Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[MerakSpielman]

[Merak sits back and grabs some popcorn, ready to watch the escalating fireworks show]

This sure is fun. Anybody else notice all the folks complaining about "Another Harm Thread" but making sure they post in it? Honestly, how can anybody really even attempt to debate this anymore? There is not one person out there who has considered the issue that will change their mind.

Maybe we should all just put our Harm opinions in our sigs so we don't have to bother anymore.

Oh, and for the record, my stance on Harm: My group hasn't had a problem with it yet, so we haven't changed it.

 

[Moleculo]

i think that since the US created the internet, it is only fair that we are allowed to make the rules...

Yeah, i think the only thing lamer than harm, is when you whittle down a large creature like a dragon, and then it casts heal on itself. Harm isn't an insurmountable spell, but i would say that the save for half of hitpoints is a fair house rule.

jake

 

[Tom Cashel]

Why do we have to follow American rules?

I meant North American rules.

Oh, you guarantee it! That solves everything!

BTW, your sig confuses me. What does Monte's ranger have to do with that picture of two guys about to make out?
::flee::

My guarantee was satire. Half of statements made with the utmost certitude on messageboards, and half riffing on the Messier guarantee of 1994. I half no idea what they'll do to Harm in the revision.

Rangers suck - both 3E and New York.

Yeah...LIKE YUH MUTHA, FOXHOUND!

What's with you and Tom covering each other's butts lately anyway - not that I'm implying anything because I'm not

I wish he would stop, considering he's completely ignorant where D&D rules are concerned.

Gee, I wasn't aware, that the internet was in America

Space Ghost: "Well it is, okay, Zorak? I'm in America now and I can see the Internet sitting right there! Right over there!"

I'm harmed by these harm threads.

Quick! Someone use their readied action!

Well, the 3e Rangers at least stand a good chance of being made less sucky next year in the revision...

Agh, it's so true. And now with Bure possibly out for the season...

I have the NHL Center Ice package, and the past few days I've been thinking about following another team along with the Rangers. You know, for when the playoffs come around...

There is not one person out there who has considered the issue that will change their mind.

Not true. I started out in favor of not changing the spell at all, but decided in the end that a 100 hp cap would be fair and sensible.

Maybe we should all just put our Harm opinions in our sigs so we don't have to bother anymore.

 

[Darkness]

Yeah, i think the only thing lamer than harm, is when you whittle down a large creature like a dragon, and then it casts heal on itself.

We recently had exactly that problem with a couatl. In the end, we managed to do enough damage to exhaust its capacities for self-healing and drive it off, though...

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Harm is fine as written. I guarantee it will not be revised.

You're kidding me.

Every game designer from WotC with a website says it should be errata'd, and house rule it for their campaign. See www.montecook.com or www.seankreynolds.com or email the Sage for details.

PirateCat, who was voted the best DM for the ENNies, has house-ruled it.

It's only balanced if every fourth bulette has a Staff of Healing and a level of cleric.

Furthermore, who cares if that dragon has a defense against Harm? Take a look at the MM and tell me how many of the creatures in there have a defense against Harm. Most of them don't.

Spell Turning does not work against Harm.

Besides, it will be changed in the next edition. They said they were going to make things better, not make munchkins happy.

Playtesting does not catch everything. I think the 3e Player's Handbook is much much more balanced than the 2e version, but

1) The playtesters didn't always agree with each other.
2) Some things weren't changed, despite the complaints of playtesters, eg Identify.

Take a look at the errata for Sword and Fist and you will know what I'm talking about.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

You're kidding me.Every game designer from WotC with a website says it should be errata'd, and house rule it for their campaign. See www.montecook.com or www.seankreynolds.com or email the Sage for details.

It's part of the core rules, buddy. It's not changed in the errata nor the FAQ.

So if you don't like Harm, why not take away the movement penalty for heavy armor? Why not let rangers shapechange? Or why not give clerics the ability to Rage 1/day?

See, I wouldn't. I play 3E D&D. You should try it sometime. Like I've always said, if you can't handle Harm, you need to read the DMG more.

House rules are for the weak.

 

[Darkness]

2) Some things weren't changed, despite the complaints of playtesters, eg Identify.

Identify? What did the playtesters suggest for it?

House rules are for the weak.

Like Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds? If you can't handle house rules, you need to read the DMG more. (It's on page 11, BTW.)

 

[Ferox4]

House rules are for the weak.

What kind of statement is that? I'll tell you - an ignorant, inflamatory and meretricious statement that will unlikely sway the opposition to your point of view. Furthermore, if someone wants to augment the core rules with their own house rules so that the game becomes (to them) more colorful, realistic, playable, et cetera, just what exactly is weak about that?

See, I wouldn't. I play 3E D&D. You should try it sometime. Like I've always said, if you can't handle Harm, you need to read the DMG more.

C'mon, Lucius, that's the best argument you can assemble for justifying the Harm spell as it is written? Apparently I missed some secret page in the DMG that enlightens me to the Tao of D&D. Hmmmm, I better just keep reading then......

The bottom line, IMO, is that D&D "Rules" are subjective to each particular group that plays the game. If someone in the UK decides to let a Cleric with the War domain Rage 3x/day and they enjoy it then why should I be concerned if it's "not in the core rules?" There are no true rules, there's just guidelines. Play YOUR game and don't chastise others for playing theirs.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Darkness, in another thread, which had a poll about Identify, PirateCat said that when he was playtesting he complained about it. He also said that he wasn't the only person who said that an 8 hour casting time was too long.

Lucius, according to the rules I can make a 15th-level rogue/1st-level wizard with a Wand of Improved Invisibility, who spends his rogue special abilities on feat slots and takes Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. He also carries a bucket of snails. He turns invisible, throws the snails into the air, uses Whirlwind Attack, sneak attacks and kills them all (even if they have Tremorsense it won't work - they're airborne) and sneak attacks the guy in the middle each time. Do you allow this in your campaign?

By the way, you didn't answer the question. Which monsters in the MM (other than spellcasters and undead) can avoid Harm? And how do these monsters do so? Can you keep a purple worm alive for more than one round? (Note that, if grappled, the cleric can still use Harm. His hand is treated as a light weapon.)

 

[Ran]

Dude, that's Edmund Burke, not random character from a video game.

really? Would never realize it! Where exactly? I have only seen it on the game, at the ending equence, like it, used it... if it is someone else's saying, it's credit MUST be changed.!!



Oh, love this one:

LordAO´s sign:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

edit: inserted lordao's sign...