Can Harm kill you now?

[Thanee]

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.

As written, only if the creature saves, it cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp.

Bye
Thanee

 

[wingsandsword]

As written, only if the creature saves, it cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp.

Yes, it appears that v3.5 Harm can kill if you fail to Save, but at least it no longer does near-infinite damage.

Of course, by-the-book 1st Edition Heal could kill you if you had maximum HP of 4 or less (like a 1st level Wizard), since it put you at 1d4 below your maximum HP (or so I've been told, I don't have a 1e PHB), and dying at -10 was introduced as an optional rule in 2e.

So Heal and Harm have always been a little funny, but I do like the 3.5 versions best since they don't do infinite healing/damage and Harm couldn't kill which made it less dangerous as a one-hit spell than Cause/Inflict Light Wounds.

 

[devilish]

As written, only if the creature saves, it cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp.

Bye
Thanee

Is this right, rules-wise? Or a misprint --- more like (mine in bold ):

If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount,
but, in either case, it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

 

[Thanee]

...but I do like the 3.5 versions best since they don't do infinite healing/damage and Harm couldn't kill which made it less dangerous as a one-hit spell than Cause/Inflict Light Wounds.

That would be an explanation, if it's actually meant that way.

Bye
Thanee

 

[0-hr]

This is a revision and the spell was revised, so we have to assume the authors wrote what they meant. No save = dead (assuming sufficient damage done).

 

[shilsen]

This is a revision and the spell was revised, so we have to assume the authors wrote what they meant. No save = dead (assuming sufficient damage done).

Yup. That's the way I see it. Seems just fine for a 6th lvl spell to me.

 

[dcollins]

Of course, by-the-book 1st Edition Heal could kill you if you had maximum HP of 4 or less (like a 1st level Wizard), since it put you at 1d4 below your maximum HP (or so I've been told, I don't have a 1e PHB), and dying at -10 was introduced as an optional rule in 2e.

No on two points.
- Harm "causes loss of all hit points, as damage, save 1 to 4" (1st Ed. AD&D PHB p. 51).

- Dying at -10 hp was actually a core rule even in 1st Ed. AD&D. The difference is that it only got triggered by a blow that put you at exactly 0 hp (or optionally in the range 0 to -3: 1st Ed. DMG p. 82).

 

[Li Shenron]

As written, only if the creature saves, it cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp.

Bye
Thanee

I thought the same as soon as I read the 3.5 version, but I quickly decided that "cannot be reduced below 1hp" applies always. Just to keep it consistent to older meaning behind this spell.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is this right, rules-wise? Or a misprint --- more like (mine in bold ):

If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount,
but, in either case, it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

Or also it could have been a "." instead of a "but".

 

[hong]

... so, Thanee, out of interest's sake, how much damage _did_ you take?