D&D 3.0 Harm spell

[derverdammte]

Okay, does anyone here remember if there was ever an OFFICIAL piece of errata in 3.0 which stated that the harm spell allowed a saving throw? I remember there being a lot of complaining about how broken the spell was, and I know there were plenty of designers who said it should allow a saving throw, but I can't find anything official supporting this. Can anyone help me here? My group is trying to settle a rules dispute, and we play 3.0.

 

[Thanee]

No.

Bye
Thanee

 

[derverdammte]

Thank you for your extremely helpful one-word reply. I now know where to turn for all my future rules questions. Indeed, if you had a newsletter, I might subscribe to it, just so that I could benefit from your vast wisdom in the future.



In the absence of any HELPFUL information, I'll go through my Dragon magazines from the time period.

 

[Shayuri]

Thank you for your extremely helpful one-word reply. I now know where to turn for all my future rules questions. Indeed, if you had a newsletter, I might subscribe to it, just so that I could benefit from your vast wisdom in the future.



In the absence of any HELPFUL information, I'll go through my Dragon magazines from the time period.

Hey there Mr. Grouchy. Given that most people would read the post and just not even bother to answer, I think you'd be thankful for whatchu got.

However! To pander shamelessly and try to smooth over the ruffled feathers, I will elaborate on Thanee's succinct reply.

No, there is no saving throw for Harm in 3.0. Also, a corollary; No, there is no errata for Harm in 3.0.

 

[the Jester]

You asked a simple yes or no question; I'd think a simple "No" answer would be enough.

Moreover, it's an accurate answer.

(I don't mean this to sound aggressive or mean or anything; I'm just trying to point out that, when someone answers the question you asked, they're bein' helpful. And Thanee is actually quite helpful a lot around here, btw.)

 

[derverdammte]

"No" was probably the most unhelpful answer possible. I mean, if you want to ignore the thread altogether, fine, but posting something like that is worse than useless.

I didn't think it had made it into the official errata, because I searched through that, but I was sure it had been discussed in Dragon, like in Sage Advice or something similar. If 2001 or so is too far back for the people here, then cool, but I was hoping someone else would remember something about this as well. I remember seeing Monte Cook say that it was a mistake, and that the spell should have had a saving throw, and I was pretty sure some of the other designers had said the same thing, but I can't find the discussion on it.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

"No" was probably the most unhelpful answer possible. I mean, if you want to ignore the thread altogether, fine, but posting something like that is worse than useless.

I didn't think it had made it into the official errata, because I searched through that, but I was sure it had been discussed in Dragon, like in Sage Advice or something similar. If 2001 or so is too far back for the people here, then cool, but I was hoping someone else would remember something about this as well. I remember seeing Monte Cook say that it was a mistake, and that the spell should have had a saving throw, and I was pretty sure some of the other designers had said the same thing, but I can't find the discussion on it.

Well since your first post asked for any OFFICIAL response from WotC re: Harm, Thanee's answer of NO is not only correct, but it is also what you asked for. I'm not sure how answering your question is a "worse than useless" post.

Edited for bd spuling

 

[derverdammte]

You asked a simple yes or no question; I'd think a simple "No" answer would be enough.

Moreover, it's an accurate answer.

(I don't mean this to sound aggressive or mean or anything; I'm just trying to point out that, when someone answers the question you asked, they're bein' helpful. And Thanee is actually quite helpful a lot around here, btw.)

Actually, "the question I asked" was whether anyone remembered if it had been errataed, and saying "No" is saying "Nope, no one remembers," if you're taking it literally. But that's just a nitpick.

Besides that, though, I think it's bad form to post a one-word answer. Why reply at all if you're going to be useless about it? In any case, I'd rather not derail my own thread, so I'll request here: please--no more replies unless they contain information pertinent to the 3.0 harm spell. I've already explained what I was looking for, and from appearances, it looks like I'll be researching it myself.

Edit: Also, my deepest apologies for not being crystal clear in my main post, etc., etc.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Okay, does anyone here remember if there was ever an OFFICIAL piece of errata in 3.0 which stated that the harm spell allowed a saving throw? I remember there being a lot of complaining about how broken the spell was, and I know there were plenty of designers who said it should allow a saving throw, but I can't find anything official supporting this. Can anyone help me here? My group is trying to settle a rules dispute, and we play 3.0.

Sigh...

There are no OFFICIAL revisions to 3.0 Harm allowing a save.* Monte may have said that he allowed a save but since Monte doesn't work for WotC anymore that's not an official replay so searching for it wouldn't help much. If you're looking for a non-official reply maybe trying searching the rules forum over on Monte's site (www.montecook.com).


*That I'm aware of.

 

[Elephant]

If you think it should allow a save, house-rule it in your campaign to do so. Fortitude for half damage?