to discuss how they want to handle it in game. Losing a major limb is a big deal, and it should be a big deal to get it back.

[eggynack]

Ummmmm...... no. I decided to implement a house-rule in which aids in the healing of severed limbs. From creatures able to quickly recover from the loss of limbs/heads/organs to spells that specifically remove/destroy/restore them, these things see play all the time and are in quite a few WoTC and plenty of 3rd party material.
Missed these. There are plenty of rules that allow the recovery of body parts. There are nearly no rules, within first party material at least, which removes or destroys them. That's the problem, really. Your game has these two house rules, and you've only told us about one of them.


The part of d20 systems like 3.5 and PF I LOVE is that it's ran by an actual GM and no campaign is exactly the same, EVER. Even two GMs running the same published module are going to put their own fluff, rulings, mechanics, personality, and flair into it. I really don't get where you get off telling someone what's a part of D&D and what's not.
My point is not that I'm telling you what is a part of your game. It's that you're telling us that because it's a part of your game, it should also be a part of everyone else's game. I don't find it all that shocking that some people play by the rules of the game. Also, you're taking a lot of this stuff oddly personally.

[ericgrau]

Well if you get your leg cut off with a sword you're pretty much dead or at least incapacitated. I'd say you don't lose limbs until brought to zero or below. Then once you're out someone can cut off whatever they want just by declaring it. The thing is it's not all that relevant to winning a combat.

You might house rule that with a killing blow you may choose to maim a foe in some small way, and if it deals at least 30 damage in one swipe you can sever a limb. Though this will be more of a problem for PCs than monsters who are only going to die anyway.

[Slipperychicken]

Thus the house-rule bit. :smallamused:

It seems like a decent counterbalance to limb-loss mechanics, but otherwise largely unnecessary since the game doesn't prominently feature dismemberment.

Also, I don't think every 2-bit cleric apprentice should have the power to reattach limbs at level 1. That just seems a bit much to me. Besides, it means your pirate clerics don't have an excuse to have peg legs and hook hands, and that's no fun at all.

[MadGreenSon]

We missed it enough to add it to our games :smallbiggrin: Vorpal remained, why not Sword of Sharpness?

Oh cooool. :smallbiggrin:

How do you price it and what kind of random table do you use for severing parts?

[Jeff the Green]

Besides, it means your pirate clerics don't have an excuse to have peg legs and hook hands, and that's no fun at all.

Why, it was eaten by a ticking crocodile, of course.

[LibraryOgre]

Whatever you want since 3.x has no rules concerning how you lose body parts....it's all abstract hps...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vorpal

FWIW, I say no. Regenerate regrows limbs; Cure Spells do not. Because Regenerate says it regrows limbs, and cure spells do not.

[eggynack]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#vorpal

Well, sure, but regenerate/cure probably isn't going to have much of an impact in that case anyway. You can only regenerate living creatures, after all, and the only creatures still moving after being beheaded are those that were never alive in the first place.