D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Harm - To Kill or not to Kill..

[Jhulae]

Branching off of a thread from General about Harm not being able to kill someone:

Only if someone makes the save. If a PC or NPC doesn't make the save against Harm, it most certainly can kill. Unless you're talking about the 3.0 or earlier harm, which can't kill anything.

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

It could be parsed either way. I go with the whole spell cannot kill.

Cheers, -- N

Compare the way Harm is written to this way:
Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level), but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount.

If the clause about the 1 HP was in the first sentence as in my 'rewrite', I'd agree with you. That 1 HP clause is in the sentence that talks about the save, though. So, unless the target saves, it can go below 1 HP. I don't really see any other way to read it.

 

[shilsen]

If the clause about the 1 HP was in the first sentence as in my 'rewrite', I'd agree with you. That 1 HP clause is in the sentence that talks about the save, though. So, unless the target saves, it can go below 1 HP.

I agree with you. At the same time...

I don't really see any other way to read it.

Having spent years on ENWorld, I've learned that people are quite capable of reading a text in all sorts of ways that I'd normally define as impossible. Just check out the 4e forums, where a dozen people parse the same sentence in a dozen different ways.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Whether or not there are multiple ways to read the rules should be the subject of its own thread, if it weren't only given as a de facto statement by the mods.

As to harm, I read as does Jhulae. It can kill you if you fail your save. This puts it in line with disintegrate.

 

[frankthedm]

Just check out the 4e forums, where a dozen people parse the same sentence in a dozen different ways.

However the text in question about harm covers two sentences. Seperated by a damn period.

BTW, harm can kill in another way... it deals damage. usually over 50. DC 15 Fort save please.

 

[Drowbane]

However the text in question about harm covers two sentences. Seperated by a damn period.

BTW, harm can kill in another way... it deals damage. usually over 50. DC 15 Fort save please.

A bonus 5% chance to kill... (as by that level, a DC 15 save is a joke) not too shabby I suppose.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Compare the way Harm is written to this way:
Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level), but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount.

If the clause about the 1 HP was in the first sentence as in my 'rewrite', I'd agree with you. That 1 HP clause is in the sentence that talks about the save, though. So, unless the target saves, it can go below 1 HP. I don't really see any other way to read it.

The FAQ describes harm's operation just about exactly as you have "rewritten" it. Of course, some people don't accept the FAQ as an official clarification. <shrug>

The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The FAQ describes harm's operation just about exactly as you have "rewritten" it.

Well, yeah, that's the problem. The FAQ seems to be describing a spell that uses different wording to what's in the PHB...

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

My vote: the spell is ambiguous and in need of an errata.

For balance purposes, I'd go with the FAQ, as that reading is more in line with previous editions and with the name of the spell, but the wording is bad. Without D&D context, I would have said that the parenthetical subclause applied only on a successful saving throw - i.e. if you fail, you (might) die. But given that it should be weaker than disintegrate and given older editions, I'm pretty sure that's not what they meant.

 

[Infiniti2000]

For balance purposes, I'd go with the FAQ, as that reading is more in line with previous editions and with the name of the spell, but the wording is bad.

Balance is usually used to describe game play, not the rules of previous editions or name. What happened in 3e or earlier is irrelevant. The name of the spell, like the name of a feat, is also irrelevant. Balance-wise, however, as I said earlier, it should kill the victim on a failed save if enough damage was done, just like an equivalent level spell, disintegrate, does.