Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[IceBear]

The same could be said about DMs who change the rules to suit their needs rather than thinking of viable ways within the rules to counter them.

Give me some ways a "typical" encounter can counter harm?

Typical means picking some common monsters from the MM that would be about the caster's level. Not all will have SR, and I'm sure most won't have healing.

BTW - can the title to this thread be edited to fix the missing "o" from "too"

IceBear

 

[Darkness]

Whoa... Bonedagger.. that's cool how you made all the harms light up in red for the entire thread. How'd you do that, eh?

Follow his link again and look at the exact URL.

 

[Darkness]

The same could be said about DMs who change the rules to suit their needs rather than thinking of viable ways within the rules to counter them.

"Could?" Why, yes, of course. In fact, one could even say that "icebears could take over the world!!!"

Alas, both this and your statement are unsupportable by actual facts - and that's what's important, not what one could do.

 

[IceBear]

You mean, icebears aren't taking over the world?

IceBear

 

[Darkness]

You mean, icebears aren't taking over the world?

IceBear

Not now, anyway; but maybe they'll start some time soon.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Give me some ways a "typical" encounter can counter harm?

Typical means picking some common monsters from the MM that would be about the caster's level. Not all will have SR, and I'm sure most won't have healing.

How about six of them instead of just one? That'd solve your problem.

You're just being stubborn, IceBear...

"Could?" Why, yes, of course. In fact, one could even say that "icebears could take over the world!!!"

Alas, both this and your statement are unsupportable by actual facts - and that's what's important, not what one could do.

Except that the poster was simply replying to maddman75's audacious claims with audacious statements of his own. I suppose unsuppoprtable claims are fine, as long as the poster making them agrees with your personal view on Harm, eh Darkness?

 

[Darkness]

Except that the poster was simply replying to maddman75's audacious claims with audacious statements of his own. I suppose unsuppoprtable claims are fine, as long as the poster making them agrees with your personal view on Harm, eh Darkness?

Except that maddman75 was simply replying to Lucius Foxhound's audacious statements of his own. I suppose unsuppoprtable claims are fine, as long as the poster making them agrees with your personal view on Harm, eh Tom?

 

[IceBear]

No, I'm not being stubborn. I was responding to Flim Flam's thought that house rules were for "lazy" DMs that couldn't use the rules to get around what we perceive to be an issue. As far as I can tell, the only way to "get around" harm is to use specific encounters as most generic encounters can't do anything about harm.

I still stand by my group's decision to house rule it. It might not work for your group, but my group enjoys a 30+ minutes (real time) battle to the death with the Big Bad as opposed to a couple of dice rolls and it's all over.

If I stick with it the way it is, all major encounters will need some way of casting heal in order to survive. OR, I'll just make sure that a lot of NPCs cast it on the PCs so we go into the "Harm Cold War" state that many groups seem to be in.

IceBear

 

[Tom Cashel]

I don't support any audacious claims at all, and I challenge you to find any post where I support the claims of the ignorant Rule Nazi calling himself "Lucius Foxhound."

By the way, Dark, I've banned you from S.H.I.N.Y. Now don't you feel terrible.

 

[Tom Cashel]

As far as I can tell, the only way to "get around" harm is to use specific encounters as most generic encounters can't do anything about harm.

I'll say it again: USE MORE MONSTERS. Harm only works against a single target. Is it really so difficult to counter? No, not really.