3 saves or just 1?

[Lucius Foxhound]

Always with the House Rules, eh, IceBear?

I'm with Elder-Basilisk. It'd be really tough for the DM to keep track of how much damage you took for a full-round cast to allow you to make a concentration check at the end of the round.

But from a fairness perspective, Wizard/Sor pump this stat up to the point where it's really tough for a Wiz to fail one of these at high levels. It would make it a bit more challenging if the damage were cumulative.

Of course, I doubt a Wizard would make a Concentration check if someone cast Harm on them ... as it is written, that is.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Wizard/Sor pump this stat up to the point where it's really tough for a Wiz to fail one of these at high levels. It would make it a bit more challenging if the damage were cumulative.

I think that tends to even out...if you're forced to make lots of saves, the law of averages says that one of them will be a failure. So...lots of easy saves or one tough one is the same thing in my book.

Of course, I doubt a Wizard would make a Concentration check if someone cast Harm on them ... as it is written, that is.

I'm not even going to go there. Join S.H.I.N.Y.

 

[IceBear]

Well, I don't really consider that a house rule as opposed to my decision on how to handle it, as it was considered an ambiguous rule at one time.

Seriously, there was an 8 or 9 page thread on this that was quite heated as people read the same passage and got different meanings. I took it to be for each time you took damage, as opposed to being a sum, but others did not. If, you were hit three times on Initiative count 13 for 3, 4, and 3 points of damage I can conceive that since they all occured at almost exactly the same time to treat it as one hit for 10 points of damage as opposed to three seperate hits.

IceBear

 

[skymage]

i agree with icebear. i think his way follows the spirit of the law as aposed to the letter of the law which is how i dm.

 

[AuraSeer]

I think that tends to even out...if you're forced to make lots of saves, the law of averages says that one of them will be a failure. So...lots of easy saves or one tough one is the same thing in my book.

True, but remember that this isn't a save; it's a skill check, and therefore does not fail on a natural 1. If you have a skill bonus of +19, a natural 1 will still succeed against DC 20.

 

[Fast Learner]

Of course, I doubt a Wizard would make a Concentration check if someone cast Harm on them ... as it is written, that is.

A wizard with, say, 5 hp before the spell should have little problem with the check.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Of course, I doubt a Wizard would make a Concentration check if someone cast Harm on them ... as it is written, that is.

Depends whether you consider "loss of hit points" and "damage dealt" to be equivalent.

Damage is defined as a decrease of hit points, but the converse - that a decrease of hit points is always damage - is not specified.

Harm causes a loss of hit points; a concentration check is required is damage is dealt.

Thus, if you consider that Harm is dealing damage, it forces a concentration check. If you consider Harm's "loss of hit points" to be distinct from damage, it doesn't.

(Note that all the Inflict spells specifically deal damage. Harm uses different wording.)

-Hyp.

 

[Chacal]

Add me to the nasty house rulers list. It like the way Icebear handle this.

Chacal

 

[Tom Cashel]

True, but remember that this isn't a save; it's a skill check, and therefore does not fail on a natural 1. If you have a skill bonus of +19, a natural 1 will still succeed against DC 20.

Hmm. Good point.

Higher level characters should be better at maintaining their casting through combat/damage. That's my rationalization. Plus, at high levels it's more likely for the wizard to get swatted for 20 or 30 damage than 5, thus upping the DC considerably for that Concentration check.

But either way...good point!

 

[IceBear]

Add me to the nasty house rulers list. It like the way Icebear handle this.

Chacal

Well, at the time I decided to rule that way, it was hard to tell what was the house rule - all the damage into one check or seperate.

I was firmly in the seperate camp (it was just simpler and that's what I read the passage to mean), but - I think it was Artoomis - there were some excellent arguments for all the damage into one check (using the same passage). Thus, I decided to compromise on the issue.

If you *REALLY* want to get into house rule land, and give someone a chance to disrupt a spell by laying down a good smacking on a spellcaster before he starts casting, I've seen some people use 1/2 damage before you start casting as a Concentration check too. Whether or not you like this depends on how you feel about spellcasters I guess. I don't have a real problem with spellcasters mixing it up in melee (just get a chance to hurt them more ) but if you do I can see why some might like that house rule.

IceBear