# If Harm is broken, what's the best house rule for it?



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

From the SRD:



> Harm
> 
> Necromancy
> Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
> ...




Broken?  No.  Effective?  By all means.

_Negative Energy Protection_ provides no proof against this spell, of course, but the simplest way to counter it is with a _Heal_ spell.  Which leads to the idea that if you're able to heal, you should be able to harm.  And don't let's forget that a range of Touch can be a little dicey at Challenge Ratings that include the use of 6th level Cleric spells.

_Harm_ preserves rules-symmetry and gives villains a nice smackdown to use on Billy Badass PCs.  I like it!  Who's with me?


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

*Re: [Flogging a horse with 1d4 hp left] Harm broken?  I think not.*



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *I like it!  Who's with me? *




Not me. 

It gets a saving throw imc.

FD


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Roll to hit *AND* a saving throw?

Now _that's_ broken.


----------



## Kyramus (Sep 10, 2002)

I use harm as is.  By the time it's going to be used on pc's some of them might have already invested in getting some minor SR.  OR in some cases have items already that grant some sr.

Either way, it gives a cleric the ability to strike fear in the pcs and also gives the idea that death can happen.

I have played with kidgloves and allowed for a saving throw to harm before and IT just breaks all thought, since Heal is the opposite and it is a touch spell and when used against undead it wouldn't have a saving throw because it's a TOUCH spell. so Harm don't have a saving throw.

I play without kidgloves now and what the pc's get, they get.

Kyramus


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> Now that's broken. *




Yeah, those touch attacks at such a level are so difficult to make.

My heart is breaking- someone start the violin music.

FD


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 10, 2002)

_Which leads to the idea that if you're able to heal, you should be able to harm._

The Inflict spells allow saving throws. When Cure spells are used on undead, saving throws are allowed, as well.

If you let Harm go without some kind of saving throw, are you going to force PCs to roll a save to see if Heal actually heals them?

_I have played with kidgloves and allowed for a saving throw to harm before and IT just breaks all thought, since Heal is the opposite and it is a touch spell and when used against undead it wouldn't have a saving throw because it's a TOUCH spell. so Harm don't have a saving throw._

If Harm allows a save, then against undead, Heal should allow the same save. Touch spells are allowed to have saves, as long as the save isn't a Refles save (this rule is occasionally not followed, eg Flame Arrow). Harm isn't just nasty against PC, it's nasty against dragons, colossal scorpions, etc.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 10, 2002)

I don't get it. Why would you cast _harm_ on a horse?


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> The Inflict spells allow saving throws. When Cure spells are used on undead, saving throws are allowed, as well.*





That's irrelevant.  I'm just talking about the Heal/Harm dichotomy; the highest echelon of their ilk.



> *
> Harm isn't just nasty against PC, it's nasty against dragons, colossal scorpions, etc. *




Yeah, but that's only if you allow evil cleric PCs in your game.  _Harm_ has the Evil descriptor and will cause good clerics to lose their divine abilities.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yeah, those touch attacks at such a level are so difficult to make.
> 
> ...




Are you usually a DM or a player, Furn?  If you DM, why would you want to de-fang your villains like that?

_looks around to see where violin music is coming from_

No, of course the Touch attack isn't that hard to make.  But the fighter you just reduced to, say, 3 hp will have no problem giving a big 'ol thwackity-thwack with his axe...and "at such a level" a fighter can do mucho damage.  Enough to render a _harm_ spell balanced, IMO.


----------



## Leopold (Sep 10, 2002)

I spoke to my PC who runs a cleric and basically told him the House Rule:

1. Harm gets a save vs living creatures
2. Heal gets a save vs. undead creatures
3. This applies to your PC's as well as the monsters.


He felt this was fair and so I am going by that rule. ANYTHING that can drop a 1000+ hp dragon to 1d4 IMHO needs a save..


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Leopold said:
			
		

> *I spoke to my PC who runs a cleric...*




An _evil_ cleric?


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> * Harm has the Evil descriptor *




No it doesn't.

(Unless there's been a new errata or something.)

Edit : It's even a domain spell for the destruction domain, a domain of St Cuthbert who is all about destroying evil.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Leopold said:
			
		

> *ANYTHING that can drop a 1000+ hp dragon to 1d4 IMHO needs a save.. *




And how is this different, power-wise, from a spell that can instantly *restore* 1000+ hp?


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No it doesn't [have the Evil descriptor].
> 
> Edit : It's even a domain spell for the destruction domain, a domain of St Cuthbert who is all about destroying evil. *




Okay, the evil thing was just a guess on my part.  I was waiting for the smackdown. 

I still think the spell works.


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *And how is this different, power-wise, from a spell that can instantly restore 1000+ hp? *




For the same reason inflict wound spells require a touch and give a save for half damage : defense is supposed to be easier than offense.

Another solution would be to cap Heal and Harm's effects to a fixed amount of hit points.  Say, 150 or 200.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Are you usually a DM or a player, Furn?  If you DM, why would you want to de-fang your villains like that?
> *




I am a dm. 

Changing one spell is not defanging a pc or npc.



> No, of course the Touch attack isn't that hard to make. But the fighter you just reduced to, say, 3 hp will have no problem giving a big 'ol thwackity-thwack with his axe...and "at such a level" a fighter can do mucho damage. Enough to render a harm spell balanced, IMO.




Against a fully armored and buffed cleric? That is unlikely.

Of course, considering your "Evil" argument- I suspect this is nothing more then a troll.  

You are not interested in being convinced- you are not making enough sense to convince anyone else.

Good luck to your game,
FD


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

But look at it in the wider context--those are the best clerical spells, hands-down, for dealing or healing damage.  You put a cap on those and clerics can't stand up to wizards anymore.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

I'm with the 'No Save' crowd.

The cleric in My game refuses to use inflict spells, because they just seem 'wrong', to him (of course, the player doesn't exactly like combat to begin with). My group isn't your standard minmaxers, I have to admit. 

But, seriously. Slay Living is a touch spell that grants a saving throw, and if you fail, you die. Destruction, a 7th level spell, is a ranged touch that's save, or take 10d6 points of damage, period. So, there should be someting In between, a touch spell that does mondo damage. Compare Harm to Blade Barrier, which does 20d6 points of damage for 1rd/level, and also grants COVER. Hm. So, my choices are to do 11d6 points of damage for 11 rounds (At 11th level mind you), Or I could hit One guy, and I Have to be close enough to touch him, away from my friends who I should be healing, and THen have to do d4 more damage just to drop him? 

Now, add the save to that. Wow. I so want that.  

Now, someone will pull out the 'Reach Harm'. Okay, Fine. For an 8th level slot, that lets you make a ranged attack. Or I could have an EARTHQUAKE, that kills Hundreds of creatures, most likely. Or, an Empowered Blade Barrier. Mm... Imagine, at 16th level, I'm doing 24d6 points of damage, PER ROUND in an area.

And, I think that's a good point. A spell that heals ALL the damage you want, just one drop of a hat, but the equally balanced spell Boop, puts you at d4? So, basicly that fighter could hit me for 444 damage, and then I step back 5 feet, and heal that 444 damage right back, but if I touch him and he goes down to D4, that's suddenly broken?


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> Of course, considering your "Evil" argument- I suspect this is nothing more then a troll.
> 
> You are not interested in being convinced- you are not making enough sense to convince anyone else.
> ...




Congratulations.  You've perfected condescension.  Please forgive me for trying to generate a discussion, instead of asking a simple question with a yes/no answer, oh one and only Furn Darkside!


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2002)

By the time you get this spell touch attacks are really easy to use.  The concentration check to avoid the AoO should also be a simple thing.  I'ts the SR that is the main defense of this spell.  

In another thread someone commented on a unverbalized agreement between the PCs and the DM.  Basically, neither would use it as long as no one else did.  Sort of like a Harm Cold War.  I was amused by that.

Harm doesn't need a saving throw.


----------



## Leopold (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> An evil cleric? *





the PC cleric in my game is good. He gets his spell that allows him to heal his damage like a cure then that's no problem. 

I have no issue with the PC's taking heal spells and curing all 400+ pts of damage I did to them, hell they STILL have to touch them though! and when they are up that high to begin with you have critters with reach and grapple and SR's to make it nastier.


I am vehmetly in the "Save Needed" camp. something like that just deserves a save even a will save would be fine..


----------



## Leopold (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And how is this different, power-wise, from a spell that can instantly restore 1000+ hp? *




1 takes HP's away
1 grants HP's

1 you can use OUT Of combat
1 you have to use IN combat


Even the tohit roll is fine but a save is needed to drop something from 1k+ hp's to 1d4. The same applies to the PC's.

Now the save I have stated was "Instead of doing 1d4 HP left if he passes he sufferes 1/2 HP damage and keeps an additional 1d4"

to me that is fair and balanced. You don't lose it all you lose 1/2 as that is what most saves grant. THAT I can live with..


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 10, 2002)

*broken.. very*

dont use it.

harm + haste is a death sentance for everything.


joe b.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 10, 2002)

An empowered Blade Barrier is an 8th-level spell, and it has no realistic chance of killing a dragon in 2 rounds. Furthermore, the dragon gets a save against Blade Barrier, and then gets to move away (no damage next round). Yeah... I'll cast the 6th-level spell, it's better.

The Earthquake example wasn't very good. How often do PCs face hordes of weak creatures, making an appropriate challenge? You'd be better off casting Fireball or Fire Storm.

Heal is porobably broken when used by a 600 hp dragon. However, it's not broken when used by a PC, who won't have that kind of hp until epic levels. ELH discussions, BTW, are another thing.

_"at such a level" a fighter can do mucho damage. _

Really? Without using a smackdown or deliberate looking for loopholes, I've seen a psychic warrior do 80 damage per round. I've yet to see a psychic warrior do 600+ damage per round, *even if using Pssychofeedback with a scythe, Haste, Power Attack, and landing all crits!*

_Against a fully armored and buffed cleric? That is unlikely._

Clerics tend to have poor touch ACs, even if they do use Prayer, Bane and Shield of Faith. 

_So, there should be someting In between, a touch spell that does mondo damage._

You consider doing 600+ damage mondo damage?? Isn't 250 damage enough for you? Sheesh... even Power Word Kill doesn't have that kind of power.

_But look at it in the wider context--those are the best clerical spells, hands-down, for dealing or healing damage. You put a cap on those and clerics can't stand up to wizards anymore._

See Power Word Kill. You don't need to make a spell overpowered to balance the cleric. The cleric's spells are almost as good, he gets more spells/day, better saving throws, better AC, more hp...

_And how is this different, power-wise, from a spell that can instantly restore 1000+ hp?_

You have a PC with that many hp? Find me a non-epic monster with that many hp.


----------



## BBrendolfus (Sep 10, 2002)

I see no need to change harm, the players have a love/hate relationship with it.

Perhaps a fort save to halve hp loss?


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Against a fully armored and buffed cleric? That is unlikely.
> 
> Clerics tend to have poor touch ACs, even if they do use Prayer, Bane and Shield of Faith. *




You are taking my comment out of context- it was in response to the idea that since Harm requires a touch attack, the high level fighter with 3 hp left can dish out an equal amount of punishment in one round. Thus, balancing the spell. 

FD


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 10, 2002)

Sorry.
I think maybe people need to use emoticons more often.


----------



## gfunk (Sep 10, 2002)

As a DM, I have discussed this topic extensively with my players.  We want to have fun in our campaign and if modifying or changing some spells is a way to do that, we are both for it.

My players wanted to add a Will save (partial), but I argued for a hitpoint cap instead.  I managed to convince them that Harm can inflict a maximum of 10 hp/level (max 200) with no save.  We feel that this stays true to the "spirit" of the spell while preventing gross abuses with creatures with hundreds of hit points.

I don't agree personally with the premise,

"If the PCs can do it, I can do it to!"

This is not the real world, it's just a game.  The bottom line is fun.  If enjoyment is being sapped in an individual campaign and the participants agree that it should be changed . . . well, it's pretty much a no-brainer . . .


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 10, 2002)

You guys are nuts.  Harm's great, but come on!  It's not that great considering it's pretty high level spell. 

Why is it not broken?  Here's why:

1. All you need is a _fly_ spell to avoid it... or be able to fly. 

2. Clerics can't even use Spectral Hand or a Familiar to deliver the blow. They have to step up in front of the big red dragon (beat it's spell resistance) and deliver a touch attack. 

3. And as for combining it with _haste_, Clerics can't even cast that spell, so they'd be relying on Wizardly help. 

4. Also, it doesn't even kill you!  It just knocks you down to 1-4 HP, giving most creatures a chance to get away and heal. 


So basically, if you're a DM and you feel the need to give people a save vs. Harm. Well, I guess you suck at being a DM.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

gfunk said:
			
		

> *
> "If the PCs can do it, I can do it to!" *




I do use that line, but I add the words "and usually better" to the end.

My players tend to be good at not being cheap- just because they know that exploiting something is the quickest way to have it used against them.

But.

I don't want my npc's wiped out with a touch- and they don't want their pc's wiped out with a touch. The problem is solved with a saving throw. And the fun continues 

FD


----------



## Antikinesis (Sep 10, 2002)

*Food for thought...*

What would be the results of casting _Harm_ on a subject that already has less than 1d4 hit points?  (I.e., zero or negative.)

How about it heals them up to +1d4 hp, letting them get back on their feet?

(Actually, if I had a player goofy enough to try that, I think I'd rule that it has no effect. )   

-AK


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> I don't want my npc's wiped out with a touch- and they don't want their pc's wiped out with a touch. The problem is solved with a saving throw. And the fun continues
> 
> *




This is a very good point, but (am I'm not trying to needle, I'm just asking) have you also done away with critical hits?

Yes, there's only a _chance_ that a crit will take place, but then again, there's only a _chance_ of hitting with the Touch for a Harm spell...albeit a better chance.

Antikinesis: I'm giving your sig-quote to my players.  That's fantastic.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 10, 2002)

_1. All you need is a fly spell to avoid it... or be able to fly. _

Not all creatures fly. Your PC will need _wizardly_ help to do this.

_3. And as for combining it with haste, Clerics can't even cast that spell, so they'd be relying on Wizardly help. _

See the response to point #1.

_4. Also, it doesn't even kill you! It just knocks you down to 1-4 HP, giving most creatures a chance to get away and heal. _

How many monsters in the MM, or, heck, the ELH, have the ability to heal themselves? How much does a potion usually heal?

_Yes, there's only a chance that a crit will take place, but then again, there's only a chance of hitting with the Touch for a Harm spell...albeit a better chance._

A _much_ better chance. We're talking about almost never missing chance. Have _you ever_ missed a dragon with a touch attack? BTW a crit doesn't always knock an opponent to d4 hp. It might not even remove half of the opponent's hp. It certainly won't remove half of a dragon's hp.


----------



## Henry (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *You put a cap on [Harm] and clerics can't stand up to wizards anymore. *




This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a school of thought that says that Clerics get an inordinate amount of power compared to the other character classes in 3E D&D.


----------



## 0-hr (Sep 10, 2002)

In my campaign we've given Harm a full round casting time (just like Summon Monster I). That seems to balance it out pretty well.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> have you also done away with critical hits?
> *




No. At low levels crits have a chance to wipe out a person in one go, but definitly not at higher levels. 

However, I tend to be very generous about them saving each other. No matter how much damage is done, I usually will not drop the person below -9 (unless it is a dramatic moment). That gives the other players one round to intercede.

Plus- the crit usually requires to hit the armor class, not just a touch attack.

Vorpal weapons might be an issue, but I don't put them in my game and no one has attempted to make one. 

In the end, Harm falls into the same category as the insta-death spells. For the most part, it is anticlimatic. A cleric will not waste it on a goblin with a spear- hoping to save it for a major villian. However- the major villian fight lasting 1 or 2 rounds can leave an empty feeling.

Of course, the latter issue can always be addressed by the right design of the encounter- but I am speaking in general.

FD


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Congratulations.  You've perfected condescension.  Please forgive me for trying to generate a discussion, instead of asking a simple question with a yes/no answer, oh one and only Furn Darkside! *




I apologize for the troll-remark. I misinterpreted the nature of your posts.

FD


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

And Insta-Kill spells are what balance the game for spellcasters/vs Meleers. See the General rules thread.

As for Villains dieing with a touch, I guess all your wizards and clerics just wield buff/defensive spells, eh? Since fireballs Suck vs. meleers, due to all them thar HPs.

How many creatures can heal themselves? Well, I don't know... _An Enemy Cleric_ maybe? The same person that WOULD use Harm? 

So, it's Okay for the PCs to use Heal, but not the NPCs? Not monsters? Not Villains? Riiight.  I guess it's not okay for them to use Haste, either. 

As for not all monsters flying, or relying on Wizardly help, there are these little magical things in bottles called _Potions_. They can be purchased in any place that sells magical items.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *And Insta-Kill spells are what balance the game for spellcasters/vs Meleers. See the General rules thread.
> *




I have seen it and partcipated to a small degree- your conclusion that they are balanced has not been proven to my satisfaction.

FD


----------



## Al (Sep 10, 2002)

Well, on another thread I established myself as an advocate of save-or-die.  I have a problem with Harm: it's no-save-and-die.

Let's be fair.  A simple Harm, with a simple touch attack, followed by a Quickened Inflict Wounds, can take down any living creature, great or small, with no benefit of a save.

In this, it is unmatched by any other spell in the game.  All of the other instakill effects allow a save, with the exception of Power Word: Kill, which has a hp cap.  No other spell in the game, and no other effect in the game (except Vorpal, but that's a different thread altogether) has the same sort of damaging power that Harm can dish out.

As for the Harm/Heal dichotomy, this is a nonsense.  There is no 'parallel' dimension in DnD.  Is there a 9th level wiz/sor spell that raises people in a 30' radius spread to mirror Wail of the Banshee?  No.  Is there 'Healing Barrier', which heals 1d6/level in an area for 1 round/level?  Of course not.  Spell symmetry, clearly, is a nonsense.

The counter-arguments have, for the most part, relied on pure assertion.  There has been the necessity for a touch attack (easy at high levels, and if this fails, just go again!).  There has been that Harm doesn't kill you (+ Quickened Inflict Wounds: you're dead.)  There has been the escape-clause of flying (circumvented with wizardly aid, potions, Greater Aspect of the Deity, Wings of Flying, etc.).  There has been 'getting up to the big dragon' (no big deal: you take one hit, then make an easy Conc check to cast defensively).

Essentially, Harm is broken as written.  I allowed a *Will* save (in line with Inflict Wounds) for 6d8+level: more damage than Slay Living, comparable damage to Destruction.  I think my correction is fair.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

They are balanced becuase without them, a high level spellcaster Could Not compete with, or against any combat tank. He's better off just casting all defensive spells and running, or leaving it up to villainous combat types, because he can't Touch a fighter, otherwise.

Hold spells? Pseudo-Insta, it's removed.
Sleep? See above.
Poly Other? See above.
Stone to Flesh? See abov.
Disintegrate? Insta-kill. See above.
Power words? See above.
Finger Of Death? See above.

His only tactics, since Boom spells won't kill fighters (except after 4 or 5), is Repulsion, Reverse Gravity, Enervasion, Bestow Curse, Transmute Rock to Mud, and that's about it. 

Wow. Only 2 of those have the potential to hurt a fighter.

On the other hand, a Fighter could kill a wizard in one round. Two, if the rolls are half as good, 3 if he's just unlucky.

WOW. Balance. Let me tell you.


----------



## Hegols (Sep 10, 2002)

Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *
> 3. And as for combining it with haste, Clerics can't even cast that spell, so they'd be relying on Wizardly help.
> *




Not saying it is broken or it isn't, I go back and forth on that myself. But this isn't totally true. A Cleric with the Time domain could cast haste. It's a domain spell. I had a Dwarven Cleric of Grumbar with Time and Metal domains. He was fun.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Sep 10, 2002)

Without the save, _Harm_ is as powerful if not more so than _Power Word Kill_.  At least there is an HP cap on PWK....

If you don't believe the above, let's run a simple comparison.  Each spell only allows SR to apply.  Harm reduces the victim to 1d4 hp, while PWK kills the victim if their current hp is 150 or less.  At least PWK has the hp cap.  With harm, all it takes is a readied action or a quickened inflict X to put someone out of commission (villain or PC).

Most PCs aren't going to have SR until high levels (guessing 14+).  In addition, it only takes one penetration to put the great dragon down in a single round.  It's not like something like a dragon would roll a "1" in this case, the cleric just penetrated his SR.

Later!


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> He's better off just casting all defensive spells and running, or leaving it up to villainous combat types, because he can't Touch a fighter, otherwise.
> 
> .....
> ...




Since you seem to be concentrating on villians: Any high level wizard who would require a insta-death spell to eliminate a fighter deserves the death they get.

There is a reason they have that high int and high level.

If you think the insta-spells balance out the combat types, then you are underestimating the entire bag of tricks at their disposal.

FD


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 10, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I apologize for the troll-remark.
> FD *




No sweat.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

I'm talking about Pure Combat. Sure, they have a high Int. So they're going to do what?

Devise a poison (Which is a Fort save).
Hire attackers (Combat types to balance against combat types, Ooo).


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Sep 10, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Congratulations.  You've perfected condescension.  Please forgive me for trying to generate a discussion, instead of asking a simple question with a yes/no answer, oh one and only Furn Darkside! *





Furn mastered condescension years ago, get it straight.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 10, 2002)

The DMs I play under have all House-ruled _harm_ to allow a saving throw, citing what many here have cited: that the _cure_ line allows it, so why shouldn't _harm_? Well, you can't spontaneously cast a _heal_ spell, can you? You have to mem it. This suggests to me that _heal/harm_ are not in the _cure_ line and don't follow the same rules.

IMC, _harm_ stays as written until I am convinced, through play, that it is broken. I think that people who have house-ruled it without experiencing it firsthand are being a bunch of Chicken Littles.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

If you can't Spon-cast it, then what do you Spon-cast for a 6th level spell?


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I'm talking about Pure Combat. Sure, they have a high Int. So they're going to do what?
> *




Do you believe all classes should be .. err.. "balanced" against each other for pure combat? At all levels?

FD


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *
> Furn mastered condescension years ago, get it straight.  *




*chuckle* It is tact that I am struggling to master now. 

FD


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *If you can't Spon-cast it, then what do you Spon-cast for a 6th level spell? *



Nothing. _Cure critical wounds_ is the final healing spell a cleric can spontaneously cast. Take a look at your PHB, under the description of *Spontaneous Casting* in the Cleric writeup:



> The cleric can "lose" a prepared spell in order to cast any _cure_ spell of the same level or lower (a _cure_ spell is any spell with "cure" in its name).



This means that a cleric cannot spontaneously cast _heal_ or _healing circle_. They have to prepare it normally.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 10, 2002)

Really, though, a Wizard PC would probably much rather face a cleric with _harm_ than a Wizard with _Phantasmal Killer_.  Sure you get two saving throws with PK, but the touch range of Harm makes it really easy to get away.  Plus, after he casts harm, just Dimension Door the hell out of there!

But against a big baddie with 300+ HP, well, Harm's awesome. Of course, at that level, everything's got spell resistance.


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *If you can't Spon-cast it, then what do you Spon-cast for a 6th level spell? *




Either nothing or something like an empowered cure critical wounds.  It's not a cure spell and thus can't be spontaneously cast.

I do believe that is why cure disease is now called remove disease.

Edit : Or you could go with Forceuser's quicker and better-researched answer.


----------



## HeavyG (Sep 10, 2002)

How did we go from "Harm needs a save" to "Allow no save-or-die spells" anyway ?


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> *How did we go from "Harm needs a save" to "Allow no save-or-die spells" anyway ? *




Rampant hijacking 

My fault for mentioning save vs die along during the look at critical hits vs. harm.

FD


----------



## Anubis (Sep 10, 2002)

Harm needs a save.  Think about it, and compare it to other Clkeric spells.

Slay Living: 5th-level spell, touch, save or die, save takes 3d6+X damage

Destruction: 7th-level spell, target, save or die, save takes 10d6 damage

Notice that both have saves, and both deal damage on a successful save, but only one requires an attack.  Attacks are easier to make than saves in nearly every circumstance, so a touch spell with no save is more powerful than a target spell with a save.

Harm and Heal, being 6th-level spells, should fall between these two spells.

Being reduced to 1d4 hp, for all intent and purposes, is the same as death.  The power of this spell isn't about NPCs using it on PCs, but rather a PARTY of PCs going up against SINGLE creatures of an appropriate CR, such as a devil, demon, or dragon.  When a PARTY goes up against a single powerful creature, a common tactic is for Cleric to delay and Fighter to ready an action to attack after Cleric casts his spell.  They have discussed tactics already and know the score.  Cleric uses Harm, Fighter attacks and kills.  Not INSTANT death, but that is semantic nonsense because I have yet in my years of gaming seen an enemy bounce back from Harm.  That along says something.

You can't make decisions on the POSSIBILITY that the enemy could dodge or heal himself or herself, but rather on averages.  On average, anything hit by Harm dies.

This is simply not right, seeing as it overpowers EVRY OTHER SPELL on the Cleric list except for Miracle and MAYBE Gate.  Against single enemies, Harm is UNBEATABLE.

If you MUST keep the spell powerful, I suggest giving it a save and getting rid of the touch attack.  If that doesn't work for you, keep the touch attack, give it a save, make it 5th-level instead of 6th-level, and make Say Living and Raise Dead 6th-level spells.

Here is my personal suggestion.

*Harm*
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

_Harm_ charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points.  Upon a successful save, the subject is reduced to half of its current hit points.

If used on an undead creature, _Harm_ acts like _Heal_.

To balance this with Slay Living, which now *seems* more powerful, simply give Slay Living AND Raise Dead casting times of 1 round.  That should fix all problems.


----------



## Krafen (Sep 10, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Harm*
> Necromancy
> Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
> Components: V, S
> ...



The only change I would suggest to this is to specify that on a successful save the target is reduced to half its current hit points _to a minimum of 1d4_. That is the version I use.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Sep 10, 2002)

At the power levels Harm is available, Haste and Quickened effects are available too, and not just to Wizards.  IMNSHO, Harm _isn't_ a saveless insta-kill only in the hands of bumbling fools.  Except for range it is quite superior as written to Power Word Kill.  Range can be important but not enought to justify 3 levels difference in the spell.  

Harm would make a perfectly fair 9th level spell, and I think that justifies installing a save for the 6th level version.

As for the argument that requiring a save weakens Clerics relative to Wizards, I say: Great!!!  Clerics already have excellent tools for dealing with outsiders and undead, and they are adequately competent melee grunts to boot.  I do not see that giving them a sure kill against everything lacking SR as being a plus to the game.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you believe all classes should be .. err.. "balanced" against each other for pure combat? At all levels?
> 
> FD *




In a game that combat is the main focus? Where all classes will be coming up against one another? Where they all should equally be effective?

You don't?


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *Nothing. Cure critical wounds is the final healing spell a cleric can spontaneously cast. Take a look at your PHB, under the description of Spontaneous Casting in the Cleric writeup:
> 
> This means that a cleric cannot spontaneously cast heal or healing circle. They have to prepare it normally. *




Thank you.

Though, no need to be snippy.


----------



## bret (Sep 10, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *The DMs I play under have all House-ruled harm to allow a saving throw, citing what many here have cited: that the cure line allows it, so why shouldn't harm? Well, you can't spontaneously cast a heal spell, can you? You have to mem it. This suggests to me that heal/harm are not in the cure line and don't follow the same rules.
> 
> IMC, harm stays as written until I am convinced, through play, that it is broken. I think that people who have house-ruled it without experiencing it firsthand are being a bunch of Chicken Littles.  *




Our GM did try it out for a while as written. We had a cleric that really liked it during that time. After about the third time a fight was ended by this one spell, the GM admitted it needed to be changed.

It isn't just NPCs that can cast Harm.

The case that decided it for the GM was when the cleric took out an uninjured Huge water elemental we were fighting underwater.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In a game that combat is the main focus? Where all classes will be coming up against one another? Where they all should equally be effective?
> 
> You don't? *




No, I do not.

There is a difference between being effective and being balanced.

Each class plays a role in combat, but one thing you left out is that this is a group oriented game.

This game is not designed to be a deathmatch sport where you drop a 20th lvl bard and a 20th lvl sorcerer into an arena and see who comes out alive. 

Each class does not need a counter for each other class- it just needs to fill a role in the group.

The wizard fills quite a few roles; the ability to insta-kill something is not a role desired imc.

FD


----------



## Anubis (Sep 10, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *
> IMC, harm stays as written until I am convinced, through play, that it is broken. I think that people who have house-ruled it without experiencing it firsthand are being a bunch of Chicken Littles.
> *




I have a _Fireball_ handy for trolls like you.  

I have played with the _Harm_ spell MANY MANY MANY times, and I have used it AS-IS MANY MANY MANY times, and I KNOW for a FACT that it's BROKEN!  That said, drop your holier-than-thou "experience it yourself" attitude, 'cause I've been there!

You wanna see how broken _Harm_ is?  How about I tell you what happened in a game I was a player in.

We went down into the Dragon's Den underneath a huge metropolis, and this mammoth cavern had dragons of all types.  Our goal was to clean out all of the evil dragons from the cave.  The number was something around 20 or 30, if memory serves me correctly.  We had everything from Great Wyrm Red Dragons to Chaotic Evil Great Wyrm Gold Dragons to Great Wyrm Shadow Dragons.

The party was comprised of, starting out, four Level 15 characters.  One was my Level 14 Wizard Xun Huo, the second was my Level 14 Cleric Gregory Belmont, the third was Level 14 Sorcerer Leiza Dunvegan, and the fourth was Level 14 Figher/Weapon Master Daggen Whisperwind.  All three spellcasters had Spell Penetration at this point.

The top level of this cave had, I believe, seven Old dragons, five of them Chromatic, two of them Metallic, six of them Evil.  The CR range was 14-19, the SR range was 22-26.  Xun Huo and Leiza both had Disintegrate and other naty spells, and Gregory memorized nothing but Harm for his 6th-level spell slots.  Our tactics were simple: Leiza fired first with Disintegrate, and if that failed, Gregory would use Harm and Daggen would whack the thing, and if that failed, Xun Huo would try Disintegrate.  In the end, we EASILY won, using barely 30% of our resources, killed six of the seven dragons.  We left the Good one alive, of course.

1: Disintegrate
2: Harm and Hack
3: Harm and Hack
4: Harm and Hack
5: Disintegrate
6: Harm and Hack

Why is it that the Cleric is not only offensively keeping up with the Wizards using the SAME LEVEL OF SPELLS, but actually doing more?  After this level, all four characters were Level 15, and the spellcasters all gained Greater Spell Penetration.  Let's move on.

First we rested, then we continued.  The second level had like eight Very Old and Ancient dragons, four of them Chromatic, three of them Metallic, one of them from Faerun, six of them Evil.  The CR range was 18-23, the SR range was 25-30.  We used the same tactics, and got the same results.  Interesting, eh?

1: Disintegrate
2: Harm and Hack
3: Disintegrate
4: Harm and Hack
5: Harm and Hack
6: Harm and Hack

Cleric is still keeping up, actually doing better because Disintegrate gets a save.  Now the party was Level 18.

We rested and continued.  The third level had ten Wyrm and Great Wyrm dragons, one Chromatic, three Metallic, six from Faerun, nine of them Evil.  The CR range was 21-26, the SR range was 28-34.  We rolled over all of them with ease.

1: Disintegrate
2: Harm and Hack
3: Harm and Hack
4: Harm and Hack
5: Harm and Hack
6: Disintegrate
7: Harm and Hack
8: Disintegrate
9: Harm and Hack

Cleric is now doing much better than Wizard, because Disintegrate has a save and Harm does not, and their both, basically, instant death in ALL cases!

This is proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Harm needs a save.  Clerics are not supposed to be primarily offensive, but with Harm, they are.  We took out almost 30 dragons that should have been able to crush us all thanks to Harm!  Do you understand now?  Try actually playing with it, and you'll experience the same thing.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 10, 2002)

Krafen said:
			
		

> *
> The only change I would suggest to this is to specify that on a successful save the target is reduced to half its current hit points to a minimum of 1d4. That is the version I use. *




Why would that wording be needed?  It only comes into play against a creature of 7 or less hit points, and by then, it doesn't really matter at this level.  I would let it stand as is, or make it half hit points plus one per hit die/level to actually make it MEAN something.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

So I guess the only way a wizard Villain in your campaign can be 'Effective' is if he stays in the background and never is seen, and therefore never gets into combat.

Or he buffs people and then teleports away.

Doesn't seem very 'Climactic' to me, either, which is what everyone seems to be After.

That's right, it's a 'group' oriented game, which really hurts a group if they don't have a melee bruiser, because the other classes can't cut it.

So, since it's a group oriented thing, I Guess that a wizard has to have an NPC big fighting guy, because his combat spells don't do squat against big HP people. So it's then just a big HP race.

Maybe in Your campaign, but not mine.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 10, 2002)

I just upped it to a 9th level spell. Which is nice on my part I think because most broken spells I just remove,and make the players invent a non-broken version if they want it in.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *So I guess the only way a wizard Villain in your campaign can be 'Effective' is if he stays in the background and never is seen, and therefore never gets into combat.
> *




My wizard villians are not morons who typically get into melee by themselves with a group of adventures. 



> Doesn't seem very 'Climactic' to me, either, which is what everyone seems to be After.




If that is the limit of your tactics with a wizard, then so be it.



> Maybe in Your campaign, but not mine.




You got that right- though I have been pretty clear about that. 

FD


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

> My wizard villians are not morons who typically get into melee by themselves with a group of adventures.




Neither do mine. That's because they would Kill the meleers before they got close. Boom spells take several rounds to do that, which they don't have.

As for tactics, there are a lot I've used. But I see no difference between casting Sleep and wiping out the fighters, then casting Blindness on a wizard, cleric, or whatever spellcaster.


----------



## shadracht (Sep 10, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> <snip>
> First we rested, then we continued.  The second level...
> <snip> *




Here's where the discription falls apart for me.  Everyone keeps talking about dragons, super baddies, etc. falling to the harm/ready combo.  Where are all the minions?  Where are the magical protections?  What are the super-baddies doing when the PC's are blithely destroying them?  Dragons are, or should be, smarter than anything other than gods.

While you were resting, the rest of the dragons should have descended with great fire and fury upon you, or at the very least, if they were lazy dragons, used some of the MASSIVE spells at their disposal to remove/liquify/etc you.

Yes, as the letter of the law, harm is somewhat overpowered.  But I can also tell you that should the cleric in my game decide to take harm instead of heal, the rest of the party would kill him.  If you give PC's limitless resources, they can easily best anything that isn't a deathtrap.  However, you have to factor in rapidly depleting resources.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> As for tactics, there are a lot I've used. But I see no difference between casting Sleep and wiping out the fighters, then casting Blindness on a wizard, cleric, or whatever spellcaster. *




The difference is neither of those kills the target after 1 failed save.

They may be vulnerable, but that is what the rest of the group is for- they can wake or possibly cure the person who is affected.

On the other hand- iirc, all the spells that bring characters back to life take a long time to cast. That is not quite an option in a major battle.

I also don't think the idea of beginning a fight with a save vs. die against the melee- so the melee can sit out of the whole fight is a fun idea. 

FD


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 10, 2002)

shadracht said:
			
		

> *
> Everyone keeps talking about dragons, super baddies, etc. falling to the harm/ready combo.  Where are all the minions?  Where are the magical protections?  What are the super-baddies doing when the PC's are blithely destroying them?  Dragons are, or should be, smarter than anything other than gods.*




That INT seems to fail these smart villians when it comes to the heroes, I guess. It must be some kind of allergy to pc's. 

FD


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

Well, people seem to rally against Death Ward too, because it comes along with Death spells... As well as bring back the dead spells... Though I personally don't like them, either.

I've played a little too long with the Kid gloves.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

I equally have to question what the Other dragons were doing while you were steadily trying to Disintegrate 1 of them. Are you saying not once they tried to pounce the spellcasters? Or why did they let you rest, at all?


----------



## shadracht (Sep 10, 2002)

Here's a good breaker for pesky parties annoying dragons:  Geas/quest.  Allows no save, has a range, and unless the recipient works to finish the geas, will eventually kill them.  The sicken aspect of the spell denies even magical healing to the recipient.

Not to mention contingency, which is within the spell casting ability of even the least magically able dragons of great wurm status. (the whites)

If you use the big-bad as a straw-filled dummy, and do not use all of the abilities at their disposal, then you have greater problems in the campaign than harm.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

Especially Contingency+Heal. 

Or, Chain Contingency+Raise Dead+Heal. 

If you're mean... Contingency+Geas: Cast on the one who kills me. He must find a way, and have me returned to life.


----------



## Orco42 (Sep 10, 2002)

I'm with you Tom!

Harm become balanced when you have a Hierophant that can cast it at a range of 30'.


----------



## loviatarfrostbringer (Sep 10, 2002)

I like the idea of Harm getting a Will save (Partial) for 6d8 + lvl (max 20).  But I would say that it cannot kill the target, just drop him to positive 1d4 as if he failed the save.  If the cleric tagged the target witht Harm and that target only had 7 or so hps left then the cleric deserves to have wasted the spell. 

Thanks to whoever brought up the fact (Heavy G, I think) that a good cleric cannot sack a 6th level spell for healing/"Heal".  I didn't read that part, and I figure a lot of others didn't either...or they just assumed like me that there was a _cure_ spell of each level.  That'll make my cleric a wee bit more cautious in his spell selection/memorization.


----------



## Al (Sep 10, 2002)

Xarlen: I am genuinely confused about your point.  Are you defending Harm, or save-or-dies in general?  If the former, I disagree. If the latter, that's fine.  It's the no-save-and-die part of Harm that bugs me.



> IMC, harm stays as written until I am convinced, through play, that it is broken. I think that people who have house-ruled it without experiencing it firsthand are being a bunch of Chicken Littles.




Well, firstly I'd point out that this is flawed logic.  If a spell is clearly overpowered (which, to my mind, Harm is) then playtesting it is a waste of time.  However, in my case, I did run a campaign with a non-save version of Harm.  The party cleric loaded virtually all his higher level slots and any combat turned into a Harm-fest.

As for this:


> Especially Contingency+Heal.



 .

I haven't encountered many 18th level wizard/11th level clerics in a long time.

Anubis: I agree, but I feel you are being too meek.  A save for half still makes this potentially incredibly powerful: hitting a 600hp dragon can knock off 300hp with a save.  I think that saving for a set amount of damage is reasonable- and in line with other save-or-dies.

LuciusFoxhound: If I were the wizard I'd rather go up against Phantasmal Killer.  The cleric can quite often cover the ground quickly, and smack you followed up with a Quickened Inflict Wounds.  The only place you're going in the afterlife.

And offhand comments like SR to balance spells is clearly nonsense.  By that token, any spell devised could be balanced (with a few very rare exceptions).  Firstly, many opponents do not have SR: especially humanoids (yes, they can cast it, but it's easily dispelled).  Secondly, SR is a trump card against any spell.  Spells have to be compared with other spells of equivalent level, not against SR: otherwise, Power Word: Kill would be balanced with Ray of Frost (both are subject to SR.)

shadracht: Your comments are similar.  You talk of magical defenses and such like.  But the fact is that magical defenses can trump any spell so it's futile to bring them in.  Death Ward can make Power Word: Kill or Wail of the Banshee *less* effective than Ray of Frost.  Befuddling the issue with defenses is not constructive.

As for geas, well, yes, the dragon could impose one.  And then you could kill the dragon and, the next day, he has to make a Fort save or be sickened.  By which time you are dead.  The only immediate effect is that oh-so-painful 3d6 damage.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 10, 2002)

When resting, we left the cave to rest.  The cave was under a huge metropolis that had all kinds of varied races, and most of the dragons within did not like each other.  Add to that the fact that the cave was MILES wide, they didn't know when their neighbors were being attacked anyway.

The dragons on lower levels weren't interested in the outside world, and we did this in three days.  They used their big tactivs and crap, and it didn't work because we usually won initiative and killed it right off.

Besides, you can't base a spells balance on the tactics of the person it's being used on!


----------



## Darkness (Sep 10, 2002)

_Harm_ in its commonly-used form it too powerful (i.e., no save, bam - down to 1d4 hp no matter how many hp you had) IMO...

Case in point: Per the spell creation guidelines in the DMG (p.95-96), a 6th-level divine spell should be able to do more damage than 15d6 (or a corresponding amount of other die types). Thus, no 6th-level divine spell should have the potential to do more than 15*6 = 90 points.

And there's no reason why _harm_ should break this rule. (After all, if new spells shouldn't, "old" spells shouldn't, either.)

So... That's how I interpret it: No save, but it can't do more than 90 points of damage (since _no_ 6th-level divine spell should do more). 

(Side note:_Mass heal_, an 8th-level spell, can - if used against undead - can do up to 20*6 = 120 points to each target, though.)


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 10, 2002)

The Contingency+Heal was for a *DRAGON*.

Though, I imagine a high enough wizard with a level of Cleric and a scroll of Heal could do it.


----------



## Krafen (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why would that wording be needed?  It only comes into play against a creature of 7 or less hit points, and by then, it doesn't really matter at this level.  I would let it stand as is, or make it half hit points plus one per hit die/level to actually make it MEAN something. *



You're right, it is not vital. I just put it in for the purposes of consistency.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 11, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *And offhand comments like SR to balance spells is clearly nonsense.  By that token, any spell devised could be balanced (with a few very rare exceptions).  Firstly, many opponents do not have SR: especially humanoids (yes, they can cast it, but it's easily dispelled).  Secondly, SR is a trump card against any spell.  Spells have to be compared with other spells of equivalent level, not against SR: otherwise, Power Word: Kill would be balanced with Ray of Frost (both are subject to SR.)*




Yes, but I think you missed an earlier point. A really, really high SR won't do diddly against a burley fighter with a big ol' sword.  So Harm's a high level spell that gives clerics a chance to do lots of damage just like a fighter might.  But of course, Harm's much more powerful than any melee attack... but it has to first overcome with SR.

That's called balance. I think it's why these things are play tested.  Use the force, man.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 11, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Though, no need to be snippy.  *



Snippy? No sir, precise.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have a Fireball handy for trolls like you.
> 
> This is proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Harm needs a save.  Clerics are not supposed to be primarily offensive, but with Harm, they are.  We took out almost 30 dragons that should have been able to crush us all thanks to Harm!  Do you understand now?  Try actually playing with it, and you'll experience the same thing. *



One, I resent being labeled a troll for expressing my point of view. Two, I appreciate your opinion, which is shared by many and grounded in logic, but your rhetoric will not sway me. I will play with _harm_ as written and decide for myself.


----------



## 1337 h4xor (Sep 11, 2002)

Furn_Darkside said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. At low levels crits have a chance to wipe out a person in one go, but definitly not at higher levels.
> *



*

if your a caster and live through a crit from a high level weapons master i'd be supprised.*


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 11, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *One, I resent being labeled a troll for expressing my point of view. Two, I appreciate your opinion, which is shared by many and grounded in logic, but your rhetoric will not sway me. I will play with harm as written and decide for myself. *




As well you should!

I know that with _harm_ as written, I could kill the most powerful undamaged PC in my high level game in one round, with virtually  no chance of PC survival and no way to avoid the death. Is this fun for either the player or me?  No.  Do similar spells (ie inflict spells) require a saving throw? Yes. Has the game's architect (Monte Cook) said that he believes a save should be required? Yes.

Thus, I change it to will save = _inflict critical wounds_ damage, min 4 hp. And it works beautifully for me.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 11, 2002)

Just sounded a lil' snippy, there for a bit. Of course, that may be because I was steamy.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 11, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *One, I resent being labeled a troll for expressing my point of view. Two, I appreciate your opinion, which is shared by many and grounded in logic, but your rhetoric will not sway me. I will play with harm as written and decide for myself. *




Where's kreynolds when you need him?  You've probably got some of them feats he talks about, like "Thick-Headed" I believe.  Any 6th-level spell that can deal thousands of damage with no save is broken, plain and simple.  Unless you can come up with something, ANYTHING to disprove what I have proven, something that refutes the plain and clear evidence, then all you're doing is being stubborn.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 11, 2002)

You must have gotten a copy of the _Monster Manual II_...

...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points."  Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...
> 
> ...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points."  Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.
> 
> In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate. *




The ELH and D&Dg come to mind, as does U_K's all-but-released IH.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...
> 
> ...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points."  Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.
> *




It's a little release called the Epic Level Handbook, Slappy.  Just about EVERYTHING in there has thousands of hit points.



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.
> *




THEY ALL HAVE SAVING THROWS.  Harm is basically instant-death in 99% of ALL cases, making it the same as instant-death spells.  Harm, just like those instant-death spells, should also have a save.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis - deep breaths, please.    This isn't worth getting worked up about. It certainly isn't worth becoming rude over.

So it works okay without a save in Tom's campaign - who are we to say it's broken?  If these boards have shown anything in the last few years, it's that what's broken for one person doesn't have to be a problem for someone else. Sometimes, it's best just to agree to disagree.


----------



## Ravellion (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...
> 
> ...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points."  Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.
> 
> In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate. *




Look at the  target's saves. Look at the DC for a 9th level spell. Harm is better. By lots. I'll take save or die with a 5% chance of failing over death any day.(which 1 to 4 hitpoints is, especially with quickened spells or a potion/boots of haste)

If we cannot agree upon the fact that 1-4 hp is 99,9% equivalent to death, this discussion is closed at my end of it.

Rav


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 11, 2002)

Exactly, P-Kitty. 

Agree to disagree.


----------



## Alariel (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where's kreynolds when you need him?  You've probably got some of them feats he talks about, like "Thick-Headed" I believe.  Any 6th-level spell that can deal thousands of damage with no save is broken, plain and simple.  Unless you can come up with something, ANYTHING to disprove what I have proven, something that refutes the plain and clear evidence, then all you're doing is being stubborn. *




Anti-Magic Field is a stupid dragon's best friend.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 11, 2002)

*well*



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Anubis - deep breaths, please.    This isn't worth getting worked up about. It certainly isn't worth becoming rude over.
> 
> So it works okay without a save in Tom's campaign - who are we to say it's broken?  If these boards have shown anything in the last few years, it's that what's broken for one person doesn't have to be a problem for someone else. Sometimes, it's best just to agree to disagree. *




we'll just have to see how many times his PC's get killed off by evil clerics before his group, though maybe not him, decides its broken..  

joe b.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where's kreynolds when you need him?  You've probably got some of them feats he talks about, like "Thick-Headed" I believe.  Any 6th-level spell that can deal thousands of damage with no save is broken, plain and simple.  Unless you can come up with something, ANYTHING to disprove what I have proven, something that refutes the plain and clear evidence, then all you're doing is being stubborn. *



Sure, I'm being stubborn. You haven't said anything that my own players haven't noted many times in the past. All the other DMs I've played with have house-ruled it sight-unseen. I have a theory that I can create a game environment where _harm_, as written, is not the end-all be-all solution to all the party's problems. Thus, I want to experience it for myself, in-game, as-is, as DM. Like P-Cat said, calm down. You've now insulted me twice.


----------



## Kibo (Sep 11, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As well you should!
> 
> ...




Oddly enough what bothers me about Harm, isn't so much the instant death nature of it.  Although, that's somewhat less that ideal, and stylisticly destruction or slay living would tend to be more 'cinematic'.  What bugs me is the lack of the continuous spectrum, it is a more terrifying spell the more powerful you are.  Which is perhaps alright for egalitarian "the meek shall inherit the earth" sentiments, but hardly the stuff of ledgend.  When a farmer laughs mockingly at the divine might of your chosen patron, but all the dragons plan nervously for they day you might come for them, something is amiss.  I'm tempted to go with a lowers you to your con bonus per hit die or level (effortless to calculate).  At least this would meat out divine retribution in reasonable proportion.  With con penalties, maybe do a minimum of 1 hp per hd or level.  But I would tend to go with the weaker wither before the power of the spell and are incapacitated or killed.  This would perhaps be a little 'unbalancing', but I would think that it would never be so against the PC's (how many players would really take a con penalty into high levels?  and even if they did they've obviously got a lot invested more in the sickly aspect of the characters concept than the accumulation of power as part of a game.) and mostly if it did come into play it would be the players giving wrath unto the npcs or npcs to each other.

A better formula can certainly be devised, but a formula that has the same quality/simplicity quotient, well I'll leave that to better people.  Though I do like the idea of reduced to (con bonus)*(victim level) + (victim level) - (caster level), perhaps easier than adding a bunch of dice, but it seems a little much.


----------



## shilsen (Sep 11, 2002)

Kibo said:
			
		

> *Oddly enough what bothers me about Harm, isn't so much the instant death nature of it.  Although, that's somewhat less that ideal, and stylisticly destruction or slay living would tend to be more 'cinematic'.  What bugs me is the lack of the continuous spectrum, it is a more terrifying spell the more powerful you are.*




This is also my main beef with the spell. I'm currently planning to use a Will save for half damage, but am also considering having no save with a max damage of 10 x caster level. I have some time, because the PCs are a while from having access to it yet.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's a little release called the Epic Level Handbook, Slappy.  Just about EVERYTHING in there has thousands of hit points.
> *




Oh, I get it, Chumpy.  You have one of those campaigns where everyone's "epic" level and they fight gods and stuff.  How many Thors have your players killed?  Do they all have Mjolnirs now?

Okay, okay, just kidding.  In all seriousness, we don't use D&Dg (at least not the stats) and I don't have any interest in the ELH.  But again, I'll wager that's a spurious argument since Epic characters probably have ways to nullify little things like 6th level spells.  But I don't know, so I'm not making any certain claims.

What I _do_ know is that Harm works the same way it always has, and I've never had a problem with it.  I haven't yet seen an argument here that exists outside a vacuum...i.e. taking into account Harm and one other factor, maybe two factors.  

If someone could come up with an example of a "standard" party of PCs facing off against the evil harm-wielding priest, and try to take into account what's going to happen to the evil priest once he walks right into the middle of the angry PCs to deliver that touch spell _that doesn't even take the PC down right away_...well, I think you'll see that there are factors to mitigate the putative _ubermacht_ of Harm.  I'm completely unconvinced by the 1-4 hp equals Death argument.  It reminds me of playing D&D in high school..."I only have 3 hp left, I might as well quit now."  Hell, that's still *13* hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.

*Honestly, I'm torn on this issue.*  I started the thread to see some varying viewpoints (and hoo boy, have I), but I'll certainly take the viewpoint of abusive folks with a grain of salt.  Fly off the handle much, hmm?

In response to the claim that the Harm/Heal Dichotomy is "nonsense"...Harm started out as the 'reversible' option of Heal.  One spell takes away all but 1d4 hp, one gives back all but 1d4 hp.  If that ain't symmetry, then somebody take me back to school.

Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits?  Falling from heights?  The drowning rule?  None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death.  _No save_.

Now, Harm vs. the DM's precious baddies is another issue.  I'm torn on this one too.  It does truly suck when PCs teleport to the last encounter, cast harm, and make off with the treasure.  Heal and Anti-magic shell are two options to counter this, but they would get old against players accustomed to using Harm (and if used as trump enough would make Harm functionally useless anyhow).

To quote the Dude, "This is a complex case, man...lots of facets...lots of strands...a lot of strands to keep straight in the little Duder's head, man."

I can't decide.  I can't decide!


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> I'm completely unconvinced by the 1-4 hp equals Death argument.  It reminds me of playing D&D in high school..."I only have 3 hp left, I might as well quit now."  Hell, that's still 13 hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.
> *




Tom, as you say, you can't look at this in a vacumn. Many intelligent opponents who are powerful enough to use harm will also be utilizing a haste spell. That means:

a. Cast defensively as partial action; large concentration skill guarantees success.  Slap opponent, and watch their hit points drop. Depending on the DM, watch the opponent make a fort save vs massive damage.

b. Use standard action to either cast damaging spell (inflict moderate wounds or higher, or perhaps searing light) or make a full attack.

c. Nudge opponent's corpse with foot.

Alternatively (and again, not looking at this in a vacumn) every enemy usually goes on the same initiative. That means the non-hastede cleric casts harm on you, and before any ally can act his fighter buddy next to him hits you twice with his sword. Dead.

The difference between 3e and previous editions is that harm utilizes a touch attack; touch ACs are ludicrously easy to hit for most powerful adventurers.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 11, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> c. Nudge opponent's corpse with foot.
> *




  Well put!



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> Alternatively (and again, not looking at this in a vacuum) every enemy usually goes on the same initiative. That means the non-hasted cleric casts harm on you, and before any ally can act his fighter buddy next to him hits you twice with his sword. Dead.
> *




I actually do individual initiative for enemy NPCs, and have groups of similar creatures (i.e. a band of 5 orcs) go on the same initiative.  But I'm not being contrary, just specifying.  There's still a lot of _ifs_ in your example, PC...those two hits aren't certain, by any means.

In any case, I admit that Harm would benefit from a save.  Partly because it's harsh on PCs, partly because it's harsh on NPC enemies, and partly because I'm considering the removal of _raise dead_ from my campaign, and retaining only the resurrective and miraculous spells.

But that's another thread.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom, if you take away _raise dead_ from our campaign, I'll have to kill you. (Don't worry, I'll raise you, though).


----------



## shadracht (Sep 11, 2002)

One other thing to keep in mind.  Basically, when you use harm, you are opening a direct channel to the negative plane, which is where all these hit points go.  In my campaign, this is unbelivably dangerous, as it is an inherently evil act, no matter what the discriptor states.

And I agree with Tom.  You cannot judge anything's merits or flaws in a vacuum.  There are ALWAYS circumstances.


----------



## MasterOfHeaven (Sep 11, 2002)

First, I completely agree with those who say Harm should require a save.  I've seen it in action, and frankly, it's broken.  I require a save, Will (partial), and cap it at 250 maximum damage.  

Second, Xarlen, I completely disagree with your assertion that save or die spells are neccessary for Wizards to do well against Fighters.  I have used Evokers before that could easily rip apart an entire group of high level fighters using not one save or die spell.  It's like Furn says, proper use of tactics and the Fighters don't even stand a chance.  

I don't really care about save or die spells, but I do know that Wizards can easily survive and thrive without them.


----------



## mikebr99 (Sep 11, 2002)

MasterOfHeaven said:
			
		

> *I completely disagree with your assertion that save or die spells are neccessary for Wizards to do well against Fighters.  I have used Evokers before that could easily rip apart an entire group of high level fighters using not one save or die spell.  It's like Furn says, proper use of tactics and the Fighters don't even stand a chance.
> 
> I don't really care about save or die spells, but I do know that Wizards can easily survive and thrive without them. *



The higher the Campaign... the worse off the damage spells are... Fireball cannot really compete with high DC - Save or Die spells. 

The high level opponents have way to many hit points... but their saves (and AC for that matter) doesn't scale as fast. YMMV


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 11, 2002)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> *The higher the Campaign... the worse off the damage spells are... Fireball cannot really compete with high DC - Save or Die spells.
> 
> The high level opponents have way to many hit points... but their saves (and AC for that matter) doesn't scale as fast. YMMV *




At the PH level I think damaging spells can compare with DC save or dies.  Saves go up quickly(attributes, items etc) so the % chance of success it usually somewhat slim.  Once you add in greater focus, and those power things the save DC gets beyond what poeple can legitimetly save against and then yes damage dealers are outclassed.

Personally I like save or dies for that fear factor, and because it actually gives a point for will and fort saves.  Also if they were removed it would be a power loss for spell casters whether or not they could adapt loss in versatility is still a loss, and especially for the d4 arcane casters for whom virtually every attack upon them is you don't get a save you just die, some compensation should be in order if they were removed.


----------



## Blackthorne (Sep 11, 2002)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Another solution would be to cap Heal and Harm's effects to a fixed amount of hit points.  Say, 150 or 200. *




We do this with 10 HP/level.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Sep 11, 2002)

I'm of the opinion that Harm needs to be fixed, but Touch spells in general also need a tweak.  I mean, a range of Touch should be a BAD thing.  Instead, you're forced to have dragons go through elaborate precautions just to stay alive.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that these attacks are too consistent.  There's no save, and at high level you can Cast Defensively automatically.  So here are some changes to make things more unpredictable:

1> When a touch attack is done, it is considered to be still in the process of casting from the moment it's cast to the moment it's delivered.  That means if you're hit while trying to deliver it (by an AoO or readied action) you must make a Concentration check as if hit while casting a spell.  A roll of a 1 on this check means you hit yourself accidentally (no save, no SR, WHAM)
This partially solves the "Cleric take an AoO and Harm the dragon" problem, at least if they cast BEFORE running in.  Getting hit for that much is going to fizzle the spell, and there's the off chance of much worse.  Now, admittedly in the base MM all Dragons have a DEX of 10 and no Combat Reflexes, but that's an easy change (IMC the average dragon is DEX ~16 with 4 less STR and 2 less CON, and most pick Combat Reflexes early on).  Since they have nice reach, it becomes very tough to deliver a touch spell safely.
2> On a touch attack roll, if you roll a 1 you hit yourself (no save, no SR).  A "ranged touch" attack does the same, although at the DMs discretion you could instead hit an unintended target near the line of sight.
On the other hand, if you roll a 20 on the attack roll, you do a "critical" attack, bypassing saves (and SR?).
3> Casting Defensively is too consistent.  At low levels you can almost never succeed; at high levels it's automatic.  So, change how Cast Defensively works, making it more like an opposed roll against the other guy's attack bonus.
For example, make the existing check a bit easier at low levels (DC 10+(2*spell level) instead of 15+spell level), and use however much you exceed the check by as a Dodge AC bonus against AoOs.  Failure still causes you to lose the spell, though.

EXAMPLE: Bob the Cleric (level 15, CON 12, Concentration +20) wants to Harm a Great Wyrm.  He runs up, and tries to cast the spell defensively.  The DC is 22 (10+6*2), so he'll succeed unless he rolls a 1, but we want to know by how much.  He rolls a 10, giving a result of 30, so his AC increases by 8 against the resulting AoO.  In most cases that'd make him practically untouchable, and most enemies wouldn't waste their AoO hitting something with that kind of AC bonus.  In this case, though, the dragon still whacks him anyway, causing him to lose the spell; bobbing and weaving doesn't help you dodge an arm the size of a bus.

Now, personally, I like this better than just adding saves on a case-by-case basis, but you can do that too.


----------



## mikebr99 (Sep 11, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *Casting Defensively is too consistent.  At low levels you can almost never succeed; at high levels it's automatic.  So, change how Cast Defensively works, making it more like an opposed roll against the other guy's attack bonus.
> *



 Consider using reflex save instead of Attack bonus... big, slow giants shouldn't be good at reacting...


----------



## Anubis (Sep 11, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At the PH level I think damaging spells can compare with DC save or dies.  Saves go up quickly(attributes, items etc) so the % chance of success it usually somewhat slim.  Once you add in greater focus, and those power things the save DC gets beyond what poeple can legitimetly save against and then yes damage dealers are outclassed.
> 
> Personally I like save or dies for that fear factor, and because it actually gives a point for will and fort saves.  Also if they were removed it would be a power loss for spell casters whether or not they could adapt loss in versatility is still a loss, and especially for the d4 arcane casters for whom virtually every attack upon them is you don't get a save you just die, some compensation should be in order if they were removed. *




As someone who plays in Epic Levels, I can say that this is absolutely NOT the case.  At higher levels, there are simply way too many ways to protect against instant-death and raise saves for instant-death spells to be effective.  Damaging spells with Metamagic Feats do MUCH more.



As for wizards not being able to take hits . . . What kind of players do you have?  My wizards almost always have over 100 by level 15, and over 200 by Epic Levels, because their first item selection is things that boost Constitution and hit points, along with Toughness feats.  My wizards easily have at least as many hit points as clerics.


----------



## bret (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As someone who plays in Epic Levels, I can say that this is absolutely NOT the case.  At higher levels, there are simply way too many ways to protect against instant-death and raise saves for instant-death spells to be effective.  Damaging spells with Metamagic Feats do MUCH more.
> 
> ...




I'm surprised that you think the damage spells are so effective considering your second paragraph.

100 / 15 = 6.6666 hp / level. Assuming all saves are failed, it takes two direct damage spells just to take your wizard down.

I'm guessing you've got an effective 18 Con. I assume you've got at least an 18 Int (otherwise you couldn't even cast your 8th level spells), which makes it sound like some pretty big attributes. I know you could get +2 Con from a Toad (waste of familiar), and up to another +6 from an Item. That is a large investment.

I'm not sure how others play Wizards, but I've usually got problems getting that good an attribute pump from an item. What are other people's experiences at these levels?


The other thing is that if the Wizard can afford that good a Con and Int, I assume the Fighters can afford a good Str and Con. The fighters are going to have more hitpoints, requiring even more direct damage spells to take them down. The more you inflate the attributes, the harder it is with direct damage spells.


----------



## Henry (Sep 11, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits?  Falling from heights?  The drowning rule?  None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death.  No save.
> *




The thing to note here however, Tom, is that in all of these cases, the damage is capped to what is capable within a given dice roll. In the case of critical hits, rarely do you see hits for 500 points of damage, outside of theoretical "Sultans of Smack" articles. Falling damage is often criticized as TOO WEAK, rather than too damaging - terminal velocity being survivable by the average 15th level cleric, 12th level fighter, or 10th level barbarian. Finally, I have not once seen a PC in two years die due to suffocation or drowning. I have been thinking of making the drowning rules tougher myself, but only slightly.

Harm, however, is a spell available to every cleric of 11th level or higher. It is quite common above 10th level, and many players restrain themselves from using it liberally, for fear their DM's will do the same thing. Its commonality, and its touch attack capability are what make it difficult for so many people to swallow.

One other possiblity for those who find it too tough would be to return it to "standard attack" spell status, instead of merely being a touch attack. In this way, dragons with their fearsome AC's, and mages with their scads of bonuses would not need to worry about a simple AC 10 to 15 attack bypassing every protection they have, and cleaving away all of their hit points as if they were a stick of butter.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 11, 2002)

at 15th level on average the wizard has 30 less hp than a cleric and 45 less than a fighter.  Con items are important to them too. All hp can be fairly low when you see the damage any class can dish out.  30-45hp frequently is the difference in being up the after one full attack, and not being up. People who are up can take actions like getting away, healing etc to mitigate there massive hp loss.  I've seen more wizards drop to a single rounds worth of attacks from one foe than I cna count, whether form a ful attack,  a partial charge crit form a pissed of barb, or some sneak attacks.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 11, 2002)

*heal harm*

well i think both of them are broken.


all the cure spells have saves.  Will half (harmless).

Heal and Harm don't although they are progressions of the same idea.

8d8+clerics level... will save half (harmless)?

would make it more leathal...


joe b.


----------



## Al (Sep 11, 2002)

Just a general comment of some of the points:



> As for wizards not being able to take hits . . . What kind of players do you have? My wizards almost always have over 100 by level 15, and over 200 by Epic Levels, because their first item selection is things that boost Constitution and hit points, along with Toughness feats. My wizards easily have at least as many hit points as clerics.




Slightly off-topic, but I'll comment on it nevertheless.  In order for an average 15th level wizard to have 100 hit points, he would need a constitution of 18 or greater, so that's not unfeasible with Endurance.  However, it is relatively easy at this level to dish out a similar amount of damage: a Power Critical can deal this out in a single round, and even failing that, a barbarian with 30 str wielding a +4 greataxe can easily muster a similar amount of damage off three attacks: d12+19 damage per hit, so average damage of just over 75 points per round.  So if the barbarian is hasted or uses Power Attack, he can dish out 100 damage in a round.  Toughness feats, by the way, are normally regretted around level 2.  As for clerics and wizards having equal hit points, nonsense.  Do your wizards normally have 4 points higher constitution than your clerics?

Back to the main argument:



> Yes, but I think you missed an earlier point. A really, really high SR won't do diddly against a burley fighter with a big ol' sword. So Harm's a high level spell that gives clerics a chance to do lots of damage just like a fighter might. But of course, Harm's much more powerful than any melee attack... but it has to first overcome with SR.




Fair point, but spells have to be compared against other spells.  The issue is question is: is Harm broken?  If the question were: is the cleric broken?, then a comparison with the fighter is reasonable.  Since the issue is the spell, not the class, it has to be compared with other spells.



> Hell, that's still 13 hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.




Quickened Inflict Moderate Wounds: you have a 63-in-64 chance of taking off those 13 hit points unless he makes the save.  And with a Quickened Inflict Serious Wounds, he's probably dead even with a save.



> In response to the claim that the Harm/Heal Dichotomy is "nonsense"...Harm started out as the 'reversible' option of Heal. One spell takes away all but 1d4 hp, one gives back all but 1d4 hp. If that ain't symmetry, then somebody take me back to school.




Fair enough.  Allow Heal a save when used against undead.  Symmetry maintained, no problem.



> Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits? Falling from heights? The drowning rule? None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death. No save.




Well, let's examine these.  A critical hit is significantly more difficult to pull off than a touch attack, and does substantially less damage.  Falling rules cap damage at 10d6.  Drowning rules allow the character to hold your breath for (Con) rounds.  Yes, they can result in instant death- but Harm (virtually) guarantees it.



> In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.




The first word in save or die is 'save'.  Harm allows none.  That is the issue.


----------



## Krakken (Sep 11, 2002)

I just have one thing to say right now.
It's easier to destroy than to create.
And any character can optimize their ability to kill someone where spells are concerned, such as putting up a blade barrier with a wall of force around them, or a hasted (magic item) cleric doing harm with quickened damage spell, or if you want to make sure you hit the touch attack, have a 1st sorcerer/cleric doing truestrike+harm


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 11, 2002)

First off, I'm in the save for Harm school. However, unlike a lot of people, I would give harm a set damage on a successful save. Slay living has one, and harm should be able to outright kill you in my opinion if you have that few hitpoints.

I'm curious about the dragon campaign though. This cleric went in to touch great wyrums with 10-15 foot reaches....and why is he not sitting in the dragon's belly right now? With the snatch feat, and the fact that unless your cleric is incognito, there's usually clues that the cleric is a cleric, the dragon would be smart enough to be like (ah, a cleric, kill him first, rest of the weak mortals will die). Then he snatches you up, and crushes you in his mouth for about 35 damage, which is about average for a collosal red dragon.

So then you'd be forced to make a concentration check on that spell (although its only 26, so you should make it fairly easily). 

You still get off a hurt on the dragon, but I could see him swallowing you before you got to kill him.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 11, 2002)

I simply question this:

For those who are making Harm a save for 6d8+Class level.

You compare this with Inflict spells, but Harm is Not an inflict spell. 

Let's compare:

5th level Slay living: Touch, Die or take 3d6+spell level.

6th level Harm: Touch Save or take 6d8+Class level of damage.

7th level Destruction: Ranged Touch Attack. Death or 10d6.

How do you go from doing 6d8+class to Death or potential of 60 damage? Alteast with Slay living you Die when you fail the save. However, with Harm, if you fail the save, the Most they can do is 68 points of damage, at 20th level.

How is that balanced?


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 11, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As someone who plays in Epic Levels, I can say that this is absolutely NOT the case.  At higher levels, there are simply way too many ways to protect against instant-death and raise saves for instant-death spells to be effective.  Damaging spells with Metamagic Feats do MUCH more.
> 
> ...




Well as someone who plays at high levels but not epic levels I can say this is the case.  Protections are nice but they rarely cover close to the full spectrum, and protections even if they did cover the full spectrum are the reason why almost every fight starts with a volley of dispels.  I've seen way too many DCs reach the absurdity level on save or dies.  Me I see the problem not in the save or dies but the way too many DC boosters.

Oh and side point if we want to continue the save or die vs damage dealing discussion maybe we should amke another thread and stop hijacking this one, I'm starting to feel guilty.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 11, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I simply question this:
> 
> For those who are making Harm a save for 6d8+Class level.
> 
> ...



which is why I don't add a save I make it 9th level.


----------



## Al (Sep 12, 2002)

> I simply question this:
> 
> For those who are making Harm a save for 6d8+Class level.
> 
> ...




Simple answer:

Assume Harm is a save-or-die spell (which, for all intents and purposes, it would be if a save was added).

Slay Living (5th): Touch, die on failed save; 3d6+level damage on save.
Harm (6th): Touch, effectively die on failed save; 6d8+level damage on save.
Destruction (7th): Die on failed save; 10d6 damage on save.

Now let's see...10d6>6d8+level>3d6+level.
7th level>6th level>5th level.

Sounds balanced to me.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

I don't know. That makes Harm just a Slay Living with more damage. Infact only makes Destructive more attractive because it's a Ranged Touch.

I say, if you're going to tamper with it, give it a Will for Half, or give it a damage cap.

I really liked the 10/Level cap that someone proposed.


----------



## mirivor (Sep 13, 2002)

I haven't read all 124 responses to this so I apologize if what I have to say has already been said. 

Something that nobody seems to mention when it comes to Harm is this simple fact: Harm cannot kill anything. That tidbit is not to be negligently tossed aside. You have a higher level spell that, while awesome versus one large opponent, is impotent against the majority of the monstrous manual creatures. 

"What? I see the lone remaining goblin? I only have one spell left, but it IS 6th level. I cast my Harm on the poor bugger and  ... DOH!"

Just my opinion, but filling a 6th level slot with a spell that one will only use against possibly 20% of the standard D&D creatures is actually a gamble. Now, I am not saying that Harm is worthless... far from it... but one has to take ALL aspects of a spell into account before declaring it to be broken. Nearly every offensive spell in the game can kill. Magic missile, Inflict wounds, Fireball, etc. all have the capability to slay a creature. Harm does not. Just something to toss around in your brains. Later!


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

Allow me to put this so others don't pounce on you. 

Harm+Quickened Inflict.
Harm+Haste (And thus a dagger attack, or another damage spell).

That seems to be the consensus.


----------



## mirivor (Sep 13, 2002)

I agree with the combos, but I can name a hundred others that do not involve Harm yet kill just as quickly. I myself would consider altering Harm if I DM'ed, however my previous post still stands. Harm can NEVER kill anything. That is not small potatoes. Against the lowliest ooze or the most terrible dragon, Harm is incapable of killing something.

What about the Smiting weapon type? A crit on a construct and its lights out with no save, regardless. How about vorpal? Anyone toss that out or grant a saving throw? What about the various Power Words? Forcecage? Imprisonment? Are all of these to be altered then? All of these are just as effective as Harm, not to mention that they have a range greater than touch.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

Well, again, most have pointed out that Harm offers no resistance. One touch, BOOP, now the guy next on the initiative chain can shoot you dead.

The only defense it's offered is the fact of SR. Since it's a Touch attack, rare that it's NOT going to hit. 

Hey, I'm for leaving Harm alone, or to not neuter it. But, I would suggest reading the thread before making arguements that's allready been made a hundred times, and rabble roused over.


----------



## bret (Sep 13, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now let's see...10d6>6d8+level>3d6+level.
> 7th level>6th level>5th level.
> ...




Doesn't to me.

Average damages are:
35, 27 + level (min 11), 18 + level (minimum 9)

Even at minimum level, if you give Harm 6d8 + level on a failed roll it will do more than 10d6 will usually do.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

bret said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Doesn't to me.
> 
> ...




Destruction also kills you to where you need True Resurrection to be brought back, Harm does not.

Only the truly foolish think Harm isn't broken as-is.  It is clearly the single most powerful spell in the game, being the only one that can kill with no save AND no limit.  The only other no save kill spell is Power Word, Kill, a NINTH level WIZARD spell that has a hp limit to what can be affected.

Personally, I have NEVER seen someone live after being hit by Harm.  It is less than 5% survival rate.  That's better than Disintegrate, Slay Living, and Destruction PUT TOGETHER!

Also, Harm is better than Power Word, Kill in that it can bring even the mightiest Prismatic Dragon to its knees.  Hell, you could even bring GODS to their knees with this spell!


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

mirivor said:
			
		

> *I haven't read all 124 responses to this so I apologize if what I have to say has already been said.
> 
> Something that nobody seems to mention when it comes to Harm is this simple fact: Harm cannot kill anything. That tidbit is not to be negligently tossed aside. You have a higher level spell that, while awesome versus one large opponent, is impotent against the majority of the monstrous manual creatures.
> 
> ...




Actually, it just about ALWAYS kills opponents.  I have yet to see anyone survive after being hit with Harm.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

After careful consideration, I have found the perfect fix for Harm.  Let's just make it clear right now that Harm is effectively an instant-death spell as it stands right now.  Few beings ever survive after being hit by Harm, so although it's not instant death by default, it is not only as effective, but actually MORE effective than instant death, solely because it gives *no save*, unlike actual instant-death spells.  The lack of a saving throw is what breaks Harm, plain and simple.  No amount of debate can change that.

Even by the DMG's standards, Harm is broken.  This is a spell that can potentially do thousands of points of damage and yet gives *no save*.  There is not a single other spell in the entire game, of any level, that can match the damage potential of Harm.  Even Epic Spells fail to stand up to the mighty Harm.  This all proves that Harm IS, in FACT, broken as-is.

Here is my solution.

*Harm*
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

_Harm_ charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points.  Upon a successful save, the subject instead takes 6d6 points of damage.

If used on an undead creature, _Harm_ acts like _Heal_.

Basically, this keeps it's full power-as-is, so as not to nerf it completely, but it also solves the problem of it not having a save, unlike every other instant-death spell.  In addition, the damage dealt after the save is now more than Slay Living offers, but still less than Destruction, balancing it nicely.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Only the truly foolish think Harm isn't broken as-is.  *




Shut up.


----------



## mikebr99 (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *After careful consideration, I have found the perfect fix for Harm.
> Here is my solution.
> 
> Harm
> ...



Why is yours *Perfect* and the other 40 posted, not?


----------



## mikebr99 (Sep 13, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Shut up. *



Heh... 
Go Tom Go!


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *This all proves that Harm IS, in FACT, broken as-is.
> *




Anubis is right.  He has proven that Harm is definitely broken.  Rangers are also broken. As is Shield, clerics, tanglefoot bags, monks, Foresight, Magic of Faerun, and Gust of wind. 

Hell, it seems that 3E is pretty much broken. I'm going back to 1E. Who wants to be an Elf?


----------



## mikebr99 (Sep 13, 2002)

Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anubis is right.  He has proven that Harm is definitely broken.  Rangers are also broken. As is Shield, clerics, tanglefoot bags, monks, Foresight, Magic of Faerun, and Gust of wind.
> 
> Hell, it seems that 3E is pretty much broken. I'm going back to 1E. Who wants to be an Elf? *



I'll be the Cleric! They've been broken for years! 

Oh... don't forget the 5ft. step! It's REALLY broken!


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

I still think it sounds like a neutered Slay Living. Slay living Kills you, touch attack, 3d6 damage.

Harm does Not kill you, but puts you at 1d4, so yet another thing has to happen to kill you; waste of a spell, action, etc. It's a touch attack.

Destruction kills you. It's a *ranged* attack.

So we go from Touch, Die or Damage, Touch, d4 or Damage, Ranged Death or damage. 

All you're making harm into is more damage on a failed save, and making that d4 there. I still think that with said modifications, it needs some Spice to it. Something that makes it more attractive then Slay living, other then the fact that it just does 3d6 more damage on a failed save.

The way you have it set up, it'd be no different then just Hightening Slay living. Infact, it'd almost be better, because Slay Living kills you, dead, no need for wasting a second action on you, cuz you dead.


----------



## White Mage (Sep 13, 2002)

I have a suggestion about a change in harm. Instead of reducing an opponent to 1d4 hp, it reduces the opponent to 10% of it's current hitpoints.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 13, 2002)

White Mage said:
			
		

> *I have a suggestion about a change in harm. Instead of reducing an opponent to 1d4 hp, it reduces the opponent to 10% of it's current hitpoints. *



Wow. I really like this idea, especially coupled with "no save." It scales nicely and keeps with the spirit of the spell. 

Hmm. Going to have to think about it.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *I still think it sounds like a neutered Slay Living. Slay living Kills you, touch attack, 3d6 damage.
> 
> Harm does Not kill you, but puts you at 1d4, so yet another thing has to happen to kill you; waste of a spell, action, etc. It's a touch attack.
> 
> ...




Some people just don't have the capacity to pay attention . . .

As things stand now, Harm is BETTER than Slay Living in EVERY WAY!  It gives no save and STILL kills the opponent!  Sheesh!

The "it doesn't kill" argument is semantic nonsense.  That's IDENTICAL to saying guns don't kill people, bleeding kills people.  It's an utterly ridiculous statement at best, complete stupidity at worst.

Technicalities do not apply to common sense.  Harm kills, plain and simple.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Shut up. *




Bite me.  You just can't admit that I'm right, that's all.  You've run out of any logical arguments, so you just do the childish thing.  "Oh, shut up."

Blah.  Heh, this debate is over.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Bite me.  You just can't admit that I'm right, that's all.  You've run out of any logical arguments, so you just do the childish thing.  "Oh, shut up."
> 
> Blah.  Heh, this debate is over. *




  You're the one who claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "foolish," Anubis.  You call that a "logical argument"?  That's the back-handed idea I was trying to get across...that your supposedly logical arguments are stated in language that makes them a bunch of poo.

I am glad the debate is over, though.  Hooray!  We agree!


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 13, 2002)

I'm in agreement with Anubis on this one (in reference to the save being neccessary and harm being broken), but I think we should all play nice.

(I know this isn't bad yet, but I'd perfer the thread not get killed yet)


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're the one who claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "foolish," Anubis.  You call that a "logical argument"?  That's the back-handed idea I was trying to get across...that your supposedly logical arguments are stated in language that makes them a bunch of poo.
> 
> I am glad the debate is over, though.  Hooray!  We agree!  *




Language in an argument does not change the argument.  I said that, sure, but I also "backed it up" so to speak with what can only be considered undeniable proof, and that logic stands on its own.

Only the foolish dismiss arguments just because of the language including within, because logic stands on its own without the need of any help.


----------



## Alariel (Sep 13, 2002)

Sure, Harm is a very powerful spell, assuming it's used against PCs, NPCs, and monsters with the intelligence of a rock, but as has been mentioned before, there are plenty of defenses against it: spell resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Displacement, simply not being within range of a touch attack. By the time the PCs are high enough to be casting Harm, the enemies should have a modicrum of brain matter between their ears to either be prepared for it at the beginning of battle, or be able to set up defenses. Worse comes to worse, an INT of 5+ is enough to let the enemies know that retreating is a better option.

I can understand Harm getting through once against an enemy and taking him/her/it down. If the rest of the enemies are incapable of learning the lesson after that, then that's the DM's fault (case in point: running through 7 dragons, one after another, with the same spell selection). Don't blame the spell for the DM playing the NPCs as morons.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Sep 13, 2002)

Like I said earlier, which many people missed, Harm is like an uncapped Power Word, Kill, except without the pesky HP limit.

I also look favorably upon the one who made it a 9th level spells.  In many ways, it certainly acts like one.  If one examines other 9th level spells such as Imprisonment, Temporal Stasis, and Power Word, Kill then we'll see a lot of similarties.  All do not have a save and each means certain doom for the target (if SR is defeated).  Now if we look at Harm, it has these same characteristics, but is 3 levels lower and on the *cleric* spell list.

True, Harm does not kill the opponent outright.  Neither does imprisonment or temporal stasis, but all three spells equate to a win if they are successfully casts and discharged.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Alariel said:
			
		

> *
> Sure, Harm is a very powerful spell, assuming it's used against PCs, NPCs, and monsters with the intelligence of a rock, but as has been mentioned before, there are plenty of defenses against it: spell resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Displacement, simply not being within range of a touch attack. By the time the PCs are high enough to be casting Harm, the enemies should have a modicrum of brain matter between their ears to either be prepared for it at the beginning of battle, or be able to set up defenses. Worse comes to worse, an INT of 5+ is enough to let the enemies know that retreating is a better option.
> *




VERY FEW monsters have those abilities, and even more do not just expect clerics to walk in and cast Harm.  You can NEVER judge the power of a spell based on the defenses around it, mainly because ALL spells have those same defenses, generally speaking.  SR applies to most, Antimagic to all, and Displacement to all touch.  You can't judge it's power comparing it to defenses, otherwise all the instant-death spells would be Level 4 because that's when you get Death Ward.

You must judge a spell based on its own merits and what it entails.  Harm is certain death when it hits, and has no save, unlike EVERY OTHER INSTANT-DEATH SPELL IN THE GAME.  The 1d4 hp you keep at the end does NOT balance the no save.  That's just ridiculous!

Use your heads, people!  Harm=Death in 99% of all cases, has no save, making it THE most powerful spell in the entire game!



			
				Alariel said:
			
		

> *
> I can understand Harm getting through once against an enemy and taking him/her/it down. If the rest of the enemies are incapable of learning the lesson after that, then that's the DM's fault (case in point: running through 7 dragons, one after another, with the same spell selection). Don't blame the spell for the DM playing the NPCs as morons. *




We frown upon metagame thinking.  These dragons were thousands upon thousands of feet apart.  The scaves spanned MILES, not feet.  The individual dragons had no way of knowing what was happening to the others.  That would be metagame thinking.  The caves were so dangerous, AND the mayor of the metropolis had promised protection, so the dragons figured it to be reasonably safe down there.  Know the facts before opening your mouth.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Language in an argument does not change the argument.  I said that, sure, but I also "backed it up" so to speak with what can only be considered undeniable proof, and that logic stands on its own.
> 
> Only the foolish dismiss arguments just because of the language including within, because logic stands on its own without the need of any help. *




Sez you.  Only the foolish describe their own _opinion_ as undeniable and undebatable, thus attempting to shut down contrary notions before they can be stated.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about your "logical argument" being "undeniable"...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> You can NEVER judge the power of a spell based on the defenses around it, mainly because ALL spells have those same defenses, generally speaking.  SR applies to most, Antimagic to all, and Displacement to all touch.  You can't judge it's power comparing it to defenses, otherwise all the instant-death spells would be Level 4 because that's when you get Death Ward.
> 
> You must judge a spell based on its own merits and what it entails.  Harm is certain death when it hits, and has no save, unlike EVERY OTHER INSTANT-DEATH SPELL IN THE GAME.  The 1d4 hp you keep at the end does NOT balance the no save.  That's just ridiculous!
> ...




First you say that a spell must be judged only "on its own merits," and then you leap to the conclusion that _Harm,_ a spell that *does not kill* (this is not semantics, this is spell description), is 99% fatal.  Fatal on its own merits?  No, fatal because the NEXT shot is _likely_ to take you out.

Now, I agree that Harm is likely to kill if you're not ready for it, if opponents all go on the same initiative, etc. etc. etc.  I do not agree that your arguments are anything but *your opinion.*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Bite me.
> *




Childish?  Sure.  But you seem awfully willing to sink to my level.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 13, 2002)

Cloudgatherer said:
			
		

> *Like I said earlier, which many people missed, Harm is like an uncapped Power Word, Kill, except without the pesky HP limit.
> 
> I also look favorably upon the one who made it a 9th level spells.  In many ways, it certainly acts like one.  If one examines other 9th level spells such as Imprisonment, Temporal Stasis, and Power Word, Kill then we'll see a lot of similarties.  All do not have a save and each means certain doom for the target (if SR is defeated).  Now if we look at Harm, it has these same characteristics, but is 3 levels lower and on the *cleric* spell list.
> 
> True, Harm does not kill the opponent outright.  Neither does imprisonment or temporal stasis, but all three spells equate to a win if they are successfully casts and discharged. *




Cloudgatherer looks favoribly upon me, doing that happy monkey boy dance.  

  Anyways I went with 9th level for the reasons Cloudgatherer put forth.  Other 9th level spells are very similar, range of touch, no save, only SR saves you.  The differences temporal stasis and imprisonment instantly take you out of a fight, harm comes really close to it.  Other differences imprisonamnt requires some serious info on the target to make it work, temporal stasis 5,000gp material component, harm no such extra clauses.  Basically it is ballanced with other 9th level spells, so it is bizzarre that they would place it at 6th level merely because that is where heal is.

Harm is far from the only spell that is broken, but it is probably the most broken one.


----------



## Al (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis, calm down.  Other people, don't bait him.  Logical argument should prevail, not shouting and ranting.

So...back to the argument.

Now, those who believe that Harm is not overpowered at the current level seem to thrust forward three main arguments,

1. Harm does not kill you.

Whilst it does not technically kill you, it is so close to killing you that it can be reasonably assumed to do so.  Using Quickened Inflict Wounds, Haste or teamwork makes it very easy for the Harmed victim to be finished off.  

2. It can be avoided with an array of defenses.

As I have repeatedly made explicit, this is not a counterargument.  Saying that SR prevents you from being hit by Harm is void.  SR protects you against all spells: if a creature had sufficient SR, there would be no difference between Ray of Frost and Meteor Swarm.  Spells are compared against other spells, not in isolation.  Regarding touch attacks, this is a fair point, but consider Imprisonment and Temporal Stasis require a touch attack, are 9th level...and they don't 'technically kill' you.

3. Harm is only useful against certain creatures.

Again, a rather weak counterargument.  The same argument could be made of Power Word: Kill (in fact, they cover almost the same bases).  An effective instant death spell will obviously have limits, but then, so do all death effect spells; and, indeed, most spells in general.  However, the vast majority of foes are susceptible to Harm- concessions should only be made if the spell affects a very narrow section of beasts indeed.


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 13, 2002)

Where would we be without you Al? I think his three points are the most valid and well described here. To think I used to be in the unbroken camp... 

I would offer one more point:
Many postings have used the logic that enemies should be well enough prepared to handle Harm weilding clerics as a matter of intelligence. I must ask. What creatures fit this bill? How does even a high intelligence foe recognize a "harm weilding cleric"? Surely that dragon cannot be certain of any attacker he sees coming his path. And most of them are fairly intelligent. 

In addition, harm has very few defenses (not counting SR, which I believe Al answered to best). Anti-Magic changes the flow of combat so dramaticlly that if you must resort to it every time you are up against harm...? Well lets just say that combat becomes pretty boring for magic users at that point. 

Just because you are intelligent, does not mean you have access to or can use effective defenses. DM knowledge is not monster knowledge. If I was a PC and had a tactic that saved the party repeatedly and the enemies had no way of transmitting this information, I'd be rather ticked off if the DM found a new defense strategy just to stop me because something I did was effective.

Just my thoughts. Can anyone in the "non-broken camp" logically counter Al's statements?


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> Sez you.  Only the foolish describe their own opinion as undeniable and undebatable, thus attempting to shut down contrary notions before they can be stated.
> 
> While we're on the subject, let's talk about your "logical argument" being "undeniable"...
> *




Actually, it was a theory, not an opinion.  Let's not forget that backing a theory up with existing facts makes the theory a fact.  Thus, what I said was fact.



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> First you say that a spell must be judged only "on its own merits," and then you leap to the conclusion that Harm, a spell that does not kill (this is not semantics, this is spell description), is 99% fatal.  Fatal on its own merits?  No, fatal because the NEXT shot is likely to take you out.
> *




Ha, nice try, but no dice.  The argument that Harm kills 99.9% of the time is based on the fact that it doesn't do an amount of damage, but rather always leaves you with too few hit points to take a single hit.  That IS the merit of Harm as-is.



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> Now, I agree that Harm is likely to kill if you're not ready for it, if opponents all go on the same initiative, etc. etc. etc.  I do not agree that your arguments are anything but your opinion.
> *




Theory, backed by existing fact, makes it a fact.  Opinion is a thought on agreement or liking/disliking.  Learn the definitions.



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> Childish?  Sure.  But you seem awfully willing to sink to my level. *




Yes.  As I always say, fight fire with fire.  Eye for an eye.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

While I agree that Harm is broken, making it a 9th-level spell is not the answer, because then you would have to make Heal 9th-level as well.  After all, they do basically the same thing, only in reverse.

That would be grossly unbalanced, moreso toward the monsters now.

Just give the thing a save, simple.  I'm 255% certain that it will be address in the near future by WotC.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *While I agree that Harm is broken, making it a 9th-level spell is not the answer, because then you would have to make Heal 9th-level as well.  After all, they do basically the same thing, only in reverse.
> 
> That would be grossly unbalanced, moreso toward the monsters now.
> 
> Just give the thing a save, simple.  I'm 255% certain that it will be address in the near future by WotC. *




I disagree heal, heals you, and vs an incredibly specific group of creatures one the cleric usually smokes anyways with a simple turn check it has the harm effects.  Heal also while it heals you nomatter what the HP, doesn't help you nearly as much as harm hurts because HPs except for monsters are on a much smaller scale.  Where the lower level cure/inflict spells helped and hurt roughly on the same scale, harms benefit scales way to well vs higher level monsters.  Heal except for maybe dragons, and other extremely high hp spell casting mosnters isn't too powerful for a 6th level spell(so  for the pcs at least it is balanced at 6th level).  Harm is virtually identical in power to a 9th level spell, so it should just be 9th level.


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Sep 13, 2002)

I didn't say "making it a 9th level spell is the answer", I only said I can certainly see why one would do so.  Comparing it to the other 9th level spells (temporal stasis, imprisonment, PWK), it appears comparable if you did not know the level before hand.

Here's an interesting test.  Have someone who is unfamiliar with D&D magic read over the 9th level spells.  Hell, have them read all the spells *except* harm.  Then have that person read harm, and see what level they think it should be.  Doesn't prove squat, but it would be an interesting test....

I see it at as the equivalent of an 8th level spell (at least).  At 8th level we start getting into the "no save" category of spells.  

*Are there *any* SRD/PHB spells of 7th level or below that do not allow a save besides the Heal/Harm pair?* (Bold because I'd like an opinion/answer)


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 13, 2002)

There's one easy defense against Harm that no one has considered ... 

Raise Dead. 

I think clerics deserve a powerful spell ... they pretty much suck otherwise.   Spiritual weapon?  What the hell is that gonna do?


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Some people just don't have the capacity to pay attention . . .
> 
> ...




And You don't pay attention.

I was speaking with Going Along With Your Modifications.

If Harm is given a save, then given 6d6 on a fail, then it's just a glorified Slay Living that doesn't kill the target, and just does 3d6 more damage. Ooo. 3d6 more damage, and I have to take ANOTHER action to kill them.

Slay living kills, 3d6. Destruction is a RANGED touch, 10d6. There should be something in the middle. Something that either offers a little BETTER then Slay living, but is less powerful then Destruction. The serious Power of destruction is not only the damage raising, but the Ranged touch.

So, I just want a difference between Slay living and Harm, other then the mini-raise in damage. 

I liked the option of knocking the target to 10% current HPs.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 13, 2002)

First, Harm is a 6th-level spell because it goes, "Moooooo!"

Second, my fix is to cap it at 100 hp.  Someone else did the math that showed that 15d6 maxes at 90 points, so that should be its limit.  I agree wholeheartedly, however 100 hp is such a nice round number.

Fortunately, my group hasn't taken to playing with Harm yet, or Heal would get the same cap.

Finally, just saying hi, which should be a polite way of letting y'all know that I know where this thread is.


----------



## Xarlen (Sep 13, 2002)

We have a Dinkle!


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *
> There's one easy defense against Harm that no one has considered ...
> 
> Raise Dead.
> *




Raise Dead does squat against Harm.  Try again.



			
				Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *
> I think clerics deserve a powerful spell ... they pretty much suck otherwise.   Spiritual weapon?  What the hell is that gonna do? *




Do you play the same game we're talking about?  Pound-for-pound, clerics out-perform damn near everything in the game without a problem.  Only monks can even come close to that level of power.

Also remember that clerics are NOT supposed to be attack mages.  That's what a wizard is for.  So giving clerics even better destructive powers than a wizard is a dumb move.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> And You don't pay attention.
> 
> I was speaking with Going Along With Your Modifications.
> ...




So?  If the party knows ANYTHING about teamwork, this is not a problem.  That attack succeeds 99% of the time, so it is a moot point.



			
				Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> Slay living kills, 3d6. Destruction is a RANGED touch, 10d6. There should be something in the middle. Something that either offers a little BETTER then Slay living, but is less powerful then Destruction. The serious Power of destruction is not only the damage raising, but the Ranged touch.
> 
> So, I just want a difference between Slay living and Harm, other then the mini-raise in damage.
> *




Even though natural spell progression would suggest that to be the exact right thing to do?  Our goal is to make it better than Slay Living and worse than Destruction.  My modification does EXACTLY that.



			
				Xarlen said:
			
		

> *
> I liked the option of knocking the target to 10% current HPs. *




That solves nothing.  At any particular level, if the players know anything about the game, 10% of a creatures hit points will still disappear within a single round after Harm, at least 80-90% of the time.  Then you still have pretty much the same problem as before.

Before the save, Harm should stay the same, to keep it with the same level of potential power.  With a successful save, it should do very little, to be balanced with other spells that pretty much do the same thing.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 13, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *First, Harm is a 6th-level spell because it goes, "Moooooo!"
> 
> Second, my fix is to cap it at 100 hp.  Someone else did the math that showed that 15d6 maxes at 90 points, so that should be its limit.  I agree wholeheartedly, however 100 hp is such a nice round number.
> *




The reason a damage cap is a bad idea is because it would still overpower everything else of the same level.  To get ANY other spell to do maximum potential damage, you have to add three levels to it with Maximize Spell.  Why should Harm get that maximum with no save?

Treat it as an instant-death spell, seriously.  That's what it is, when you look at it from a realistic standpoint.  That means it does normal on a failed save, but a set damage upon successful save.  This should be more than Slay Living and less than Destruction.  Giving it full 15d6 damage after save also goes against every other spell in the game, so it needs to be less than 7d6.  Thus, I came up with 6d6, double Sly Living's damage.


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 13, 2002)

Harm and Heal are the only spells I can think of that become _less_ effective when the Maximize Spell feat is applied to them.

I'm thinking I will try a "save for half damage" solution (i.e. on a successful save, the spell reduces you to half your current hit points), which still leaves Harm as a very effective spell - hopefully without leaving it _too_ effective.

J


----------



## Anubis (Sep 14, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *Harm and Heal are the only spells I can think of that become less effective when the Maximize Spell feat is applied to them.
> 
> I'm thinking I will try a "save for half damage" solution (i.e. on a successful save, the spell reduces you to half your current hit points), which still leaves Harm as a very effective spell - hopefully without leaving it too effective.
> 
> J *




This was actually my first idea, but it was quickly pointed out to me that even at half damage, it is more effective than every other damaging spell out there, and more powerful than all other spells of a relative level, because it could still potentially do hundreds or thousands of points of damage.

Reducing it to a half damage upon save basically means that the more powerful you are, the more damage you take, which should never be the case with a successful save.  That's why I downgraded it to a basic save or die type of spell where if you fail, you're pretty much dead, but if you succeed, you're in the clear, just like other spells of similar power.

Consequentially, I am bringing in a more powerful version of Harm at 9th level.  Anyone who played Final Fantasy IV should remember a spell called Wind or Weak in the SNES version.  I say bring that in as a 9th level spell at Harm's current level of power, but without the touch attack.


----------



## mirivor (Sep 14, 2002)

Qoute from Anubis


The "it doesn't kill" argument is semantic nonsense. That's IDENTICAL to saying guns don't kill people, bleeding kills people. It's an utterly ridiculous statement at best, complete stupidity at worst.


If that is the limit of what you can replay with, allow me to expound. Cause Serious Wounds is broken. It deals damage and, using the above stated hypothesis, it kills. As does every other damage dealing spell in the game. All magic is broken. Cripe, what the heck kind of argument is that? I can name a thousand other things that are just as deadly. Mosty people who think that Harm is broken site the "vs. (insert high hit-point, powerful creature)". This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced. However, consider the enemies that you must successfully TOUCH to use this spell. Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm. I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell. If a party gets close enough to a dragon to touch it, yet retain any resources worth speaking of, then the dragon was poorly played. Many of you may disagree, that is fine. 


Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 14, 2002)

> This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced.




I'm glad you agree.



> Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm.




Given. However, clerics are not always the worst off in melee. While they don't own up to the fighter, they can often buff themselves. In addition, the cleric may not be the only target and the big nasty can't always assume the cleric is charging to HARM.



> I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell.




That is cool.  I salute your experience and wisdom. I too have not seen a very abusive situation. I have heard complaints from PCs though in other games and when reading the description.



> Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.




I don't really agree with this statement as it can apply to ANY argument.

In the end, I believe the main point of the spell is that it is over powerful for its level. Many has suggested it is on par with 9th level spells (and I firmly believe it was a quick fix by the playtest staff and probably a debated point even then). In addition, there is no save, and that is always shaky ground to be walking on. Third, any creature can be killed with this and a combination quicken damage spell. And that in my opinion is far too over the scale of what I want happening.

I have yet to see someone counter Al's arguments effectively.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 14, 2002)

mirivor said:
			
		

> *
> If that is the limit of what you can replay with, allow me to expound. Cause Serious Wounds is broken. It deals damage and, using the above stated hypothesis, it kills. As does every other damage dealing spell in the game. All magic is broken. Cripe, what the heck kind of argument is that? I can name a thousand other things that are just as deadly.
> *




Ah, another of my favorites, the "anything can kill" argument.  This one is even worse than the other one . . .  

Listen, anything can kill, we all know that.  Please don't treat us like children.  The problem with Harm is that it kills so easily for a 6th-level Divine spell AND it is more powerful than any other spell in the game.  Compare it to ANYTHING.  Harm wins EVERY SINGLE TIME.



			
				mirivor said:
			
		

> *
> Mosty people who think that Harm is broken site the "vs. (insert high hit-point, powerful creature)". This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced.
> *




That is the point.  Name a single other spell that can reduce a Great Wyrm from full hit points to dead in a single round that has a hit roll a Level 1 character could make 95% of the time and no save.  What's that?  No other spell exists?  There you go!

Not only is there no other spell that powerful, but even the most powerful of spells can't match it!



			
				mirivor said:
			
		

> *
> However, consider the enemies that you must successfully TOUCH to use this spell. Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm. I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell. If a party gets close enough to a dragon to touch it, yet retain any resources worth speaking of, then the dragon was poorly played. Many of you may disagree, that is fine.
> *




Does AC 2 mean anything to you?  Your players must be a bit on the stupid side if they can't move their cleric into position to cast Harm against an enemy just because of its size.  The Great Wyrm will have a SINGLE chance for an attack of opportunity, and last time I checked, a Great Wyrm could NOT kill a powerful cleric in a single hit.  Any number of way?  Try ONE.  Unless the player is dumb enough not to cast on the defensive, which is likely to automatically succeed every time.



			
				mirivor said:
			
		

> *
> Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.
> *




So your villains are armies of clerics?  That would be fun to see.  The number of enemies that cast Harm can be counted on one hand, except for NPCs.  In a game where monsters are galore, this argument is invalid simply because most monsters don't have access to Harm.

That's why this argument is invalid in ANY rules discussion.

Some people need to learn common sense.  I hate trolls.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 14, 2002)

*heh*

my favorite example of harm... (actually how i convinced my group of harm=broken)

my party.. 17th levelers... 4 of em.

bad guys.. 
1 wiz 13th level
4 clerics of 11th.

wiz scrys PC's when they are sleeping (1's on watch.. the dwarf.. heh chance in hell hell see it!).  casts 4 reduces on clerics.  then teleports without error the clerics and himself to party, clerics already having cast harm and holding it.  clerics touched the dwarf (figher), the human (cleric), human (thief), but wern't close enough to the human (wiz).  

bad guy wiz casts a quickened magic missle and kills the dwarf, thief and cleric.  he then casts a regular magic missle, poor good wiz.

good mage wakes up.  casts quickened teleport.

ouch!  the PC's realized it could have been a tpk that they really can never have adaquate defenses against.  they also agreed that the set up was not a stretch of the imagination.... 

anywhoo...

joe b.


----------



## mirivor (Sep 14, 2002)

Thank you, Anubis. I appreciate a seemingly more intelligent and thoughtful reply. However, I may remind you that the "It kills" was your argument and not mine. It does NOT kill...ever. I admit that it is an easy kill afterwards, but it does not kill on its own. Did the mage in the example not survive? But I do confess that its potential for nearly unlimited hit points is off the wall...


----------



## Alariel (Sep 14, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> We frown upon metagame thinking.  These dragons were thousands upon thousands of feet apart.  The scaves spanned MILES, not feet.  The individual dragons had no way of knowing what was happening to the others.  That would be metagame thinking.  The caves were so dangerous, AND the mayor of the metropolis had promised protection, so the dragons figured it to be reasonably safe down there.  Know the facts before opening your mouth. *




I read your facts, at least as far as you related them in your post about the dragonslaying party that apparently, irrefutably 'proves' that Harm is broken, and as has been said before (but you obviously chose not to address), your dragons are idiots. They have no alarms? Traps? Spies? These dragons live within miles of each other under the same metropolis, within miles of the treasure hoards of other dragons, and didn't have ways of keeping tabs on each other? They trust the mayor of said metropolis with their lives, and blissfully wear blinders while they sleep?

Maybe you should read the entry on Dragons in the MM again before you open your mouth. Better yet, try reading the entry on Intelligence in the PH. Until then, as you were so kind to point out to someone else earlier, take your 'holier-than-thou' attitude somewhere else.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 14, 2002)

mirivor said:
			
		

> * It does NOT kill...ever.*




Not to be pedantic, but this technically isn't true. If you lose more than 50 hit points, it precipitates a fort save vs massive damage.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 14, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not to be pedantic, but this technically isn't true. If you lose more than 50 hit points, it precipitates a fort save vs massive damage. *




Which, ironically would be easier to make if you started with 60 hit points than if you started with 200.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 14, 2002)

Look, I have offered three or four smoking guns that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Harm is broken.  If this was a case in a real court, the jury would bring back a guilty verdict within minuntes of starting deliberations.  I have provided in-gamke proof, common sense proof, technical proof, all the proof in the world, and none of it is refutable!

Not one of you has been able to refute even one of my points, yet you still argue.

If you people who think Harm ain't broken are too stupid to realize that the man standing over the dead girl with a smoking gun isn't the killer, then there is nothing I can do.  Live with your ignorance, I don't really give a flying f**k anymore.

I know it's broken, most other DMs know it's broken, I can't help if you refuse to believe absolute proven facts.

Ugh . . .


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 14, 2002)

> Not to be pedantic, but this technically isn't true. If you lose more than 50 hit points, it precipitates a fort save vs massive damage.




Wow. I hadn't even thought of that! That means harm (assuming it passes SR) has at LEAST at 5% chance to kill a target with over 54 hp. Wow.


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 14, 2002)

Another thought...



> Use touch spell on one target [Standard][AoO: No]




Does that dragon or big nasty even get an AoO? Sorry if I am being dense on this one.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 14, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you people who think Harm ain't broken are too stupid to realize that the man standing over the dead girl with a smoking gun isn't the killer, then there is nothing I can do.  Live with your ignorance, I don't really give a flying f**k anymore.
> *




I'm getting pretty tired of repeating this, but I'll try one last time:

Please do not level insults at people who don't agree with you.

Please don't use profanity.  Yeah, even profanity with asterisks in it.

These rules aren't that hard to remember, and they're close to the only rules we have. I'd appreciate it if you kept them in mind. If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 14, 2002)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> *
> Which, ironically would be easier to make if you started with 60 hit points than if you started with 200. *




How come? I think the save is a flat DC 15.  55 hp, yes; 60 or 200, no difference (I think.)


----------



## Thanee (Sep 14, 2002)

Your thought is correct, Piratecat.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 14, 2002)

> Does that dragon or big nasty even get an AoO? Sorry if I am being dense on this one.




The AoO would be during the approach through reach, not because of the touch attack. As Anubis states, a dragon usually cnnot kill a cleric with a single attack, however, he can easily grab him with his mouth, then fly away and breath next round. That's also assuming he hasn't already used his AoO. A smart party could lure an AoO out of the dragon with their wizard. If he moves in to touch the dragon with an Otto's Irresistable Dance (or other devestating touch spell), the dragon will almost have to AoO to survive that as well.

Of course, that just means that dragons may have a defense against harm, there are tons of creatures who are not as well prepared to automatically grapple a cleric who charges them.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 14, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I'm getting pretty tired of repeating this, but I'll try one last time:
> 
> ...




There's no problem, I just get a little frustrated with people is all.  I have offered substantial proof to my argument, enough to make Harm being broken at least a fact (even if my solution isn't absolutely the best, Harm is still broken), it's not small potatoes.

I just get frustrated when people can't see things that are put right in front of them, and I also get frustrated who can't just admit thwne they're wrong, like the people who say Harm is fine as is.

I have a short temper, honestly.  It would be one thing if I was only giving opinions, but since I'm offering real proof and fact to support my statements, I feel extremely irritated with people who still try to say I'm wrong even once I've been proven right.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 14, 2002)

If you go through life getting mad at people who refuse to believe in logic, then you're going to have a pretty frustrating life. Not all people agree that logic is the best method of argument, and not all people feel that logic alon is enough to proove a point. That's just the way of the world.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 14, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *If you go through life getting mad at people who refuse to believe in logic, then you're going to have a pretty frustrating life. Not all people agree that logic is the best method of argument, and not all people feel that logic alon is enough to proove a point. That's just the way of the world. *




I know that, but it's still frustrating.  I guess that's the problem with free will.  Tell them that the world is a globe, and they can stil argue that the Earth is flat as much as they like, no matter how much proof there is to the contrary.

I can't help myself getting mad.  I dunno, I just get frustrated easily.  I guess I have this fantasy that in the end, everyone listens to reason.  The MIddle East itself proves that wrong, yet my fantasy persists.  I'm a victim of the logic loop.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 14, 2002)

If Heal is too powerful when used by dragons, give it an hp cap that the PC are likely never to reach. Healing 250 hp sounds fine to me. Very few PCs have that kind of hp.


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 14, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I know that, but it's still frustrating.  *




Heh, I am convinced a large percentage of arguments exist because people are not interested in seeing another point-of-view, but just want to run around the mulberry of their argument over and over.

I would imagine some people are equally frustrated you don't see their "arguments".

Your best bet is to learn to enjoy the pain of biting your tongue- sometimes keeping the peace here is better then blowing your top.

I got the scars on my tongue to know. 

FD


----------



## Furn_Darkside (Sep 14, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *If Heal is too powerful when used by dragons, give it an hp cap that the PC are likely never to reach. Healing 250 hp sounds fine to me. Very few PCs have that kind of hp. *




Heh, or turn the casting time to a minute. That guaruntees it will not be cast in battles. Not that I have ever seen a problem with the spell...

FD


----------



## Marshall (Sep 14, 2002)

I'm thinking, give it the Will save for 6d8+lvl and change the damage to reduce the target to 0 HP. 

That makes it a real save-or-die spell, but maintains the feel.


----------



## jgbrowning (Sep 15, 2002)

*well*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I can't help myself getting mad.  I dunno, I just get frustrated easily.  I guess I have this fantasy that in the end, everyone listens to reason.  The MIddle East itself proves that wrong, yet my fantasy persists.  I'm a victim of the logic loop. *




i've found it tends to come down on whose definition of reason that your using.  mine or yours  


joe b.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 15, 2002)

_Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm. _

Using a touch attack does not, in itself, draw an AoO, unless your opponent has reach. I could Harm a high level fighter, and unless he has a Potion of Displacement there is nothing he can do about it.

Not every high level creature can defend against Harm. Not every high level creature is even that intelligent; take a look at the Elder Elementals. They have Intelligence 6. There is nothing an earth elemental could do to you, save use an AoO (which does damage, but is nowhere near as nasty as Harm).

_Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.
_

Not every opponent can cast Harm; usually only divine spellcasters (and a few PrCs) have access to it.

_Does that dragon or big nasty even get an AoO? _

Yup, but where's your hand? If you're grappled, you can use a weapon two sizes smaller than you, including your hand. Furthermore, a single attack from a dragon won't kill you; this is why dragons often use Haste.

_Heh, or turn the casting time to a minute. That guaruntees it will not be cast in battles. Not that I have ever seen a problem with the spell...
_

Good idea. If you've seen the beginning of PirateCat's campaign, however, you'll see why PCs sometimes need to cast Mass Heal as a standard action


----------



## Marion Poliquin (Sep 15, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> * Only monks can even come close to that level of power. *




Monks are powerful? That's a refreshing point of view.


----------



## Ace (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: [Flogging a horse with 1d4 hp left] Harm broken?  I think not.*



			
				Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *From the SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I like it. No need to change the rules IMG


----------



## Kibo (Sep 15, 2002)

Marion Poliquin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Monks are powerful? That's a refreshing point of view. *




Hey, there is at least one monk prestige class that is a harm mocking machine.  Hit with harm?  No problem.  If this little guy goes below 0, he gets an instant heal, once per day.  And the cleric may well not survive the round he cast harm in.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Sep 15, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *The MIddle East itself proves that wrong, yet my fantasy persists.  I'm a victim of the logic loop. *




I'd just like to add that the Middle East is also broken.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 15, 2002)

Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *
> I'd just like to add that the Middle East is also broken. *




Hey now! None of that political talk!  

Kibo, which prestige class is that?


----------



## Kibo (Sep 15, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey now! None of that political talk!
> 
> Kibo, which prestige class is that? *




Perfect Being or something like that from one of the dragons.  They end up with just insane saves, even for a monk.  I didn't realize it was so political.  I'll send you my copy with a self addressed stamped envelope so you can send it back after you've finished blacking it out.  &:{<-- self portrait.  Came out looking a little like teflon billy though, or al snow, but I repeat myself.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 15, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *If Heal is too powerful when used by dragons, give it an hp cap that the PC are likely never to reach. Healing 250 hp sounds fine to me. Very few PCs have that kind of hp. *




You must run a weak campaign.  In my games, almost everyone except wizards have 250 hit points by Level 20.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 15, 2002)

Marion Poliquin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Monks are powerful? That's a refreshing point of view. *




DO you play the same game the rest of us do?  Monks are quite possibly the most powerful core class in the game, second to only MAYBE the cleric.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: well*



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> *
> 
> i've found it tends to come down on whose definition of reason that your using.  mine or yours
> 
> ...




Reason, however, is based on logic.  Logic is based on existing fact to find more fact.  Based on the facts I have presented, logic tells us that as it is, Harm is, in fact, broken.

I have proven this over and over again, and not a single person here has been able to refute my evidence, nor has anyone here even tried.  I think that tells everyone something.

The fact that it brings death with no save speaks for itself in all honesty.  Yet no one listens.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 15, 2002)

What kind of backup do you have for your Monk ideas Anubis? I've seen some nice monks, but generally they seem to be more capable of surviving than actually killing their enemies.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: well*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> The fact that it brings death with no save speaks for itself in all honesty.  Yet no one listens. *




Anubis, martyrdom doesn't become you, and that statement is far from accurate. Everyone is listening; they just don't necessarily agree. Two different things.  And lots of people agree that harm should be house ruled, myself included. So why keep hammering it home?

In any event, I think this thread is nearing the end of its life. Please don't let it evolve into a "you said/I said" bickering and complaining match.


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 15, 2002)

> You must run a weak campaign. In my games, almost everyone except wizards have 250 hit points by Level 20.




Whow! Truly? Your rogues have 250 hp at level 20?! Perhaps my definitions of weak are sorely off (which is very possible) Exactly how do you manage 250 hp by level 20 using d6s and d8s? I mean even with a Con of 20 thats still 7.5 hp per level die roll .

I'm truly curious.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 15, 2002)

_You must run a weak campaign. In my games, almost everyone except wizards have 250 hit points by Level 20._

I use 25 to 30 point buy. Bracers of Health (they were errata'd) have been used. No one has broken 250 hp, yet. About the only way that can happen: a raging dwarven barbarian/psychic warrior with Improved Vigor (which has also been errata'd) and Overpowered Overpowered Fortified Animal Affinity to boost Con. IMC Animal Affinity gives an enhancement bonus, but if you let it stack with the Endurance spell you get even more hp. _Maybe_ you'll break 250 hp that way, but only while the Vigor and rage last.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 15, 2002)

_You must run a weak campaign. In my games, almost everyone except wizards have 250 hit points by Level 20._

Well, my 18th level character has... 80 hps... gotta do something about that soon, I suppose! 

Ok, she's an arcane trickster and therefore does not really qualify for not being a wizard.

I'm not sure how many hps our paladin has, should be above 200, though. Our cleric and monk definitely have less than 200.

Sure with a multiple empowered endurance and empowered tenser's transformation, even my trickster could break the 250 mark (including temporary hps) on a lucky day.

Is the 250 hps figure including temporary buffs?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Sep 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Anubis_
> *DO you play the same game the rest of us do?  Monks are quite possibly the most powerful core class in the game, second to only MAYBE the cleric. *




Hmmm... I actually know very few people that do believe that the monk is one of the more powerful classes out there.

Sure, the monk really looks powerful on the first glance, but effectively, they tend to be rather weak in our games at least, definitely no match for the clerics or wizards.

But I guess this is not really the point of discussion in this thread.

About harm and your arguments, Anubis, I want to say one thing.

You can never really prove that harm is broken, simply because there is no fixed (i.e. mathematically sound) definition of what broken means.

In general, I absolutely agree, tho, that harm is too powerful for its level, as most others seem to do.

Some people, however, do think the spell is ok and balanced by other factors (altho, they surely also admit, that the spell is or at least can be extremely powerful). Their perception of broken-ness is just very different and therefore you'll never come to an agreement (getting back to the point, where broken is not well defined) with them.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 15, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *This was actually my first idea, but it was quickly pointed out to me that even at half damage, it is more effective than every other damaging spell out there, and more powerful than all other spells of a relative level, because it could still potentially do hundreds or thousands of points of damage.*




It *could* - but in most cases it *won't*, and in many cases it will do a lot less than a damaging spell of comparable level.  Technically, a blade barrier cast by a 13th level caster can potentially do up to 16900d6 of damage per creature (130 minutes x 10 rounds/minute x 13d6/round), but it's not likely to.  That's more than harm is going to do unless you get into the _really_ epic monsters...

Save-for-half keeps harm as a viable tactic but removes the 'instakill' nature of it - a dragon with half its hit points is a lot harder to take down before its next action than a dragon with 1d4, and it permits you to have viable high-level characters & monsters that haven't devoted all of their resources to protecting themselves from harm spells.

J


----------



## Al (Sep 15, 2002)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It *could* - but in most cases it *won't*, and in many cases it will do a lot less than a damaging spell of comparable level.  Technically, a blade barrier cast by a 13th level caster can potentially do up to 16900d6 of damage per creature (130 minutes x 10 rounds/minute x 13d6/round), but it's not likely to.  That's more than harm is going to do unless you get into the really epic monsters...
> 
> ...




I still dislike save-for-half.  This effectively means that two Harms and you're toast, etc. etc. etc.

This cannot be said for any other spell in the game.  Sure, two Meteor Swarms are going to hurt, but it's not going to *guarantee* that you're all but dead.  Bear in mind that it terms of sheer damage, your best bet is probably a Maximised Blade Barrier for 120 damage: this allows a Reflex save for nothing.  The best save-for-half damage spell is probably a Double Empowered Cone of Cold, pitching in at save for 15d6 (average around 50).  With two saves for half, you'll be taking in the region of 100 damage, unlikely to kill you at top-level.  Two Meteor Swarms, allowing no save, is going to weigh in at 160 damage: probably enough to take out a wizard or rogue, but falling far short of a heavy tank fighter, who can have upwards of 300.

So even at save-for-half, it's a bit too lethal for 6th level.  Compare with Disintegrate, which allows a save-for-5d6.  It's slightly different, but it's the only instakill save-partial effect at this level, so I'm afraid that's the best equivalency I can make.  I will freely admit it's more dangerous, so save for 6d8+level sounds fair to me by means of compromise.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 15, 2002)

_Is the 250 hps figure including temporary buffs?
_

Um. no. If lots of characters raise their hp over 250 with buffs (I'm not including temp hp like Vigor or Vampiric Touch, BTW), then maybe the cap needs to be raised to 300 or something like that. IME I don't see characters walking around with 250 hp, even with Endurance.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 15, 2002)

Actually the question about temporary buffs was meant for Anubis. He said this, right?

_You must run a weak campaign. In my games, almost everyone except wizards have 250 hit points by Level 20._

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kraedin (Sep 16, 2002)

About the 250 hitpoint thing:  it's not that hard.

20th level dwarf barbarian starting with 20 con.
+5 con for level advancement.
+5 con from tome of bodily health +5.
+6 con from periapt of health.
+6 con from barbarian rage.

That's a con of 42, for a +16 hp per level.

So 12 hitpoints for first level, 6.5 for 2-19th level, + 16 * 20 hitpoints for con bonus gives 455.5 hitpoints.

Throw in an Incantatrix casting a 8x empowered endurance (using a lesser rod of empowerment) throws another 11.5 con on the top, for 562 hitpoints.

Now, that's an extreme example, but you only have to do half as good to get 250.

EDIT: Corrected a rules mistake.  (Was using multiple metamagic rods on the same spell.)


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 16, 2002)

First: periapt of health and endurance do not stack. Second: maximize does not automatically increase the empowered portions of the spell. Third: the question wasn't about barbarians getting lots of hit points, it was about rogues and clerics.


----------



## Kraedin (Sep 16, 2002)

First: I accounted for that.  Endurance is giving a +19 bonus, in actuality, but obvously that doesn't stack with the periapt.
Second: I'm not calculating it as such.  It's 5 (maximized portion) + (2.5+1) (normally rolled, per empowerment rules) * (.5 * 8 ) (multiple empowerment.)
Third: A +19 bonus to con gives a rogue with a base 12 con 272.5 hitpoints, so endurance works just fine for rogues and clerics.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 16, 2002)

_About the 250 hitpoint thing: it's not that hard.

20th level dwarf barbarian starting with 20 con._

You started with 20 Con? Did the DM see the dice roll 18, since the chance of that happening is about 3%? Did you use really high point buy?

_+5 con for level advancement._

That's perfectly possible, but your attack bonus will suffer.

_+5 con from tome of bodily health +5._

You happened to find one?

_+6 con from periapt of health._

Sure.

_+6 con from barbarian rage._

Sure, although that's a temporary buff.

_That's a con of 42, for a +16 hp per level._

_Throw in an Incantatrix casting a 8x empowered maximized endurance (using a lesser rod of empowerment and a lesser rod of maximization) throws another 13 con on the top, for 515.5 hitpoints.
_

Those rods are expensive and very hard to find, and I'm not even sure you can use more than one at a time, the incantrix is not balanced (IMO, YMMV, of course), and, as has already been pointed out, Endurance doesn't stack with Bracers of Health.


----------



## Kraedin (Sep 16, 2002)

What part of "extreme example" isn't clear?

Lesser metamagic rods are hardly expensive for 20th level characters.  16,200 for the empowerment, 27,200 for the maximize, versus the 760,000 gp expected of a 20th level character.

You're right about the feat rods, though, only one at a time.  Reduce the endurance bonus by 2.5.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok, we all know that even a 20th level wizard CAN have 250 hit points. The question was more about regular chars, not uber CON monsters! Altho, it might be, that in Anubis' games everyone likes to max out CON, who am I to know. *shrug* I (and I suppose others as well) was just curious how he got the figure of 250+ hps for everyone except wizards in all his games.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Anubis (Sep 16, 2002)

In my games, Constitution usually gets the second highest score, except for Clerics, Monks, and Paladins, where it's usually the third highest.

Also, my players invest in items that enhance Constitution as early as possible to give the most hit points.

Especially for Wizards, this is QUITE in-character, considering how smart they're supposed to be.

A common Level 20 Wizard could get about 3 hit points per die, have a 14 Constitution, +6 enhancement, and also get a Tome of Bodily Health.

This is 150 MINIMUM for most people who roll better than crap.  There are usually more items involved, such as a Vest of False Life, and Toughness.  (I have House Ruled Toughness a bit, but not enough to really add too many hit points.)

Anyway, Fighters usually have over 300 at this point.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 16, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, Fighters usually have over 300 at this point. *




Con 28 and above-average rolls?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 16, 2002)

Could you go into a little more detail, Anubis?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that Harm should be errata'd, house ruled, or nerfed. I'm somewhat confused about how you get such high Con scores. With dice rolling, 4d6, don't drop the lowest or 1s, the average stat is 13.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 16, 2002)

I haven't read through this entire thread, just thought I'd run mine past you guys.

<full metal jacket>
THIS IS MY HOUSE RULE FOR HARM.  THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE
</full metal jacket>

Fort save applies.  Those who succeed takes 6d8+level in damage, minimum of 4 hit points.

This keeps it in line with the inflict spells.  I *know* that it isn't part of the cure chain, but it has a symmetry that I like.  Plus it places it in power cleanly between SLay Living and Destruction.


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 16, 2002)

My apologies. I had no intention of highjacking the thread.  

Thank you Anubis for answering my question though. 

Back on to the harm discussion.


----------



## hong (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm partial to 1d8 per caster level, no save.


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 16, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I still dislike save-for-half.  This effectively means that two Harms and you're toast, etc. etc. etc. *




Um...no?

I have 500 hit points, I save, I go to 250.  I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 125.  I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 63...

Harm in both versions does damage based on your current hp, not your maximum hp.

J


----------



## Anubis (Sep 16, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *I haven't read through this entire thread, just thought I'd run mine past you guys.
> 
> <full metal jacket>
> THIS IS MY HOUSE RULE FOR HARM.  THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE
> ...




There are three reasons this does not work.

1) Harm and Heal go together, and since they have opposite effects on Undead, giving Harm a Fort save means neither spell can effect Undead because they are immune to things requiring a Fort save unless it can also damage objects, which this can't.  If a save applies, it MUST be a Will save.

2) 6d8+level damage on save makes it more powerful after a save than Destruction, which is a level higher.

3) There is NO precedent ANYWHERE in the rules that cap the hit points remaining after a save, meaning "minimum of 4 hit points after damage" has no place in the rules.

If we're gonna fix this, we need to do it by the book.  Seriously, whether they officially change it or not, if we wanna fix it, we should AT LEAST come up with something similar to what they would officially change it to.

Although I believe I have proven Harm to be broken, fixing it is indeed the hard part.  I'm partial to either a flat 6d6 damage, which I am second-guessing because that makes it more powerful on save than Disintegrate, or a flat 3d8 + 1/2 caster level in damage, which would keep it in line with other cure/inflict spells.  (They all do 1d8+level damage, per spell level, half that on save.  Harm does considerably more with a regular hit, and thus should do less on a save.)


----------



## Anubis (Sep 16, 2002)

Thanee said:
			
		

> *
> Hmmm... I actually know very few people that do believe that the monk is one of the more powerful classes out there.
> 
> Sure, the monk really looks powerful on the first glance, but effectively, they tend to be rather weak in our games at least, definitely no match for the clerics or wizards.
> *




Let's see . . . More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class once you gain more levels . . . Three good saves . . . A whole lot of nifty special abilities . . . Hmmm . . . I can't see anything NOT powerful about this class.

If you are talking about Ki Strike being an awful ability, well, that's what the Amulet of Mighty Fists is for, not to mention monk weapons.  Find something that gives other classes an upper-hand.  Try, at least.  There is nothing.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> *
> About harm and your arguments, Anubis, I want to say one thing.
> 
> You can never really prove that harm is broken, simply because there is no fixed (i.e. mathematically sound) definition of what broken means.
> *




Actually, there is.  Just take a look at the spell guidelines in the DMG.  One of them says to compare a spell to the average spell of the same level, as well as spells of other levels.  If it seems about as powerful, then it's okay.  This one alone breaks Harm, because it outperforms every other core spell in the game!

As for mathematically sounds, not counting random and somewhat rare outside factors such as difficult SR and such, Harm has about a 95% change to take ANY enemy down to up to 4 hit points UNLIMITED and WITHOUT A SAVE, something that NO other spell in the game does.

I think that is enough.  I'm not just talking about opinions here, I'm talking about things that are backed up by the guidelines given in the DMG.



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> *
> In general, I absolutely agree, tho, that harm is too powerful for its level, as most others seem to do.
> 
> Some people, however, do think the spell is ok and balanced by other factors (altho, they surely also admit, that the spell is or at least can be extremely powerful). Their perception of broken-ness is just very different and therefore you'll never come to an agreement (getting back to the point, where broken is not well defined) with them.
> ...




That's probably true.  At this point, I don't really care anymore.  I know it's broken, so I'll just be content to snicker at those who don't believe it, while playing with the balanced version in my game.


----------



## drnuncheon (Sep 16, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Let's see . . . More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class once you gain more levels . . . Three good saves . . . A whole lot of nifty special abilities . . . Hmmm . . . I can't see anything NOT powerful about this class.*




Just a quick glance at the DMG's sample NPCs...

Monk: +18/15/12/9/6 (1d20+3), AC 34, hp 133
Barbarian: +32/27/22/17 (1d12+11), AC 29, hp 175
Fighter: +33/28/23/18 (1d10+14), AC 34, hp 175 

Which one's super powerful again?  C'mon, the NPC rogue has a better chance to hit than the sample monk.

J


----------



## Shalewind (Sep 16, 2002)

Not to be rude guys but this is the harm thread. (I'm guilty of off topic stuff too) But let's drop or move the monk stuff eh?



> I'm partial to either a flat 6d6 damage, which I am second-guessing because that makes it more powerful on save than Disintegrate, or a flat 3d8 + 1/2 caster level in damage, which would keep it in line with other cure/inflict spells. (They all do 1d8+level damage, per spell level, half that on save. Harm does considerably more with a regular hit, and thus should do less on a save.)




Flat damage before or after save?


----------



## Kraedin (Sep 16, 2002)

> More damage than any other class once you gain more levels




I assume you mean with unarmed strikes, i.e, the d20 damage.

Alright.

Assuming the monk puts a 14 in strength to begin, and buys a _girdle of giant's strength_ +6, he has a 20 strength, for a +5 strength bonus to damage.  Add the _amulet of mighty fists_ +5, you get a +5 enhancment bonus to damage.  Is there anything else to pile on?  Monks aren't my strong point.  Anyway, that gives 10.5 base + 5 strength + 5 enhancment for 20.5 average damage per blow, or 41 on a critical hit, with a 19-20/x2 threat range.  It should be noted that the monk, even though he has more attacks per round than the fighter, will, on average, hit fewer times, because of his 25% worse BAB.

Okay, now the fighter.  Assuming the fighter put a 16 into strength to begin (fighters don't have to worry about nearly as many stats as monks, so we can have a higher strength score), and buys a _belt of giant strength_ +6, puts 4 of his 5 attribute points in strength, and buys a +5 _icy burst flaming burst keen falchion_, does 5 base + 12 strength + 5 enhancment + 2.5 fire + 2.5 frost for 27 damage, or 43 on a critical hit, with a 11-20/x2 threat range.

Now the wizard.  The wizard has Spell Focus (Transmuation), Greater Spell Focus (Transmutation) Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration and Heighten.

The wizard starts with 18 int (I play 25 point buy and this is easy to do), puts all of his level bonuses into int, gets a tome of int +5, and a headband of int +6, for 34 int.  He also casts an _empowered empowered empowered empowered fox's cunning_ on himself, using a _lesser rod of empowerment_, for an average +10.5 to int that does not stack with the _headband_ That leaves his int at a healthy 38.

He Heightens a _flesh to stone_ to 9th level, and casts it at your monk.  DC 39, with a +24 bonus to beat spell resistance, vs your save of 12 base + 5 _cloak of resistance_ + 5 constitution bonus.  The monk needs a 17+ to save, while the wizard only needs a 6 or higher to beat SR.  Doesn't look so good for mr.monk.

Who's more damaging again?


----------



## Al (Sep 16, 2002)

A few general comments:



> I have 500 hit points, I save, I go to 250. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 125. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 63...




My mistake.  I guess I misinterpreted it.  By this ruling, save-for-half sounds fine.

On the 250hp thing:

I find this difficult to believe: that *most* of your characters can have greater than 250hps.  Fair enough, heavy tanks may have upwards of 300, but an average wizard?  Assuming average hit point rolls, giving 51.5hps, he'd need a Con bonus of +10 to exceed 250hps.  So assuming you wish it up 5 points and have a +6 item, you'd need a Constitution of 19...hmmm, so either your wizard bumps his Con as levelling boosts (er...not likely) or he's a dwarf and put a 17 score in Con (er...also not likely).  We can discuss 8xEmpowered Endurance Incantatrices, but are these standard in your game?



> 1) Harm and Heal go together, and since they have opposite effects on Undead, giving Harm a Fort save means neither spell can effect Undead because they are immune to things requiring a Fort save unless it can also damage objects, which this can't. If a save applies, it MUST be a Will save.




Such is true.  Will saves also bring it in line with the Inflict Wounds family.



> 6d8+level damage on save makes it more powerful after a save than Destruction, which is a level higher.




Now this is unfair.  You're assuming that Harm's full effect is comparable to Destruction.  Clearly it isn't: Harm requires a touch attack, and reduces the victim to d4hps.  Destruction require no touch, destroys the victim completely and means that they can't be restored short of 9th level magic.  Hardly an equivalence.  You can assume that Harm is similar to a death effect, but remember it actually isn't.



> Especially for Wizards, this is QUITE in-character, considering how smart they're supposed to be.




I'm sorry, but this is the worst argument I've seen in a long time.  So, wizards are smart in character, so they managed to choose how healthy they are?  In your game, they are *so* smart they can manipulate themselves genetically?  Or do they simply workout every day, which was *highly* irregular in a fantasy/medieval setting.



> This is 150 MINIMUM for most people who roll better than crap




By rolling better than crap, you mean 20% better than average; and his MINIMUM still falls short by 100hps of the 250 you cited earlier.

As for the monk...at high levels, he can be taken out by virtually any other class.

Fighters, paladins, rangers and barbarians can simply take him out through sheer assault power.
Clerics and Druids can buff and bash (Druid + Shapechange=...)
Wizard and Sorcerers...Time Stop.

Indeed, the only classes who would struggle are the rogue and bard.  What was that about power?


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Sep 16, 2002)

Will Save for half of current HP total is what I use.

Monk's are "survivors".  That's about the only comment I'll make on that.

I'm usually pretty easy on HP rolls.  Once we did an arena style game at 16th level and one guy created a dwarven barbarian with a staggering amount of HP (it was 300+).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 17, 2002)

Monks need to take Weapon Finesse for high attack bonus and high AC. Strength is good if you need to use your wepaons all the time. IMO monks have too low an attack bonus and do too much damage.

Now, onto the Harm spell.

It's BOO ROE KEN! (That's just my opinion, of course.) If the DM has to engineer *every* encounter to avoid Harm, giving every fighter a Potion of Displacement and a cleric-bane sword, giving every colossal scorption the fiendish template (for SR), always allowing giants to attack from range, etc., then the problem is the spell, not the DM.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

Kraedin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I assume you mean with unarmed strikes, i.e, the d20 damage.
> 
> ...




Do you always compare power by comparing two characters of equal level?  If so, it's no wonder you think the monk is weak.  In order to determine the power of a character, you must take the power of that character in relation to an entire party against a specific CR.

When going one-on-one, the wizard will obliterate all other classes once you get to higher levels.  That's one-on-one with PC classes, however, which is not even A focus of the game, much less THE focus of the game.

UK and I learned long ago that you can't compare power based on one-on-one PC duels.  You would be wise to realize the same thing.


----------



## James McMurray (Sep 17, 2002)

Ok, so give us an explanation of how the monk is more powerful without using a one-on-one duel please.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 17, 2002)

Undead are not immune to all FOrt saves.  If it is a fort save that applies to undead specifically or affects the body itself, they use a Cha bonus instead of Con.

Good point about the inflict spells though, maybe I will make it will.

Also, the minimun of four is there to prevent possible wonkiness - as in a creature dies if they make the save, but lives if they fail.  There are no other spells like it - but neither are there any spells like harm.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 17, 2002)

The monk example is a bit weak, IMO. You're better off getting Bracers of Striking (free) +1 with flaming, etc, and then get a GMW put on it. In fact, the fighter would be better off getting a +1 shock speed bastard sword, then cast GMW on it. Base 1d20 is a heck of a lot better than base 1d10.

Monks tend to have high touch ACs, so they might survive a Harm. However, most monsters in the book have terrible touch ACs, especially at high level. It's not fair for every high level creature to have to take a template that gives deflection bonuses to survive.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Not proof or anything, but I've noticed a number of NWN severs using house rule scripts for Harm (save for half damage) based on player feedback.  From what I understand, it isn't actually a touch spell in NWN so it's even more powerful there 

Anyway, I allow a Will save for half damage as my players and I reached an easy consenus on that - they didn't like the idea of being so easily mortally wounded.

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> *Ok, so give us an explanation of how the monk is more powerful without using a one-on-one duel please. *




More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class . . . Evasion and Improved Evasion . . . Five attacks instead of four . . . Immune to poison and most diseases . . . SR . . . Damage reduction . . . They don't age . . . The best saves in the game . . . Best speed in the game . . . Need I go on?


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

But for some reason in ACTUAL gameplay all the monk players I've seen SUCK 

Weird I know, but that's been my experience.  Maybe it's just another case of something looking better on paper than it actually is.

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> The monk example is a bit weak, IMO. You're better off getting Bracers of Striking (free) +1 with flaming, etc, and then get a GMW put on it. In fact, the fighter would be better off getting a +1 shock speed bastard sword, then cast GMW on it. Base 1d20 is a heck of a lot better than base 1d10.
> *




What the heck are Bracers of Striking?

Is that from Forgotten Realms?  If so, we need to ignore it, because EVERYTHING in Forgotten Realms is broken.

I'm going on the core rules and the class books.  You can't judge the core classes any other way.  Using Forgotten Realms in ANY example is a bad idea.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *
> Undead are not immune to all FOrt saves.  If it is a fort save that applies to undead specifically or affects the body itself, they use a Cha bonus instead of Con.
> *




That's what I said.  Unless it effects objects, Undead are immune.


Also, the minimun of four is there to prevent possible wonkiness - as in a creature dies if they make the save, but lives if they fail.  There are no other spells like it - but neither are there any spells like harm. [/B][/QUOTE]


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> But for some reason in ACTUAL gameplay all the monk players I've seen SUCK
> *




That just means your players don't know how to play monks.



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Weird I know, but that's been my experience.  Maybe it's just another case of something looking better on paper than it actually is.
> *




It's a great class, I've seen the destruction.  I've DONE the destruction.  Monk is a powerful class, but it is also a VERY COMPLEX class.  It takes a lot of skill to play a monk correctly.  That's actually where the balance is.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

After more careful consideration, I have found an even more perfect fix for Harm.  Let's just make it clear right now that Harm is effectively an instant-death spell as it stands right now.  Few beings ever survive after being hit by Harm, so although it's not instant death by default, it is not only as effective, but actually MORE effective than instant death, solely because it gives *no save*, unlike actual instant-death spells.  The lack of a saving throw is what breaks Harm, plain and simple.  No amount of debate can change that.

Even by the DMG's standards, Harm is broken.  This is a spell that can potentially do thousands of points of damage and yet gives *no save*.  There is not a single other spell in the entire game, of any level, that can match the damage potential of Harm.  Even Epic Spells fail to stand up to the mighty Harm.  This all proves that Harm IS, in FACT, broken as-is.

Here is my solution.

*Harm*
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

_Harm_ charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points.  The subject can negate the damage with a successful Will saving throw.

If used on an undead creature, _Harm_ acts like _Heal_.

There, it's powerful, but not TOO powerful.  It still overpowers Slay Living, but it doesn't overpower Destruction.  Perfect balance, it's now an all-or-nothing spell.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That just means your players don't know how to play monks.
> 
> ...




Not just my players but also by observing other groups and reading other people's gaming insights here.  But, obviously you've had different experiences so your opinion is different. 

IceBear


----------



## Al (Sep 17, 2002)

> Will negates




???



> It still overpowers Slay Living




Um...how?  Let's see: Slay Living kills the target on a failed save and wounds them for 3d6+level on a successful save.  The latest version of Harm reduces them to d4 hit points on a failed save and does squit on a successful save.  How, exactly, do this overpower Slay Living?



> More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class . . . Evasion and Improved Evasion . . . Five attacks instead of four . . . Immune to poison and most diseases . . . SR . . . Damage reduction . . . They don't age . . . The best saves in the game . . . Best speed in the game . . . Need I go on?




Okay.

More attacks: Well, okay.  But this doesn't matter, as number of attacks is simply a 'sub-set' of 'dish out damage'.

More damage: Erm, no.  Take the DMG standard characters.  
At 1st level, fighter has +5 to hit and does d10+2 damage.  The monk has +2 to hit and does d6+2.  Even if the monk flurries, the fighter deals out better average damage against an opponent with an AC of better than 10.  
At 10th level, the fighter has +15/+10 to hit and does d10+6 damage to the monk's +9/+6/+3 and d10+2 damage.  Even if the monk flurries, the fighter does more damage against an opponent *whatever it's AC*, assuming the fighter uses Power Attack.  For an opponent with an AC better than 11, the fighter needn't even use Power Attack.  
At 20th level, the fighter has +33/+28/+23/+18 to hit, doing d10+14 damage.  The monk has +18/+15/+12/+9/+6, doing d20+3 damage.  In order for the monk to inflict more damage, the opponent needs to have an AC worse than 10, he must flurry and the fighter must not Power Attack.

Evasion and Improved Evasion: Granted.

Five attacks instead of four: Covered.

Immune to poison and most diseases: Okay.

SR: Fair enough.

Damage reduction: Sure- against all those CR 20 beasties that don't have the equivalent of +1 weapons...

They don't age: How long are your campaigns?  I can't see this actually being of use.

Best saves: Take the DMG standard.  Save sum=+48.  Cleric has +49, druid has +50, paladin has +54.  You were saying?

Best speed in the game: Er, big deal?  Fly gives you a speed equal to that of the monk, and is virtually a staple at high level.

Need I go on: Yes.  You could actually playtest them.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> ???
> 
> Um...how?  Let's see: Slay Living kills the target on a failed save and wounds them for 3d6+level on a successful save.  The latest version of Harm reduces them to d4 hit points on a failed save and does squit on a successful save.  How, exactly, do this overpower Slay Living?
> *




Hmmm . . . You have a point there . . . Hey, finding the fix is difficult!  It's easy to see that Harm is broken, but finding the fix is much more difficult!

Basically, half damage doesn't work because then the spell still deals LOADS of damage even upon a successful save, which would make it overpower Slay Living AND Destruction.  A set amount of damage doesn't work because then the spell could deal more damage after a save than before it against creatures with less hit points.

Obviously, the solution must be a function of either the creature's hit points (which on a save means the stronger the creature is, the more damage it takes, which is silly) or a function of caster level (finding the function is the hard part).  Wait a sec . . . I got it!

I'll post again the big solution in a moment!  First to refute your arguments . . .



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> Okay.
> 
> More attacks: Well, okay.  But this doesn't matter, as number of attacks is simply a 'sub-set' of 'dish out damage'.
> ...




Let's not.  The DMG characters, first off, are NPCs, not PCs, and regardless of that fact, the DMG characters are pathetic.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> At 1st level, fighter has +5 to hit and does d10+2 damage.  The monk has +2 to hit and does d6+2.  Even if the monk flurries, the fighter deals out better average damage against an opponent with an AC of better than 10.
> *




We're talking about total potential, not damage at a specific level.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> At 10th level, the fighter has +15/+10 to hit and does d10+6 damage to the monk's +9/+6/+3 and d10+2 damage.  Even if the monk flurries, the fighter does more damage against an opponent *whatever it's AC*, assuming the fighter uses Power Attack.
> *




My monks don't put feats into the kama.  Instead, I would rather get Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus with Unarmed Strike, and also get a Belt of Giant Strength for damage.  By Level 10, my monk has +2 to Strength, Dexterity, AND Wisdom.  On top of that, my monks are human and have a bonus feat.  Instead of the Dodge chain of feats, I would be taking better combat feats until higher levels, and THEN I might take Dodge to open up Epic Dodge later.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> For an opponent with an AC better than 11, the fighter needn't even use Power Attack.
> At 20th level, the fighter has +33/+28/+23/+18 to hit, doing d10+14 damage.  The monk has +18/+15/+12/+9/+6, doing d20+3 damage.  In order for the monk to inflict more damage, the opponent needs to have an AC worse than 10, he must flurry and the fighter must not Power Attack.
> *




This is a weak monk.  At Level 20, mine will have +6 to Strength, Dexterity, AND Wisdom, a +5 inherent bonus to Dexterity and Wisdom, and an Amulet of Might Fists +5, plus other goodies.  So my monk would have, with base stats as in the DMG:

Str 20, Dex 27, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 28, Cha 8.

That gives me a total of +29/+26/+23/+20/+17, and I'll be doing 1d20+10 points of damage per hit.  That not counting other fun stuff I could do.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> They don't age: How long are your campaigns?  I can't see this actually being of use.
> *




My campaigns can be generational at times, so this does have an effect.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> Best saves: Take the DMG standard.  Save sum=+48.  Cleric has +49, druid has +50, paladin has +54.  You were saying?
> *




Again, crappy monk.  First off, I would spend a little bit on a Cloak of Resistance +5, considering they're so cheap.  My saves would be Fort +21, Ref +25, Will +26, giving me a total of +72.  Only a paladin with very high Charisma could beat that, and even then not by much, because I have all good saves and the paladin does not.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> Best speed in the game: Er, big deal?  Fly gives you a speed equal to that of the monk, and is virtually a staple at high level.
> *




A staple?  Since when?  Maybe one Mass Fly for creatures out of reach, but a staple?  I think not.  There are much better spells at those levels, and a thing called archers along with the fact that flyers can't usually hit you any better than you can hit them, except for dragons and some.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *
> Need I go on: Yes.  You could actually playtest them.
> *




Been there, done that, got the kill count.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

I finally found it!  The perfect solution for fixing Harm!  Here you go!

*Harm*
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

_Harm_ charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1% of its current hit points (rounded up).  Upon a successful save, the subject instead takes an amount of damage equal to 1% of it's current hit points per caster level (up to 20%, rounded down).

If used on an undead creature, _Harm_ acts like _Heal_.

Sound good?  Now the spell still does tremendous damage on a failed save, the damage upon a successful save is a function of the caster level, AND the spell can't do more damage on a successful save than on a failed save.  The spell thus retains its FULL utility, yet is no longer broken!

How's THAT?!


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Listen, give it time and there'll be someone here who'll say how they dominated play as a 20th level rogue, a 20th level wizard, a 20th level cleric, etc.

I go with the _general_ consenus on whether or not something is too powerful.  If in _your_ campaign you're kicking ass with a monk, good for you, but the general feeling is that the monk isn't overpowered.

Anyway, we've never agreed on anything (other than harm is broken) and I don't expect so now, so it's another agree to disagree 

IceBear


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I finally found it!  The perfect solution for fixing Harm!  Here you go!
> 
> Harm
> Necromancy
> ...




I think it makes it too weak, as now you have to hit and make a save and if the save is successful you'll do squat for damage - a 15th level cleric hitting something with 100hp will do 15 points of damage on a successful save.

I'm leaving it as a Will save for 1/2 as it goes along the lines of the cure/inflict spells and keeps harm as something to be feared (which is should be).

IceBear


----------



## shilsen (Sep 17, 2002)

I was originally thinking of using the Will save for half damage, but I don't like the fact that this still leaves no cap on the spell. What I'll probably end up using is no save, but give it a damage of 10 hp/lvl, capping at 200. And if the damage is high enough to kill the recipient, it survives with 1d4 hp. 

This, IMO, balances nicely against Slay Living and Destruction. While Harm won't kill automatically, it will give the user a sure-fire way to cause damage. So it becomes a tactical choice - do I use Slay Living, have to make a touch attack, maybe get lucky and kill the enemy, and allow it a save for low damage? Or do I use Harm, where I know it won't kill it, but definitely cause some serious damage. Works for me.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Yeah, I might introduce a cap as well if it still ends up being overpowered.  In my campaigns, no one tends to have a lot of hitpoints so a cap isn't needed right now.  I'm taking a wait and see approach.

I think the main reason many people don't use a cap is because of trying to keep the new harm symmetrical with heal.  If there is a cap on the amount of damage you can inflict, there should be a cap on the amount you can heal.

IceBear


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 17, 2002)

_What the heck are Bracers of Striking?

Is that from Forgotten Realms? If so, we need to ignore it, because EVERYTHING in Forgotten Realms is broken.
_

Are you telling me that Sword & Fist isn't broken? Paying for three weapons with an Amulet of Mighty Fists is fair? *Three* weapons? S & F was poorly done. Just look at the Halfling Outrider and tell me if it were balanced or not.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Listen, give it time and there'll be someone here who'll say how they dominated play as a 20th level rogue, a 20th level wizard, a 20th level cleric, etc.
> 
> I go with the general consenus on whether or not something is too powerful.  If in your campaign you're kicking ass with a monk, good for you, but the general feeling is that the monk isn't overpowered.
> 
> ...




WHOA!  Hold it!

Hey, I NEVER said the monk was OVERPOWERED . . . I merely stated that it was generally the most powerful of the core classes . . .

I do not feel that the monk is overpowered, nor is the monk broken.  Sorry if that's how it sounded.

I was merely stating that the cleric and monk were the two most powerful of the core classes, outperforming most all of the others.  That's ALL.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think it makes it too weak, as now you have to hit and make a save and if the save is successful you'll do squat for damage - a 15th level cleric hitting something with 100hp will do 15 points of damage on a successful save.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, I was under the impression that a successful saving throw was SUPPOSED to make the spell do far less.

Take Slay Living, which kills on a failed save, and does barely 20 damage on a successful save.  Or Destruction, which kills on a failed save but does an average of 35 damage on a successful save.  Both of these do squat for damage on a successful save.  Why should Harm be different?

The problem with giving Harm a save for half is that it can STILL do MORE damage than any other spell in the game at the mid-level range!  At Level 15, Delayed Blast Fireball will do 52.5 damage on a FAILED save, half that on a successful save.  Against something with 100 hit points, your Harm (which is 6th-level and not 7th-level, and is Divine, not Arcane) does a minimum of 96 damage on a failed save and 50 on a successful save!

You gotta think about balance.  Harm is powerful, just like many other spells.  Making your save, however, is SUPPOSED to considerably weaken the damage.

Make it a save for half, and it STILL outperforms every other spell in the game!


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> Are you telling me that Sword & Fist isn't broken? Paying for three weapons with an Amulet of Mighty Fists is fair? Three weapons?
> *




Let's see, you pay the cost of three weapons and get only ONE in return . . . If you ask me, it may be OVERBALANCED!  Certainl;y not broken!



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *
> S & F was poorly done. Just look at the Halfling Outrider and tell me if it were balanced or not.
> *




Um . . . Halfling Outrider sucks . . . That's a very poor example . . . Try using a powerful class like Weapon Master . . . And yes, it's balanced . . . Prestige Classes are SUPPOSED to be powerful!


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

Does anyone hear what I'm saying about Harm?  Just make it do 1% per caster level (maximum 20%) of the victims current hit points in damage on a successful save!  Just make sure the creature is taken to 1% on a failed save . . .

Can anyone give a single reason why that doesn't balance perfectly?  No?  Thought not . . .


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

I did - it makes Harm too weak compared to Slay Living

Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack.  If you fail the save you die, if you make the save you take damage.

Your harm would require a touch attack (so you have to get up close an personal).  If you fail the save you're near dead, but if you make the save you take laughable damage.  A 20th level caster hitting someone with 100hp will only do 20hp of damage. It's close to balanced, but it's still too weak if the save is made.  Sure, it works better the more hitpoints the monsters have, but not all monsters are going to have 300+ hitpoints.

IceBear


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 17, 2002)

_Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack. _

It's a melee touch attack.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Sorry, sorry, I was thinking of Finger of Death (which is a higher level and is ok) - been awhile since anyone cast any high level spells so I got them mixed up.

Anyway, I don't like 1% per caster level as it makes the spell too weak against monsters with lower hitpoints.  It might be close to a solution, but I'd go with Slay Living if the monster had less than 200hp rather than this version of harm.  Maybe 2% per level?

Edit: I'm not a big fan of having to calculate percentages in the middle of combat (Ok, the monster has 143hp and loses 15% of his hitpoints - not as easy to determine than he takes 141 points of damage on a failed save and 70 on a successful), but in the case of harm I might make an exception.

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> I did - it makes Harm too weak compared to Slay Living
> *




The only problem with that statement is that . . . IT DOESN'T.  It does comparable damage on a failed save (being left with that few hit points is the same as death in 99% of ALL circumstances where the spell will be used), and it still does reasonable damage on a successful save.

Slay Living is what does a laughable amount of damage, being about 10.5 + caster level in damage.  By the time you can cast the spells regularly, Harm is always doing more damage!  (After Level 20, few enemies have LESS than 300 hit points.)

Harm thus beats Slay Living in every aspect.  Yeah, against vreatures with few hit points, Slay Living will do more.  Why, however, would you cast Harm on something with fewer hit points?  YOU WOULDN'T.  Characters know what have loads of hit points and what don't, it ain't rocket science.

Harm wins nearly every time, making your "point" invalid.



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack.  If you fail the save you die, if you make the save you take damage.
> *




It's a regular touch attack, and they're both basically save or die.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

Anubis, I personally don't like you so maybe that's why I'm against your house rule for harm - it's clouding my judgement.  I don't know why I don't like you other than you come across as an arrogant ass in nearly every thread I've seen you post in.

Question - you're attacked by a dragon.  Does the dragon have 150hp or 350hp?  How do you know?  Better yet, you're attacked by a human in armor with a sword - is he a 10th level fighter or a 20th level fighter. In the case of the first, Slay Living might do more damage than harm (depending on the caster level).  That, and the fact that I don't want to have to calculate percentages in game is the reason I don't like it.

Again, I might have a different opinion of this if someone other than Anubis posted this houserule.  I really wish I knew why.

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis, I personally don't like you so maybe that's why I'm against your house rule for harm - it's clouding my judgement.  I don't know why I don't like you other than you come across as an arrogant ass in nearly every thread I've seen you post in.
> *




I know I can come across as an arrogant ass.  I'm not really, but I'm a very . . . um . . . "passionate" debater, and that's what does it.  I am arrogant, although I'm not usually an ass, at least not in real life.  In a debate, though, watch out!

I have some advice: don't take it personal.  It's my style of debating.  I guess that's half the problem.  I don't weigh in on subjects with opinions, I only weigh in on things with facts and circumstances to back up arguments.  In that way, however, I don't play around, I take my debating quite serious.  Not so serious that it is an essential part of my life, but serious enough to make a slid attempt at offering proof for everything I say.

So anyway, don't take it personal.  Yeah, when I'm in a debate, I'm obnoxious.  It's just the way I am.  I know how to debate and I'm damn good at it.  That may be detrimental to people's opinions of me, but it's just who I am.  I seriously mean no offense at any time.



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Question - you're attacked by a dragon.  Does the dragon have 150hp or 350hp?  How do you know?
> *




I usually assume that the bigger they are, the more hit points they have.  I always assume dragons to have at least 100 hit points after around Level 6.



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Better yet, you're attacked by a human in armor with a sword - is he a 10th level fighter or a 20th level fighter.
> *




That's where I'd use death spells.  Other actual characters usually don't have as many hit points as the big monsters do.



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> In the case of the first, Slay Living might do more damage than harm (depending on the caster level).  That, and the fact that I don't want to have to calculate percentages in game is the reason I don't like it.
> *




It's easy.  Since you need a calculator for the game anyway, it's not putting you out or nothing.  For calculating the failed save, multiply current hit points by 0.01 and round up.  For calculating the successful save, that the cleric's level as a percentage and multiple it by the creatures hit points, rounding down, and that's how much damage the beastie takes.  (For instance, a Level 15 Cleric attacking something with 300 hit points, it makes the save, take 300 x 0.15, which equals 45, and the beastie takes 45 damage.)

See?  Nothing to it!



			
				IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> Again, I might have a different opinion of this if someone other than Anubis posted this houserule.  I really wish I knew why.
> *




I wish I knew why as well.  Not liking someone is no grounds on which to judge the person's statements.  Just calm down, realize the actual virtue of my arguments, even test them in a game if you need to.  Compare it to other spells of the same level.  You'll see that my solution makes sense.  It took a while to find a good solution, but I do believe that this one is the best for it because it takes everything into consideration without making Harm super-powerful even on a successful save, which no spell should do, at least not at that level.


----------



## Magic Rub (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear...
 LOL 

We Canadians are so polite


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

No, I was just being honest 

I guess I perfer Will Save for 1/2 damage as it prevents the spell from being insta-kill, it keeps it in line with the inflict spells, is simplier to use (no, I don't normally use a calculator during games - we don't tend to stop to look up charts, etc either so anything that forces a pause we don't like) while keeping harm from being nerfed too much (My group and I have played a lot of the old editions too, so we like things to still be in line with the old too - I know that it's a new edition but some habits are hard to break).  

It's what my group and I used since the beginning and we've had no problems with it.  Also, my players generally have no idea how many hitpoints a dragon, or any other creature has (could be a runt or it could be a weaker larger one), and in all honesty I doubt there will ever be an encounter with a monster with more than 200hp in my campaigns before we retire and start over (none of us a big fans of levels 15+) so we would run into a lot of creatures with fewer hitpoints than you designed your version for.

Anyway, I apologize - I'm not in the best of moods today and I let it get the better of me.

IceBear


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 17, 2002)

Will partial (half target's current hit points) is what I use IMC.

Anubis: The problem might be that you have "Will negates" written in the "Save" row of the spell description for your house-ruled _harm_. AFAICT, that means that the target takes a lot of damage if the save fails, and NONE if it succeeds. That's a lot worse than _slay living_, which deals out death (a slightly better result than loss of all but 1d4 of the target's hp) on a failed save, still does decent damage on a successful save, AND is a level lower.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 17, 2002)

No, he's changed that to Save causes 1% hp damage per caster level.

BTW - 15% of 300hp is fine without resorting to a calculator, but I wouldn't want to be trying 17% of 257hp without one often 

IceBear


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *No, I was just being honest
> 
> I guess I perfer Will Save for 1/2 damage as it prevents the spell from being insta-kill, it keeps it in line with the inflict spells, is simplier to use (no, I don't normally use a calculator during games - we don't tend to stop to look up charts, etc either so anything that forces a pause we don't like) while keeping harm from being nerfed too much (My group and I have played a lot of the old editions too, so we like things to still be in line with the old too - I know that it's a new edition but some habits are hard to break).
> 
> ...




It's okay.  I would like it better if no one disliked me, but . . .

Anyway, if you ain't ever gonna play into Epic levels, save for half works just fine.  I designed the fix for Harm taking into consideration ALL possible levels of play, including and ESPECIALLY Epic levels.  (There's nothing worse than seeing a 2,000 hp Prismatic Dragon reduced to 1,000 AFTER a save, heh . . .)

If that ain't your game, though, you don't need my fix, true enough.  I love EPIC games, so that's why I need to consider such balancing factors.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 17, 2002)

Anubis: If your concern is simply the massive damage that harm causes, why not get rid of the save and instead slap a damage cap on it? 15 hp/caster level should do it; I've seen this houserule in several campaigns.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 17, 2002)

I think that harm should do more damage on a successful save than either destruction or slay living. My reasoning is, that while I totally agree that harm is virtually an instakill, it does take something more than casting the spell to make that happen.

You still have to cast another spell, or make an attack, ready an action, whatever. That forces you to do a little bit more to that opponent than you would have to with slay living or destruction, a little bit that could have been spent on the next opponent.

So I say the counterbalance is that harm should do a SET amount on a successful save, an amount which should be a bit higher than the amounts for slay living and destruction.

If I didn't hate to calculate percents, I'd probably go with anubis' idea, but I like a number I can roll or figure in my head better.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 18, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's okay.  I would like it better if no one disliked me, but . . .
> 
> ...




Anubis, I don't *dislike* you.  I don't *agree* with you normally, and since I was having a bitch of a day I turned that into anger, which was why I said what I said.

I don't typically go back and edit out things that I said because, well, I said them so they should be a matter of public record but in my subsequent post I did apologize.

When I said I was being honest, I meant about just disagreeing with you for no good reason 

Anyway - as it seems we're discussing opposite ends of the game here so that's a lot of the reason why we disagree on the solution.  I personally don't have a problem with the dragon reduced to 1000hp rather than say 1600 (-400hp from a 20th level caster by your rule) as it still gives the dragon some breathing room to escape if nothing else.  It's the reduced to 1-4 hitpoints without a save that I didn't like.

IceBear


----------



## shilsen (Sep 18, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I might introduce a cap as well if it still ends up being overpowered.  In my campaigns, no one tends to have a lot of hitpoints so a cap isn't needed right now.  I'm taking a wait and see approach.
> 
> I think the main reason many people don't use a cap is because of trying to keep the new harm symmetrical with heal.  If there is a cap on the amount of damage you can inflict, there should be a cap on the amount you can heal.
> 
> IceBear *




Whoops! I forgot to mention that I'm putting the same cap on Heal. So a 15th lvl cleric IMC casting Harm does a max of 150 hp damage with Harm and cures a max of 150 hp with Heal. I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but I think it'll work out well.


----------



## maddman75 (Sep 18, 2002)

> Slay Living is what does a laughable amount of damage, being about 10.5 + caster level in damage. By the time you can cast the spells regularly, Harm is always doing more damage! (After Level 20, few enemies have LESS than 300 hit points.)
> 
> Harm thus beats Slay Living in every aspect. Yeah, against vreatures with few hit points, Slay Living will do more. Why, however, would you cast Harm on something with fewer hit points? YOU WOULDN'T. Characters know what have loads of hit points and what don't, it ain't rocket science.




Sorry, but most groups never get to epic levels.  There's not a few of us that don't want to play the type of game that ELH describes.  So balancing it against what you might face after level 20 is not a good idea for a general rule.  If you normally play at this level, it might be a good house rule for you.

At more reasonable levels, 1% of an enemy's hit points might as well be a save negates damage.  A *tough* creature in most games might have 200 hit points.  This would do 2 points of damage, about the same if the cleric had slapped the monster instead of casting a sixth level spell on it.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 18, 2002)

Well, in all fairness to Anubis, the cleric would normally be level 11+, so against a 200hp opponent, it would be doing 22+ hp on a failed save whereas slay living would do 3d6 + caster level (or 10.5+11) on a failed save.  So, as I was saying, at these lower hp levels, this version of Harm is (at best) equal to Slay Living (I would say worse because Slay Living would kill on a failed save, whereas with harm there is ALWAYS a chance if you're not dead).

IceBear


----------



## Hikaru (Sep 18, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *But look at it in the wider context--those are the best clerical spells, hands-down, for dealing or healing damage.  You put a cap on those and clerics can't stand up to wizards anymore. *




And WHY should they, spell-wise?? They already can cast more spells per day, do no need 8 hours of sleep before they can get their spells back, can cast in armor, and... have better saves, better hit dice, better BAB.

Poor Cleric, s/he really got the shaft.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 18, 2002)

Good point.

I'm still using Harm and Heal as written, though.


----------



## Al (Sep 18, 2002)

> Let's not. The DMG characters, first off, are NPCs, not PCs, and regardless of that fact, the DMG characters are pathetic




Well, if you're going to do that, then there is no possible way that a fair comparison can be made.

I could pull a fighter out of Sultans of Smack who could torch your pitiful monk, and you could spend hours engineering the ultimate monk combat machine.  But then it just becomes an exercise in whichever poster can engineer the best smackdown for his championed class, rather than a reasonable comparison of the relative powers of the classes.  Using the DMG standard is the only fair method.


----------



## Kibo (Sep 18, 2002)

*Oh ye of little faith....*



			
				Al said:
			
		

> * Well, if you're going to do that, then there is no possible way that a fair comparison can be made.
> *



Well if you're not even going to try to look for a solution....

A simple to concieve, difficult to test, solution might involve a series of static opponents, the more varied and comprehensive the list of opponents, and the more rigorous the examination of fight the more accurate the result.  Given the number of attributes to look at, it shouldn't be too difficult to create something akin to a Quarter Back Rating for proposed characters.  It's not like a broad approach like this hasn't been used for quite a long time to address the difficulty inherent in such comparisions.  In fact the only real complication in such a proposal is comming to agreement on which and how many opponents the little examination should involve, the methods or actual math of the examinations to be used, and the formula to be used to do the scoring.

Given the trivial nature of the question looking to be answered, the time it would take one person decide, design and refine everything, and how unlikely reaching any sort of consensus is, it probably won't be done.  But won't and can't are _VERY_ different things.


----------



## Al (Sep 19, 2002)

*An interesting idea...*

...but one that is going to run into minefields.

Firstly, which characters are you going to use?  If you use the DMG standards, then Anubis still won't be happy, as this was his original objections.  If you don't, then how do you get a 'standard' character of any class.

Secondly, selecting the opponents to go toe-to-toe with is going to be difficult.  A very broad spread could be achieved, but it would have to be weighted in favour of 'commonly encountered' monsters.  An orc should have a greater 'weighting' than, say, a Ravid.  There are added complications with what level to play the scenario at, as this does greatly affect the performance of the classes (e.g. wizard).  Surely you don't propose testing a 'basket' of monsters at all levels then taking an average?  If so, I'd rather you be doing it than I .

Thirdly, you have to bear in mind that some classes are stronger than others into the short-term and the long-term.  That is why it is difficult to compare the spellcasting classes in a direct comparison with the fighting classes.  In a series of three monsters, spellcasters will fare much better than in a series of ten.  Again, this will be cause of dispute.

Finally, there is the problem of non-combat abilities.  The hapless bard is (rightly) slammed, but part of this is due to their strengths in the non-combat field.  Similarly, rogues are strongest in areas outside the straight-up fight.  By contrast, the fighter is generally useless outside a combat scenario (discuss...)

So, these four problems, in addition to those you mention (although I'll admit there's an overlap in our reservations) make the task fiendishly difficult and prone to dispute.  I'll stick to comparing stat blocks.

PS If you do manage to find a reasonable system (despite the inherent difficulties) then I'd be more than happy to test it.


----------



## zorlag (Sep 20, 2002)

*Harm...*

How about this? :
----------------------

Harm

Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Special (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes 15 hp / caster level of damage on the living target creature. If this damage reduces target below 1 hp, it remains at 1 hp instead and has to make a will saving throw against normal caster DC (10 + wisdom modifier + 6 + applicable modifications) or die. If this saving throw is successful, target retains 1 hp and stays alive. If Harm is used on undead creature, it heals it 15 hp / caster level.

If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal.

----

As a GM I have been wondering why inflict serie spells use will save instead of more sensible fort save which is used to remove negative energy levels? I would probably use fort save for above harm version since I have house ruled inflict series to that save also.

Z.


----------



## Kibo (Sep 20, 2002)

*reStartup.com: The return of venture capital.*

Some how I don't think there are quite the same demand for a 3Dmark and a PCmark 2003.  So don't hold your breath .  My characters tend towards the high concept, lowish power end of the spectrum.  So statistically modeling the most successful power gaming combinations falls pretty low on my list.  


When I was mudding on the other hand, my characters could really throw down.  .  Ahhh those were the days...but I've got that monkey off my back.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 20, 2002)

I'm not sure why they use Will saves either other than the fact that big tough monsters with lots of hitpoints tend to have good Fort saves, so the inflict line of spells help balance the need for decent Will saves too.

IceBear


----------



## hong (Sep 20, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure why they use Will saves either other than the fact that big tough monsters with lots of hitpoints tend to have good Fort saves, so the inflict line of spells help balance the need for decent Will saves too.
> *




Might also have to do with how they didn't want to break the rule that undead are generally immune to effects that have Fort saves.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 20, 2002)

Good point

IceBear


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 20, 2002)

Cheezy move on their part.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 20, 2002)

I think it was just to keep things in lines with the historical precedents of the past editions where using cure spells and heal were effective against Undead.  Remember, they were afraid to make too many changes and didn't realize until after 3E was released how far they could have gone.

IceBear


----------



## Trepelano (Sep 20, 2002)

Odd that noone has mentioned this yet - but the Harm spell hasn't really changed since 1e.  The difference is that in 3e any touch spell stays "loaded" until discharged, so that even if you miss - you don't lose the touch attack.  

In the past you cast the spell, made your attempt, and if you missed that was it.  Now, you can cast it several rounds early, wait for your opening.

The big advantage is that adventuring parties usually have the wizard and the fighter to set up a simple one-two punch with the cleric casting harm. 

People always use dragons to illustrate that this spell is not broken - but keep in mind - there are a lot of powerful creatures that do not fly or have magical resistance.  Against a single powerful creature the harm spell gives a party a huge advantage of victory with little risk - that is the key: high chance of success - low risk.  

I use the following rule:  If the target makes its saving throw it loses half its current HP.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 20, 2002)

Yeah, and it's also a lot easier to make the touch attack in 3E than in 1st Edition.  That's a lot of the problem.

I also use a save for half damage as generally it takes more than a followup hit to kill a monster at half hitpoints as compared to 1-4 hitpoints 

IceBear


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 20, 2002)

*synopsis*

So it seems to me that the 2 most popular fixes seem to be either:1)put a cap on the damage (10 or 15 hp/lvl) and institute a saving throw for half cap damage; or 2)make Harm a 9th level spell and use it as written. 

I agree that Harm is abusable, but not neccesarily broken. Clerics are conduits of great power and any intelligent creature would be wise to attempt to immobolize or eliminate the Cleric first in any battle. Clerics have gotten their due comeuppance in 3E and cannot be overlooked by their adversaries - lest they suffer grave consequences. Moral: Keep your distance from the Divine. 

IMC I will likely institute Harm as a 6th level spell with a cap and also integrate Greater Harm as a 9th level spell and use it as written now. In addition Heal will have the same cap and Greater Heal will be a 9th level spell.


----------



## radferth (Sep 20, 2002)

I think heal and harm work fine (I do house rule a save for half damage like the cause wound spells) if the campaign runs at "tradition" maximum levels (i.e. low to mid teens in level is about a powerful as most folks get).  If you routinely play really high levels, you might indeed want to place a cap on these (and probably some others as well).


----------



## Anubis (Sep 20, 2002)

I think my solution has the most merit when you get into higher levels.  Capping the spells but keeping a set amount of healing/damage would be entirely unprecedented and against the spirit of the rules.

If you use that, you're better be ready to give it dice instead to keep with the spirit of the rules.  Something like 6d8+caster level healed/damaged would be the most appropriate, but that severely underpowers the spells.

Like I said,down to 1% of current hit points on a failed save, damage equal to 1% of hit points per caster level up to 20 on a successful save.  It works.


----------



## IceBear (Sep 20, 2002)

For you - not for me. 

IceBear


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 20, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Capping the spells but keeping a set amount of healing/damage would be entirely unprecedented and against the spirit of the rules.
> *




Protection from Elements: 10 hp/caster level.


----------



## RyanL (Sep 21, 2002)

Is there a precedent in 3E for spells that do damage based on a percentage of the enemy's hit points?

-Ryan


----------



## Anubis (Sep 21, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Protection from Elements: 10 hp/caster level. *




Sorry, that ain't a set amount of healing or damage, that's resistance.  I said: "a set amount of _healing/damage_ would be entirely unprecedented".  Pay attention!


----------



## Anubis (Sep 21, 2002)

RyanL said:
			
		

> *Is there a precedent in 3E for spells that do damage based on a percentage of the enemy's hit points?
> 
> -Ryan *




Nope, but it DOES follow the spirit of the rules.  It's this: Harm can hurt you a lot but not kill you, and damage on a save is based on caster level.

The percentage suggestion does exactly that, and does it better than the silly "it does this amount of damage, but only down to a certain amount of hit points", which is ALSO unprecendented AND against the spirit of the rules.  Remember, my approach is a two-pronged approach.


----------



## Al (Sep 21, 2002)

Anubis:

Firstly, your argument on 'precedence' is entirely unfounded.  If this argument were to be taken, then not only would your 'fix' fall at the gate (there are no examples of percentile health damage anywhere) but many new and interesting spells engineered would fall at the first hurdle.  

Secondly, you directly contradict yourself.



> If you use that, you're better be ready to give it dice instead to keep with the spirit of the rules. Something like 6d8+caster level healed/damaged would be the most appropriate, but that severely underpowers the spells.






> Like I said,down to 1% of current hit points on a failed save, damage equal to 1% of hit points per caster level up to 20 on a successful save. It works.




First off, it is highly unlikely that 1%/caster level is going to be greater than 6d8+level.  Taking level 11 (base level), then the latter will inflict 38 damage; in order for your fix to exceed that, the enemy will need to have greater than 345 hit points (unlikely).  At higher level, it does become slightly more feasible- taking level 20, the former does 47; in order for your fix to exceed that it is the modest 235 hit points (i.e. more than any of the 20th level DMG NPCs).  So why is the former 'underpowered' and yet the latter perfect.

Keep 6d8+level: it is not underpowered, and it is more consistent with the standard rules for instakill save-partial spells.  The percentile damage rule breaks your own motto of 'precedence'.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 22, 2002)

My only real problems with that fix are:

1) Capping the damage to a minimum amount of hit points is COMPLETELY unfounded AND unprecedented.  My solution may not hold precedence, but at least it holds to the spirit of the rules.

2) That's the amount of damage a normal spell of that level (if the cure/inflict line went that high) would deal on a FAILED save.  Yet you wanna make that the damage on a SUCCESSFUL save.

Look, I really am still trying to figure this out, but fixing Harm is extraordinarily difficult to dowithout breaking precdent and/or the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 22, 2002)

Honestly, what I need to find is a spell that can POTENTIALLY (under very few circumstances) cause MORE damage on a successful save than on a failed save.

Can anyone find any such spell?


----------



## Cloudgatherer (Sep 22, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Honestly, what I need to find is a spell that can POTENTIALLY (under very few circumstances) cause MORE damage on a failed save than on a successful save.
> 
> Can anyone find any such spell? *




How about disintegration, finger of death, or phantasmal killer? They are save or die spells, bu you'll take damage (potentially more) if you make your save.

Not exactly what you are looking for, but that's what I thought of.


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 22, 2002)

> _posted by Anubis_
> 
> Honestly, what I need to find is a spell that can POTENTIALLY (under very few circumstances) cause MORE damage on a failed save than on a successful save.




Don't you mean "more damage on a succesful save than on a failed save"???


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 22, 2002)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Look, I really am still trying to figure this out, but fixing Harm is extraordinarily difficult to dowithout breaking precdent and/or the spirit of the rules. *




Yes, I realize that this is not any easy fix. Your percentile-based fix is no different than a cap-based fix with regards to precedent and/or spirit of the game. They both seek to balance the power of the spell to its appropriate level. About the only thing most people seem to agree upon us the need for a saving throw. 

The spell is called _Harm_ and should do exactly that, not set something up for the quick kill. I personally like the damage inflicted to be based upon the character's caster level (10hp/level) and not on the percentage of the opponent's HP - but that's my own personal preference and, in the end, the only way to resolve this is to find the fix that best suits your campaign. LOL


 

Cheers,
F4


----------



## Anubis (Sep 22, 2002)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't you mean "more damage on a succesful save than on a failed save"??? *




Yes, that is what I meant.  Are there any such spells?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 23, 2002)

I moved it.  About time, too.


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 23, 2002)

Problem to me is that harm circumvents one of the base mechanics of D&D, HP. 

Everyone wants lots of HPs because they give a sense of longevity to characters and really distinguish high from low level.

Save v death spells are feared because they potentially can get around this, but there are defensive options such as boosting saves, Deathward etc...

Harm is a touch spell that is relatively easily delivered leaving the victim very fragile. Touch is very effective vs large+ enemies. Defenses v Harm are fewer and less effective, especially if the victim is outnumbered due to the turn based actions system D&D uses.

The classic Dragon in his lair (unable to fly) gets a lot more easier with this spell. Note easier not easy.

I believe every attack should have a defence and Harm does not.

I am not considering the potential damage output of Harm because I rate it closely with the save or die spells which potentially do a similar amount.

I have been playing with harm as is but am considering: 

1) Making "Negative energy protection" an effective defence. It is lower level but not a certain counter due to the opposed roll. Freely available by level but not 100%, only problem here is that it may make NEP a "must-have" spell. That i can do without.

2) A save, likely will, like the inflict spells. Harm would possibly need to be reduced to 5th level with slay living being moved to 6th...

3) Cap damage to 1/2 HP. The spell has diminishing returns beyond the first hit but still inflicts great damage.

4) NEP and 1/2 HP cap? Other combos

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 24, 2002)

Happy Monkey said:
			
		

> *
> I believe every attack should have a defence and Harm does not. *




Sure it does:

Spell Immunity 
Repulsion 
Anti-Magic Field 
Holy Aura
Iron Body 
Anti-life shell

and to a lesser extent:

Spell Resistance
Wall of Force 
and probably more....

I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, BUT if a saving throw is instituted into Harm shouldn't it be a Fortitude save vs. a Will save? All the other Necromantic spells that allow saves ask for Fortitude.


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 24, 2002)

By defence I am not meaning the more situational types. Otherwise you can include wide chasms, successful diplomacy or invisibility (to a degree).

By defence I am meaning a method of resistance that improves with level as per the whole point of levels in D&D. Usually this resistance comes in the form of more hitpoints, better saves or even better AC.

Touch attacks laugh at the above. That said the touch attack mechanic is very believable in my view.

Nup, believe it or not not everyone is sick of this thread, despite its exhaustive length. Once it slips to page2 though...

Will if you place it with the inflict spells and fort if with the save or die. Choices.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2002)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> *From the SRD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I've decided to restrict both Harm & Heal to a maximum of 10 hp per caster level, eg CLR-20 can't harm or heal more than 200 hp per application.  Nothing to stop a hasted cleric from doing it twice in one round, though!


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 24, 2002)

Methinks I'll go for the 1/2 damage will save.

Still hurts a lot. Potentially ravaging a single opponant.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 24, 2002)

Happy Monkey said:
			
		

> *By defence I am meaning a method of resistance that improves with level as per the whole point of levels in D&D. Usually this resistance comes in the form of more hitpoints, better saves or even better AC. *




I misunderstood, HM. Yes, you're point is valid. 

I think that despite whatever fix is instituted, a saving throw MUST be allowed (Will or Fort, depending upon perception of the spell). If not, the spell is too low in level and should be 8th or 9th.


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 24, 2002)

It's all good Ferox4

I for one do not like deliberately altering core rules, spells in this case. But until 3rd & 1/2 is done, and I think no time soon, I'll have to act.

For the record I as a dm have used Harm exclusively in our games. The pc's never have, levels being 10-11, now 9-10...

It probably should be noted that I use open rolls and no fudges. My significant villains use cheap tricks if inclined and even fodder tend to wolf-pack. I like the game hard  but am generous with rewards.

My point is that my solution, I think, will suit my style of dming, not many others.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 24, 2002)

I am both PC and DM. In both campaigns we have just reached levels that give access to _Harm_. The other DM and I are always concerned with game flow and especially streamlining the mechanics of play. With that in mind, I have been trying to see how others have handled this spell so that when it comes up (tomorrow night) I have some suggestions on how it can be fixed. This thread has been particularly helpful with that. I will discuss it some more with the other DM and institute our own fix. Thanks to everyone who posted on this topic.
 F4


----------



## Anubis (Sep 24, 2002)

Ferox4 said:
			
		

> *
> I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, BUT if a saving throw is instituted into Harm shouldn't it be a Fortitude save vs. a Will save? All the other Necromantic spells that allow saves ask for Fortitude.
> *




Harm more closely resembles the Inflict line of spells than anything else, and all of the Inflict spells are Necromancy spells with Will saves.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 24, 2002)

Happy Monkey said:
			
		

> *Methinks I'll go for the 1/2 damage will save.
> 
> Still hurts a lot. Potentially ravaging a single opponant. *




I have one question.  Why is it that you all want Harm to still pack a punch on a successful save?  The reason for giving it a save is to make it less dangerous.  Harm is effectively save or die, and none of the other save or die spells do a lot of damage on a successful save, so why should Harm?

My final solution to the problem is basically give Harm a will save for half damage or 100 points of damage, whichever is less.  I think that is a good enough compromise of all of the systems that may just be able to satisfy most parties.

What do you guys think?  (By the way, sorry about the heated debate, Harm is just one of those things that gets under my skin.)


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 24, 2002)

Ok, Anubis (and anyone else who is interested), let me ask you this: 

Are you viewing _Harm_ as a Conjuring (Cure/Inflict) spell or as a Necromantic spell, i.e., _Slay Living_ & _Destruction_?

If the former, then a successful Will save would still subject the recipient of _Harm_ to 1/2 damage (1/2 current HPs).

If the latter, then a successful Fort save should subject the recipient of _Harm_ to approximately 6d6 + 1/caster level HPs of damage.

If we use these distinctions, Conjuration vs. Necromancy, I believe we can make some headway. 

_Harm_ is a Necromantic spell whereas _Heal_ is a Conjuring spell. Though they are often considered counterparts they are two distinctively different schools of magic, each with their own properties and their own types of saving throws. If we stick to the ground rules set forth by the two bookend Necromantic spells of _Slay Living_ & _Destruction_ then _Harm_ (with the newly instituted saving throw) would reduce the recipient to 1d4 HPs on a failed save and apprximately 6d6 + 1/caster level on a successful save. 

I haven't gone back through the post , but I believe Anubis (or someone else) suggested something similar to this earlier. 

This seems to mirror the spirit of the rules and sets no new precedents in the game. 

What do you say to that?


----------



## Anubis (Sep 24, 2002)

Ferox4 said:
			
		

> *Ok, Anubis (and anyone else who is interested), let me ask you this:
> 
> Are you viewing Harm as a Conjuring (Cure/Inflict) spell or as a Necromantic spell, i.e., Slay Living & Destruction?
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, that is an incorrect presumption.  Check the PH.  All of the _Inflict_ spells are Necromacy spells, so that distinction doesn't help in the least.

Any which way, Ferox4, take a look at my post right before yours for what I consider to be the most reasonable way to settle the debate.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 25, 2002)

! And I thought perhaps I was onto something......

I must have looked at the cure spells and not the inflict spells. Oh well.

"Uncle"


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 25, 2002)

I still want Harm to cause grief because if it doesn't it probably shouldn't be 6th level. 

Despite my Will save idea being akin to the inflict spell I rank Harm close to the save or die spells.

Finger of death will reduce hps to -10 or some piddly damage if saved.

The Harm effect of reducing hps is not so much my issue (although I do not like it), rather the almost uncontested method in which it is delivered regardless of levels.

I can handle an 800hp dragon being reduced to 400 or more likely a 120hp fighter being crippled. If they fail a save I can handle hps being further reduced.

The key to my thinking is that I compare Harm to death effects that can reduce hps to -10 with a failed save. Harm does less on a failed save but more on a successful roll.

Um, that's messy.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Sep 25, 2002)

Ferox4 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure it does:
> 
> ...




Not to continue beating the horse, but:

_Spell immunity_ does nothing against _harm_ (it's capped at 4th-level spells).

The Reach Spell feat (T&B) and the divine reach ability of the hierophant prestige class (FRCS) get around most of the other problems. There's also a _greater spectral hand_ spell floating around in a S&S product, IIRC. Granted, these are supplements, but be sure that _harm_ is balanced for YOUR campaign, and your campaign might include some of these.



> *I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, BUT if a saving throw is instituted into Harm shouldn't it be a Fortitude save vs. a Will save? All the other Necromantic spells that allow saves ask for Fortitude. *




As you may have realized, it's likely that heal/harm fall, at least thematically, within the cure/inflict line of spells. As such, a Will save seems appropriate. The Necro spells that trigger Fort saves are generally spells with the [Death] designator.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with the Will half solution any more, Anubis. I don't see why you did in the first place, though. The Will half solution is exactly in line with inflict spells and other damage-dealing spells (which is essentially what harm is), and does mean that harm never will inflict more damage on a successful save than on a failed one.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 25, 2002)

Ok, I'm sold. Will half it is. It's also a very easy mechanic during game play.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 25, 2002)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> *
> I'm glad you don't have a problem with the Will half solution any more, Anubis. I don't see why you did in the first place, though. The Will half solution is exactly in line with inflict spells and other damage-dealing spells (which is essentially what harm is), and does mean that harm never will inflict more damage on a successful save than on a failed one.
> *




Actually, what I said is that the save would be Will for half damage or 100 points of damage, whichever is less.  I meant that specifically.  If it's just a flat Will save for half damage no matter what, it is still far more powerful than any other spell in the game.

Basically, I took the Will save for half damage idea and combined it with the damage cap idea, but ONLY for a successful save.  On a failed save, it still reduces a victim to 1d4 hit points.

Also, all of these changes also apply in reverse to Heal used against Undead.  That, of course, should go without saying.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Sep 25, 2002)

*An Enworld newbie's house Rule*

Hello!

The way I've decided to treat Harm is as follows:

No saving throw, damage done = Caster Level x5, cannot reduce target below it's Hit Dice (i.e. a 12HD character cannot be reduced below 12 hit points by this spell).

This is far less than other caps I've seen, but I think that a spell can do 120 at caster level 12 is still effectively a save-or-die spell against many targets it will be used against (for example, PCs and NPCs, as opposed to dragons).

One of the main objections to Harm is the way that it breaks the damage cap. Even my CLx5 spell still breaks the damage cap, but it's tolerable to me because you can't Empower or Maximise it.

It's a lot less effective than the original and some of the solutions, but that's because all those options generate too much damage.

By doing much lower damage, it can't really be considered a save-or-die spell anymore, so comparisons with spells like Slay Living and Finger of Death are meaningless. The choice of which to use is a tactical one: "I can Slay Living and have a _chance_ of killing outright, or I can inflict 60 points _automatically_. 

For a cleric having such an effective damage spell is nothing to be sneezed at. I think it's still a very effective spell and will see a lot of use. 

By the way, I'm treating Heal the same way. It doesn't heal everything, it heals caster level x5. I've noticed in a high level game, the lower cure wounds become meaningless as do healing potions - why bother when the cleric can use Heal or Mass Heal? With this rule, lower level healing remains viable - a character can use a healing potion and not feel those points will be wasted when the cleric later casts Heal.

Demi


----------



## Al (Sep 25, 2002)

demiurge: Welcome to the boards!

Now you're welcome, you're prone to attack  .

The problem with your solution is that it is, in fact, very weak.  Damage equal to CLx5, and only on a touch attack compares very poorly with other spells of similar potency.  Since most direct-damage spells that require a touch attack remove the need for a saving throw (as per ELH's guidelines for creating new spells), we can compare the damage directly with traditional blast spells.

We see that it compares poorly.  At 11th level, Harm does 55 damage.  At this level of spell, it is clearly outmatched by, say, Maximised Fireball or Empowered Flame Strike, which, in addition to inflicting a similar amount of damage, inflict this amount of damage over a wider area.  Your fix makes Harm from a 'must-have' spell to a 'don't-bother' one.  

A higher cap, or a save (for either half or fixed damage + level) would be more in line with the power of Harm relative to its level.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Sep 25, 2002)

------------
_ demiurge: Welcome to the boards! _
-----------

Thank you.  

------------
_ The problem with your solution is that it is, in fact, very weak. Damage equal to CLx5, and only on a touch attack compares very poorly with other spells of similar potency. Since most direct-damage spells that require a touch attack remove the need for a saving throw (as per ELH's guidelines for creating new spells) _ 
------------

I agree that is supposed to be the case, bu ti don't think it makes sense particularly with regard to ELH level games. A touch spell at this kind of level is really only going to fail on a roll of 1 excepot against unusual opponents (Monks, for instance). A saving throw is much more dicey (pun intended).

------------
_ we can compare the damage directly with traditional blast spells.

We see that it compares poorly. At 11th level, Harm does 55 damage. At this level of spell, it is clearly outmatched by, say, Maximised Fireball or Empowered Flame Strike, which, in addition to inflicting a similar amount of damage, inflict this amount of damage over a wider area. Your fix makes Harm from a 'must-have' spell to a 'don't-bother' one. _
-----------
No offence, but I think comparisons with fireball are irrelevant, since it is an Arcane spell and they are meant to do more damage.
With Flame Strike, you hit a 10' square - in many encounters, you will probably only be able to catch one enemy with this (some enemies will in fact be large enough to occupy the whole area).
In addition, many, many creatures have fire resistance, reducing the spells damage - and the saving throw is pitiful.
IMC it is very rare for a flame strike to inflict anywhere near its maximum potential.
Also note that an empowered flame strike for a CLERIC is 7th level, at which point the cleric will do 65 points with Harm compared to 63 for Flame strike: if the enemy fails its save and has no energy protection.

I think this means Flame Strike and Harm are reasonably balanced with each other - there are situations where one is better than the other, and neither completely overwhelms the other.

Demiurge


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 26, 2002)

*Wow!*

Last night we were fighting numerous Steel Predators (from Lord of the Iron Fortress) and sure enough out came the Harm spell against the big boss. It failed its save (Dm rolled a 1 - ha!) and went from 346 HP to 4. Ouch! I almost felt bad for the DM.....  

At first glance it does look overpowering, but if that thing makes its save (and we were VERY lucky that it didn't) it still has 173 HP and the Cleric is about to get shredded even with a 29 AC. I like the save for 1/2 just fine. As I said before, it's an easy mechanic and at least there is a chance to save - I'll take half of my current HPs vs. 1d4 HPs anyday.


----------



## Al (Sep 26, 2002)

> I agree that is supposed to be the case, bu ti don't think it makes sense particularly with regard to ELH level games. A touch spell at this kind of level is really only going to fail on a roll of 1 excepot against unusual opponents (Monks, for instance). A saving throw is much more dicey (pun intended).




Reasonable point, but most direct-damage touch or ranged touch spells tend to have no saving throw: the only major exception being the Inflict family.  And with respect to non-ELH games, it makes much more sense.  An 11th level cleric with 14 strength only has +10 to hit, so far from guaranteed against enemies with Dex, deflection bonuses, haste etc.



> No offence, but I think comparisons with fireball are irrelevant, since it is an Arcane spell and they are meant to do more damage.




Fair enough.



> With Flame Strike, you hit a 10' square - in many encounters, you will probably only be able to catch one enemy with this (some enemies will in fact be large enough to occupy the whole area).




Well, no.  Flame Strike is a 10' RADIUS, meaning that it has a diameter of 20' and hence you get around 65 square feet.  You should be able to catch more than one enemy with that.



> I think this means Flame Strike and Harm are reasonably balanced with each other - there are situations where one is better than the other, and neither completely overwhelms the other.




True: but Flame Strike is either a 4th or 5th level spell; Harm is 6th level and has to bear up against the likes of Blade Barrier (whose potential to dish out incredible amounts of damage is being discussed on another thread.)


----------



## Dergon (Sep 26, 2002)

*Regarding   HARM*

I was the DM referred to in the commont by Ferox4.  It was my first experience with the harm spell as a DM (the character had just levelled up at the end of the last session).   After  a successful touch attack (easy) and a failed will save the creature (Packleader Taverus from Iron Fortress module) took 345 points of damage.  This changed what was to be an epic battle with a formidable foe into a quick bloodletting.  I applaud the smart play (use what you got!), but it certainly is acutely unbalancing to my campaign and will need to be further modified.  I believe the players are generally in agreement as well.


----------



## Spatzimaus (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, I've suggested this one before, not as a complete solution but as a partial one.

Harm uses negative energy.  A LOT of negative energy.  Huge, dragonwhomping loads of negative energy.

Channeling negative energy is an evil act (PHB, the section on turning).  That's why good Clerics turn undead with positive energy while evil ones command them with negative, and why they swap for cure/inflict spells.
(Yes, I know St. Cuthbert mixes the two, work with me here, that's a campaign-specific exception)

So, give Harm the [Evil] tag for Clerics.  Give Heal the [Good] tag for Clerics.

(Don't do this for Druids, since they're all about balance anyway, and they don't have to decide between positive and negative energy; in fact, IMC we removed their spell-alignment restriction altogether)

Thanks to the alignment rules, the good guys won't be able to use Harm on the insane-HP solitary bad guys.  You'd probably have to say that neutral clerics are treated as good/evil depending on their spell swapping.  On the other hand, the evil Clerics won't be using Heal.

You could rule that cure/inflict spells are minor enough in energy that it doesn't cause alignment problems.

Note that Dragons cast arcane spells, even though they can select from the Cleric list and certain domains, so they're not alignment-limited.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 27, 2002)

Spatzimaus said:
			
		

> *
> You could rule that cure/inflict spells are minor enough in energy that it doesn't cause alignment problems.*




If you're going to make this work then be consistent. If a Cleric can't cast Harm then he/she should not be able to cast even Inflict Minor Wounds.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 27, 2002)

*modifications*



			
				Dergon said:
			
		

> *.....but it certainly is acutely unbalancing to my campaign and will need to be further modified.  I believe the players are generally in agreement as well. *




Agreed. So we can: 1) cap it to save for 1/2 current HPs or 100 Hps, whichever is lesser (as Anubis has pointed out time & again) OR 2) we cap the spell by level -- 10hp dam/level to a max of 200. A failed save does the full 10 HP/lvl damage, successful half damage.

In our scenario this would have meant that the steel predator took 345 in example 1 (failed save) or 110 HPs in example 2.  

I like #2 better because it allows for improvement as the PC becomes more powerful and still prevents the ultra drain of HPs. 


Welcome aboard, Dergon.

edited for content


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Sep 27, 2002)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> Well, no.  Flame Strike is a 10' RADIUS, meaning that it has a diameter of 20' and hence you get around 65 square feet.  You should be able to catch more than one enemy with that.*




Note this is my third attempt to reply here, thanks to the current enworld funny business.

Yes, my bad - Flame Strike does affect 12 5' squares. It's just that I rarely see it get more than one or two villains, due to the difficulty of using area effect attacks once players and villains are engaged. The main point, though, is that flame strike is easy to defend against - the damage an entire enemy side takes from a  single flamestrike (even empowered) might not compare to the damage a single unmodified Harm does. (Once you take into account saves, fire resistance against half the damage, and so forth.)
In a recent battle my players fought three advanced giants each with around 210 hit points - a *firestorm* caught all three, doing 78 points to each. A Harm spell would have had a greater effect, doing roughly the same damage but all concentrated on a single target - making it easy to remove that foe from the battlefield whereas all 3 giants were still able to soak up a fair bit of damage after the Firestorm.




			
				Al said:
			
		

> * True: but Flame Strike is either a 4th or 5th level spell; Harm is 6th level and has to bear up against the likes of Blade Barrier (whose potential to dish out incredible amounts of damage is being discussed on another thread.) *




Except that Blade Barrier has a Reflex save in the first round. After that, it's a matter of choice whether you suffer the damage - either you choose top pass through it or you don't. There may be compelling reasons to do so, but even then it's only going to be done by those who can comfortably soak it (and that assumes a spellcaster doesn't just dispel it).
Harm doesn't have that drawback - it's a surgical precision killing tool, and far more lethal than a spell with the name "Harm" suggest. 
My version (CLx5, no save) is close enough to the suggested damage cap for spells of that level (if they are to be ignored, why are they there?), and removes it from the save-or-die camp - it is simply a damaging spell. It gaves the players tactical options - should I use Blade Barrier, Harm, Empowered Falme Strike, or Finger of Death? There's no clear choice of which is better. If you want to hurt someone, doing a very reliable amount of damage, you'll use, this Harm is very handy spell. It's not the be all and end all, and for Clerics who aren't supposed to be the firepower machines that Wizards are, it seems to emphasise their support role. They can weaken opponents (but not so much that the rest of the fight is a foregone conclusion).


----------



## Spatzimaus (Sep 27, 2002)

Ferox4 said:
			
		

> *If you're going to make this work then be consistent. If a Cleric can't cast Harm then he/she should not be able to cast even Inflict Minor Wounds. *




Actually, there's a reason I said you COULD rule it that way, instead of SHOULD.  I did apply the same rule to the Cure/Inflict spells IMC.  This means evil Clerics can't cure, good clerics can't inflict.  But, every time I mention that on these boards people have fits since to too many people Cleric = Healer.

I also removed healing spells from Bards in exchange for more weapon proficiencies, lower Arcane Failure rate, and the Resist Elements line of spells.  So, for evil groups you're either stuck with Druids, or evil Clerics of deities who have the Healing domain (since I also added the rule that Domain spells are allowed to violate the alignment thing, which helps the St. Cuthbert-style gods, and even a god of an evil race wants to keep his followers alive)

But, some people don't like such radical rearrangement of classes, so for them I suggested leaving the Cure/Inflict spells alone.


----------



## Ferox4 (Sep 27, 2002)

I understand, Spatzimaus. Yes, you COULD do that. It's a vaild recommendation, but would really make evil Clerics badasses - they can cure themselves AND cast Harm while almost all PCs would be prohibited from casting Harm.

That's the beauty of this game. These are all guidelines to approximate reality and no one will ever agree as to what does and what does not best approach the simulation. Cheers and good gaming!
F4


----------



## Spatzimaus (Sep 27, 2002)

Well, it'd make evil Clerics offensive badasses, but they're already there; I mean currently, evil Clerics can cast both Harm and Heal, along with their lesser brethren.  The question is, which of the two would you rather sacrifice?  If these Clerics can't cast Heal or Mass Heal, they'll be having other problems.  Against the solitary enemy it may not make much difference, but in those party vs. party fights it's the key.  Giving them back the low heals isn't really that damaging, although for style reasons what I did instead was change the Inflict line.

Currently, Inflict spells are a touch attack with a Will save for half.  Overall, inferior to the Cure line since even low-level cures are useful for between-battle recovery, while Inflict Minor Wounds won't be used in battle once you reach third level.  Besides, Touch range is a negative for an attack spell, but isn't for a heal since they won't dodge.
To make them stronger, what I said was, the Inflict spells give the caster temporary HP equal to half the damage done, and those HP last one round per level.  Sort of like an inferior Vampiric Touch.

If you do this sort of thing, then you can make the Cure spells [Good] and Inflict [Evil] to limit them, because now Clerics will have other ways of getting HP (and I reintroduced the Blood Bridge line of spells to go with this).  The thing I've had to do was say that even Neutral clerics are limited, as if they were Good or Evil based on how they spontaneously cast/turn undead (which is based on your deity's alignment, not yours).
Otherwise you'd see everyone taking a neutral Cleric to cast both Harm and Heal.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2002)

I think restricting Harm (and Heal?) to a 5hp/level cap makes them a bit weak for a standard-magic campaign, it means in the _typical_ fight the Cleric will be coming up against the cap, since most enemies & friendly meat shields will have more hp than that, ie it does significantly change the power of the spell.  At 10 hp/level they retain their traditional function & power vs the meat-shields and enemy NPCs, but we avoid the (IMO) big problem of the 655-hp Great Wyrm or similar being taken down by a no-save ranged touch attack in 1 action.   Also, in Epic Level & deity combat it's likely that opponents will have a LOT of Heal spells to call on, if they automatically heal all damage, given how high hp are & multiple actions/round with Haste, Quickening etc, the fights get a bit arbitrary - 1e avoided this in that hp totals at high levels were low compared to damage-dealing, and Heal was a full-round (1 minute action), so anyone who tried to cast it in combat would likely be hit before they finished.  

Ergo, I think having an Epic Level deity character with, say, 20 cleric levels & a vast number of Fighter etc levels, with say 2000 hp total, reduced down to 100 hp from damage, get back 200hp/Heal, is a lot better than getting 1900 hp back from this 6th level spell!  YMMV.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Sep 28, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *I think restricting Harm (and Heal?) to a 5hp/level cap makes them a bit weak for a standard-magic campaign, it means in the _typical_ fight the Cleric will be coming up against the cap, since most enemies & friendly meat shields will have more hp than that, ie it does significantly change the power of the spell.  *




Which is exactly my intention, since I believe the damage the spell does is overpowered.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *At 10 hp/level they retain their traditional function & power vs the meat-shields and enemy NPCs, but we avoid the (IMO) big problem of the 655-hp Great Wyrm or similar being taken down by a no-save ranged touch attack in 1 action.   *




While the Great dragon example I agree is a problem, it's not the problem I wanted to tackle. The other solutions I've seen all seem to address the dragon problem - but ignore the fact that 90% or more of the targets of Harm will not be dragons. What about PCs with 100-200 hit points, Titans, Solars, and lesser creatures - ALL of these creatures are effected by a 10Hp/level cap pretty much the same as if the standard rule were used - they drop to a tiny amount of hp.

The save for half option avoids this but I don't like the idea of a save - it then can be compared to save-or-die spells unfavourably but is still a massively over-powered damage-dealing spell: it should be one or the other, and I opted for a damage-dealing approach.
The other thing with Save for half: what happens if it is affected a second time and saves? 




			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Also, in Epic Level & deity combat it's likely that opponents will have a LOT of Heal spells to call on, if they automatically heal all damage, given how high hp are & multiple actions/round with Haste, Quickening etc, the fights get a bit arbitrary - 1e avoided this in that hp totals at high levels were low compared to damage-dealing, and Heal was a full-round (1 minute action), so anyone who tried to cast it in combat would likely be hit before they finished.
> 
> Ergo, I think having an Epic Level deity character with, say, 20 cleric levels & a vast number of Fighter etc levels, with say 2000 hp total, reduced down to 100 hp from damage, get back 200hp/Heal, is a lot better than getting 1900 hp back from this 6th level spell!  YMMV. *




I agree - and 100hp (my approach) is a lot closer to 200hp than 19000hp, so we are pretty close to agreement on that point.
I was considering a Greater Heal spell gained at the same level as Mass Heal - this would do 10hp per level. So characters could heal once character a lot, or heal a group for less.
There would _ probably [/] be no Greater Harm, just as there is no Mass Harm, since inflicting 200hp at 20th level is just as damaging to non-dragon opponents as the official Harm spell._


----------



## S'mon (Sep 28, 2002)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which is exactly my intention, since I believe the damage the spell does is overpowered.
> *




I think your approach is perfectly reasonable - the PCs IMC are a few levels away from getting Harm just yet (Cleric is 8th) so we'll see what happens when they get it and I apply the 10/level cap; if it's causing major problems I'll lower the cap, but without metamagicing the Harm into a ranged touch there's probably not a major problem - I Rule 0 that you can't cast a touch spell, ,move, and deliver the spell in 1 round, and also touch attacks provoke an AoO (which, frankly, is only logical), so going into melee to deliver the Harm is less likely IMC unless you have the Improved Unarmed Attack feat. 

-Simon


----------



## Happy Monkey (Sep 29, 2002)

My players have agreed to the save for 1/2 editted version of harm.

I am really pleased as I no longer need to not use it on their characters for a cheap kill.

The encounter coming up will be a nice challenge with an enemy with a couple of scrolls of Harm (and Slay living).

In regard to the 1/2 save, yes, there is a diminishing returns factor for multiple Harms. Cause critical is there for that.


----------

