Harm as damage dice

[3d6]

I've never liked that harm did flat damage instead of determining damage through dice rolling. What do people think this variant? Are there any pitfalls to switching to damage dice instead of fixed values that I'm overlooking?

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

You charge the subject with negative energy, dealing 3d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 45d6). If the target saves, it takes half damage and you cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal.

 

[3catcircus]

Except for the fact that you probably have to limit the max damage...

 

[hong]

That's nastier than disintegrate, which only does 2d6 per caster level and significantly less than half damage on a successful save. On the other hand, it does require a melee touch attack as opposed to range.

 

[3d6]

The damage is almost exactly the same as regular harm. At 15th level, its 150 vs. 157.5 mean damage.

 

[jasin]

Mmm... Empowered harm.

 

[hong]

Maximised harm.

 

[starwed]

maximum 45d6

Two reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. You have to roll and add up 45d6 every time you cast the spell! That's all well and good if you use a dice roller, but many don't.
2. With so many dice, the standard deviation will be quite low. A quick test using this roller indicates that most results are within about 15 of the mean. Since the whole rationale for the change seemed to be that you wanted more variability, this kind of defeats the point.

Slightly simpler would be to roll 1d20/level. But even simpler would be to just keep it as is, or have it be 10/level +/- 1d20.

 

[maggot]

Cleric spells often use d8s. How about 2d8/level? Weaker by 1hp/level, but now you can empower and maximize it. And it has a certain symetry with Disintegrate.