Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?
- Thread starter sineater
- Start date
- Status
) Stark.
Ice Bear, how about this.
instead of doing the humpty hump with a million kobolds (one of my favorites) use the AoO generated by the touch attack. The TYPE of attack you use is still an option. you don't HAVE to strike, you can trip, or if the target of the Harm is an evil cleric, how about a Turning...now that would bite.
and still you've got the best one of all.
If the Party can do it, so can you. I personally have been the subject to Harm/Heal battles. they get interesting. and drain spells quickly.
also creat situations where the party is forced to make an extended push. This forces Clerics to think about using spells that have durations. killing that ONE baddie is fine and all but if you have to keep going you may want to use spells that have longer durations or multiple effects (hero's feast).
And if your Cleric (who has to be 11th level min) is in the THICK of Battle at that level. either your partys stupid or your adventures are in need of revision. no this is NOT a slam, just an observation. at 11th level a good cleric is supporting the fighters. If your group is so small that the Cleric IS the other fighter then casting in combat generates an AoO, (i know about combat casting) making an unarmed attack generates an AoO, your cleric may not LIVE to see the spell finished.
how about Archers 'readied' to interupt spell casting.
and if he's a Monk/priest, he's either ALOT higher level then 11th or one sucky monk. in which case what is the problem. send them after the Terrasque and see what happens. A few Titans should make things interesting. how about a Beholder. gotta love those Ranged touch attacks. Throw in a couple of trolls, a little salt, and VOILA! at least 3 weeks of combat.
iso
"...Be well John Sparta!"
instead of doing the humpty hump with a million kobolds (one of my favorites) use the AoO generated by the touch attack. The TYPE of attack you use is still an option. you don't HAVE to strike, you can trip, or if the target of the Harm is an evil cleric, how about a Turning...now that would bite.
and still you've got the best one of all.
If the Party can do it, so can you. I personally have been the subject to Harm/Heal battles. they get interesting. and drain spells quickly.
also creat situations where the party is forced to make an extended push. This forces Clerics to think about using spells that have durations. killing that ONE baddie is fine and all but if you have to keep going you may want to use spells that have longer durations or multiple effects (hero's feast).
And if your Cleric (who has to be 11th level min) is in the THICK of Battle at that level. either your partys stupid or your adventures are in need of revision. no this is NOT a slam, just an observation. at 11th level a good cleric is supporting the fighters. If your group is so small that the Cleric IS the other fighter then casting in combat generates an AoO, (i know about combat casting) making an unarmed attack generates an AoO, your cleric may not LIVE to see the spell finished.
how about Archers 'readied' to interupt spell casting.
and if he's a Monk/priest, he's either ALOT higher level then 11th or one sucky monk. in which case what is the problem. send them after the Terrasque and see what happens. A few Titans should make things interesting. how about a Beholder. gotta love those Ranged touch attacks. Throw in a couple of trolls, a little salt, and VOILA! at least 3 weeks of combat.
iso
"...Be well John Sparta!"
IceBear
Explorer
But the touch from a touch attack spell doesn't generate an AoO - why do you keep saying it does?
I also know that if the PCs do it I can too. Trust me, if the PCs ever do anything cheesy they know I can do it too AND better. In all fairness to my players, they tend to stop using cheesy tactics on their own.
I *know* circumstances can be arranged to limit the effectiveness of harm (just like anything), but to do it often is DM metagaming, IMO, and not appreciated by my players. My group and I like the save.
IceBear
I also know that if the PCs do it I can too. Trust me, if the PCs ever do anything cheesy they know I can do it too AND better. In all fairness to my players, they tend to stop using cheesy tactics on their own.
I *know* circumstances can be arranged to limit the effectiveness of harm (just like anything), but to do it often is DM metagaming, IMO, and not appreciated by my players. My group and I like the save.
IceBear
Last edited:
IceBear said:
I think that is my point though. This wouldn't happen ALL the time, nor should it. Face it, sooner or later Harm is going to effect the bad guys. Whether it is a lowly orc or the all powerful wizard terrorizing the world.
Not quite sure what you mean by their own balances though. Do you mean, "saving throws"?
Henry
Autoexreginated
FlimFlam said:
I wouldn't call it that, and here is why.
Back in First and in Second Edition, Harm had to overcome the target's Armor class in order to work. The creature touched got to use their full armor class, because in those editions a spellcaster had to make an attack roll to get the spell off.
Now, under Third Edition, with the addition of the Touch Attack, an opponent's full armor class does not have to be overcome. Large, slow opponents without magic resistance are especially vulnerable to Harm spells. I personally don't believe the designers intended for Harm to be quite so easy to pull off.
All of the spells mentioned by the others (The power word spells, Otto's Irresistable Dance, etc.) have one thing in common - they are 8th or 9th level in power, and meant to be cast by hideously powerful spellcasters against hideously powerful opponents. Power word Stun does not make an opponent helpless, but it does give you an advantage for a couple of rounds.
Harm is a 6th level spell, and deadly to most living beings. Against anyone but the exceptionally swift, it is a combat-winning spell, castable by someone just halfway to maximum level.
These are my beefs with it as written - yet I still use it unmodified in my games. Funny, huh?
IceBear
Explorer
FlimFlam said:
Yes, either a saving throw (like Finger of Death or Disintegrate) or a cap on damage/what they can affect (like Power Word Kill). Harm has neither.
I also don't have a problem with harm affecting the bad guys. If a PC cast's harm on the all powerful wizard and the wizard fails the save - good for the PCs. If he makes the save (more likely) then the wizard has just lost half of his hitpoints (and maybe has to save or die from Massive Damage) and is in a much worse situation than before. Still good for the PCs.
My players like it this way. I'm a DM for my players. I do what they like.
Henry pretty much hit the nail on the head - the designers pretty much cut and paste the spell from past editions into 3E (like they did with some other ones) and never thought about the differences with touch AC and casting times (I *THINK* it was a longer casting time in the past and/or it was easier to disrupt).
IceBear
Last edited:
Henry said:
I am not very familiar with the spell list myself as I tend to not play spellcasters, but here is a quick observation I made...
Flesh to Stone is a level 6 spell for a Wizard/Sorcerer. Compare this to Harm now.
Stone to Flesh doesn't technically kill the opponent, but does turn them to stone (permanently I think). I suppose you could knock their head off after that. STF doesn't require a "to hit" roll, and has a range of about 100+ feet. It doesn't have to hit an AC, but a Fort save is required. You could enhance this with feats to help it penetrate the Fort save (Heighten spell, Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, etc.).
Harm also doesn't technically kill an opponent, but it does render them to 1d4 hp, which is good enough. Harm doesn't have a save attached to it, but you DO have to get within range and make a melee touch attack on the creature to hit. You could enchance this with feats, such as Reach spell (makes it a 30' range touch attack) but that would also up the level.
I think these two spells are very similiar in a lot of ways. Neither outright kill the opponent. Both require some sort of roll to effect the target (one a melee touch attack, the other a fort save). One can be used at range (which makes it easier to land) and one has to be used in melee (which makes it more dangerous to land). Both can be increased in power using feats. Oh, and one more thing... If the target of STF is effected, they can not do anything to get out of the effect (aside from a Contingency). If they are hit by Harm, they are still alive enough to do something (heal themselves or otherwise escape).
So, is Stone to Flesh over powered too? If not, why? They seem very similiar to me, they just use different mechanics to produce the same type of effect. Except STF has two benefits to it that Harm doesn't, it has range and once you are affected by it you are stone whereas with Harm you have a chance to react (depending on initiative and what not) because you are still alive for a moment =).
- Status
Similar Threads
