Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[sineater]

Clerical spell Harm, to powerful?

Ok this 6th level spell allows you to cast it on anyone and reduce there hp's to 1d4. The person it is cast upon gets no saving throw. To me this spell seems quite powerful. But thats my opinion. To I would think you get a saving throw. If you fail it then you get reduced. But if you make it. You take a certain amount of damage instead. (Exm. 4d6 +1 per caster level) What do you guys think?

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I think there has been one too many threads on the Harm spell.

Seriously, some think it is fine as written. More think it is too powerful as written, specifically that it gets the combination of a touch attack and no save. Most think that the touch attack is alright, but the spell should have a saving throw.

There have been many suggestions for what the save should be. Some say a Will save, because its cousins, the inflict wounds spells, have a Will save. Others think Fortitude is the right save. And if the save is made, some think it should do a set amount of damage, like 4d8+level, while others think it should take off half your current hit points. Those are your major choices. Pick one.

 

[maddman75]

<full metal jacket>
THIS IS MY HOUSE RULE FOR HARM. THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE
</full metal jacket>

I give harm a fort save, success dealing 6d8+level (as if a 6th level version of an inflict), but cannot bring the target below five hit points. Want to avoid the situation of a character dying because they made the save!

Yeah, I know inflict gives a will save, but I like Fort. It does attack the body after all. For synergy with the inflict, I keep to the same damage scale.

 

[mikebr99]

You forgot one (maybe more) Doctor... Change Harm to do a set amount of damage per caster level, say 10/level... no save.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Ugh. This again.

Harm is fine just how it is. Trust those hard-working people at WotC who play-test all these things, eh?

It doesn't kill you, it requires a touch attack, and there's DOZENS of ways of avoiding it. That's why it doesn't get a save.

Harm, leave it alone. Just like nature intended.

 

[Ran]

Well, I haven't seen this thread, since I am new here, but I could allow a save based on one question, if it possible: Do you get a save if you don't want to receive healing?

 

[Dash Dannigan]

Do undead get a saving throw when a cure spell is cast on them? How about a Heal spell? Should be the same as the inflict spells. Too many Harm threads, this dog has been beaten one too many times eh?

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Our house rule is as follows: Will save. If successful, you only lose half your hit points. Still very powerful, but nowhere near as overpowered as original harm.

Harm is not fine. There are not dozens of ways to avoid it. It is utter BS when a cleric can run up to a powerful dragon with a 1,000 hit points and knock him to 1d4 while his buddy takes a ready action with his fist, if he so chooses.

Harm is way overpowered. Even I, who believe haste is just fine as is, cannot believe anyone would think harm is fine as is.

The spell cannot be defended against except with SR, a high touch AC, a spell that turns you into undead, or actually being undead. Most of these players don't have access to and most monsters don't have in sufficient quantity to warrant harm having no save.

I think we are being kind just to allow it do half damage with a save and have full effect if failed. No other 6th level spell is this powerful with indefinite scaling.

 

[Bonedagger]

I say just like any Inflict spell you can make a Will save for half damage. I didn't even have to think twice about altering it.

 

[Berk]

Do you get a save if you don't want to receive healing?

Sure, will for half.