Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[Darkness]

Just because you're P-cat's lackey doesn't mean you can say something and thereby make it true.

Right.

(yes, even low-level summonings if the cleric is going to waste his Harm spell on them) are all simple and effective counters.

I meant that you could use low-level summon monster spells to summon creatures that get into the way when a cleric (or any other character that's using touch attacks, really) tries to harm you.
I'm not yet sure how to the execute this tactic best, though; maybe have your critters step (and, if possible, hover) in front of you and ready an action to collectively grapple anyone who gets too close (or just anyone without a weapon in hand).

And the list goes on. A rule that has checks and balances is a balanced rule.

You can use about all of the proposed "checks" and "balances" against any other spell that works similarly (e.g., requires a touch attack, etc.), too, though. And these other spells do have in-built checks and balances as well - but harm doesn't. So why do you think it's "balanced?"

 

[IceBear]

You can use about all of the proposed "checks" and "balances" against any other spell that works similarly (e.g., requires a touch attack, etc.), too, though. And these other spells do have in-built checks and balances as well - but harm doesn't. So why do you think it's "balanced?"

Exactly.

IceBear

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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

Really? Let's see those six counters. We've already seen multiple monsters. Where are the other ones?
(And what prevents a Red dragon from taking Harm? They cast as sorcerers, remember?)

Lucius. have you ever seen the Great Cleave/WWA combo in action? Do you think it's perfectly balanced?

Who is T'ed?

GO LEAFS GO!

 

[Dark Dragon]

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.

Well, you could also ask your players: Come on guys, use more PCs!
Summon monsters for defense is a good advice, unfortunately it takes a round to get them into position. Casting Harm is a bit quicker... Killing a PC with the simple (cheesy, if you want) Harm + quickened ILW combo is not really fun, as is loosing the NPC villain in round 1...

I'm member in three D&D groups with different players and they ALL agreed (even those playing clerics and druids and even the rookies) that Harm is completely broken! Our house rule might not be the best but we get along with it (Harm has a will save for d8+1 per caster level, victim has never less than d4 HP). Fighting a high-priest is still very difficult, still a PC might die. But at least the insta-kill combo is more difficult to end in success.

Hmm, I'm missing some thread about Time Stop ... get another hot discussion

 

[IceBear]

Who is T'ed?

I wonder that too. When 3E first came out he used to provide some "offical" clarifications on rulings and stuff. I do believe he plays in Monte's campaign world and I think I've seen his names in some credits, but in all honesty I don't know if he still works at WotC and what he does(did?).

IceBear

 

[FlimFlam]

The main problem with that is the CR of the creatures tend to be lower (if you want the same ECL) and thus not as tough as normal. So, boom, harm takes out one baddy and the rest are cannon fodder to the rest of the party. It also doesn't always make sense for there to be multiple baddies.

IceBear

I agree that it doesn't always make sense for there to be multiple baddies in every encounter. But I would also say that if you wanted to counter Harm, you could probably find a way to toss in baddies before the "main" encounter.

When you plan to throw one big-bad creature at the party, chances are this will be a main villan or threat of some sort. If this is the case, then don't you think it would be prepared ahead of time for spells such as Harm?

If you are tossing just a generic high-ECL creature (like a nameless dragon that has no signifcance in your campaign world, it's just a random encounter) at them, well what can I say? Oh well... Not every encounter is going to be ready to counter Harm, nor should it (guess that is MHO, if you play that every foe should have an equal chance to do damage to the party, well then so be it). In which case, if the encounter is not a challenge, then don't award any exp (or award less then they would normally get). You get experience from the CHALLENGE after all (that is why they base experience off of CHALLENGE ratings I think).

For every situation you can think of, there is always a way to avoid Harm without specifically trying to avoid it, or making it look like you are specifically trying to avoid it.

 

[FlimFlam]

Well, you could also ask your players: Come on guys, use more PCs!
Summon monsters for defense is a good advice, unfortunately it takes a round to get them into position. Casting Harm is a bit quicker... Killing a PC with the simple (cheesy, if you want) Harm + quickened ILW combo is not really fun, as is loosing the NPC villain in round 1...

But what the party doesn't know is that NPC villain was undead (Harm heals it instead), had a Contingency on it, had a Ring of Counterspelling on, was inside an anit-magic field, was really a Forsaker or other creature with a high SR, etc...

See, there are plenty of ways to counter it. Some specific (Ring of Counterspelling) and some non-specific (anti-magic field, sure it counters Harm, as well as all other magic).

Like I said in a previous post, if this is just some nameless NPC mook, well so what if Harm helps kill it? It's bound to happen sometime.

 

[Darkness]

I wonder that too. When 3E first came out he used to provide some "offical" clarifications on rulings and stuff. I do believe he plays in Monte's campaign world and I think I've seen his names in some credits, but in all honesty I don't know if he still works at WotC and what he does(did?).

IceBear

T'ed is Ed (or Ted - hence, "T'ed" ) Stark.

 

[IceBear]

But this goes back to Darkness' post - every spell has the same checks as well, PLUS internal checks that Harm is missing. That's our point. Just about every other spell that can do the amount of damage as harm has either a save or a cap on it. I could, for example, use pretty much the same counters as you say I should be doing for harm with disintegrate, but in the end, disintegrate still gives me a save. Yes, harm doesn't KILL you, but unless you have contingency, or a cleric who can cast heal on you before the next opponent's turn, you're pretty much just as dead is if you got hit by disintegrate.

Go pick up the Dungeon magazine that has the White Dragon sorcerer in it. Anything that is done to SPECIFICALLY counter harm (ie give it some item that allows it to cast heal) would have been a bit much I think.

 

[IceBear]

But what the party doesn't know is that NPC villain was undead (Harm heals it instead), had a Contingency on it, had a Ring of Counterspelling on, was inside an anit-magic field, was really a Forsaker or other creature with a high SR, etc...

See, there are plenty of ways to counter it. Some specific (Ring of Counterspelling) and some non-specific (anti-magic field, sure it counters Harm, as well as all other magic).

Like I said in a previous post, if this is just some nameless NPC mook, well so what if Harm helps kill it? It's bound to happen sometime.

And if you pull crap like this all the time your players are REALLY going to love you. Not everyone has the same access to these resources you know. And again, these are counters to MANY things not just harm, but these other things also have their own balances.

IceBear