Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[IceBear]

Actually, people seem to take things very personally when it comes to Harm? Why? Because they know changing the game is just plain wrong. But hey, if you can still look your players in the eye without them snickering things like, "Wonder what he'll house rule next!?" that's fine with me.

Consider the DC Heroes roleplaying game.. I hear its very good.

No, I could care less about harm. It's your little snide remarks about DMing ability that I take personal.

I think some moderator needs to look at your posts lately. I haven't seen one that hasn't been a thinly veiled troll.

IceBear

 

[AuraSeer]

On Flesh to Stone: This is 6th level because it's a slightly nerfed Finger of Death. If you fail your save against FoD, and are later raised, you lose a level of experience. Being turned to stone is slightly less drastic, and doesn't make you lose a level, so the spell is therefore slightly weaker than a death effect.

On Phantasmal Killer: This is a weakened version of Slay Living. Allowing a second save makes it less powerful, so the level goes down. However, as has been pointed out, the extra save isn't much help against a caster with a very high DC. That's why it only gets lowered by one level.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

I'm not saying that only weak DMs would have to house rule Harm..

Wait, that's exactly what I'm saying.

I'll even go a step farther and say that only real men can play Harm the way it is written. So I guess for female DMs, I'd say it's okay to house rule Harm.

I hope everyone can be happy with this compromise.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Hey, man...that little winking smiley was meant to indicate good-natured ribbing. Sorry if it seemed confrontational...it really wasn't meant to.

I do, however, find it really funny sometimes how wound up people tend to get over Harm. Even when you tell them you're trolling, or they accuse you of trolling, they just can't resist getting swamped in the perennnial argument...

I don't think people get wound up, I think people jsut like to argue/debate. I have fun on all the re-hashed debates like harm, haste, rangers etc. Of course rude jerks make it less fun, even if there trying to be funny. Which is why I'm a fun destroyer.

 

[Psion]

i mean, your party are the HERO's, and they are SUPPOSED to win. scared, brused, and a few guys missing, but ultimatly win.

Right... and the competition is supposed to be challenging. Otherwise, the game is a cakewalk.

The game is dungeons and dragons. Dragons, fiendish overlords, liches, and mighty warlords are supposed to be a challenge to fight. In 3e, harm got made into a "shortcut" around such climactic events.

 

[Berk]

the problem with that idea Berk is that the d8 healing spells stop at 4th level, furthurmore there are no real comparable spells at higherlevels.

I'm just saying that if you nerf harm to do less then as it is written then you have to nerf heal to do less then as it is written cuz well, they are just opposites of each other just like every other cure and inflict spell.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: Re

Tom Cashel,

Unless your players are particularly dumb, they will not waste a Harm on the cannon fodder.

My players are not dumb. Except Lucius.

Let me ask you a few questions:

Are your players dumb enough to use it on the cannon fodder the fighter, rogue and wizard can easily kill?

Are your players dumb enough not to have a Fly or other spell type ready to use if the monster tries to escape that way?

Are your players dumb enough to use a Harm when it will not land?


All the stupid counters you and Lucius named are ones that most PC's would ever fall for unless they are incredibly dense. I don't play with dense PC's, so allowing them the full use of Harm is a mistake.

My players will bypass the counters listed by you and Lucius like hot knife through butter. If your players do not, then I don't know what to tell you.

I listed the only effective counters that specifically work against Harm. The only ones that once Harm is cast and the person has actually closed to touch combat range will defend against it.

Tell me what other methods of defense work once a person closes to melee range and has cast the spell? [/B]

Readied actions. Counterspell. Have you actually read the book?

Are you a dumb enough DM to only put your players up against one major fight per day? Are you so dense that every battle has an easily-identifiable "boss" monster?

I suggested that maybe six giants would be a better encounter than one, if your genius PCs toss around harm spells. It'll work great on one of them, but that leaves five more.

Wait...three, four, five...yeah, five more. Sorry, I'm kinda stupid over here. Takes me a while to do amrithmatec.

 

[FlimFlam]

Actually a closer comparison would be look at imprisonment or temporal stasis. Both are no save spells, require touch and don't kill just incapaicitate. One of which you need to know lots of info on the target to work, the other needs a 5,000gp material component they are both 9th level.

I am more concerned with comparing spells with similiar effects that are the same level and seeing what they have to offer in the ways of effectiveness.

Saves are a very big ballancer, even ignoring DM fudging which I refuse to do It is just as easy or easier to get your saves high as it is to get the DCs high. Also most of the save or die spells target fort as there save giving a solid chance of saving for those who don't have the resources(magic) to defend themselves.

There are always ways to pump up your spells to make it harder for someone to save against (all those nifty meta-magic feats). The chances that a random enemy takes feats to pump up their Fort and save vs. spells specifically for these types of spells would be very low.

Try stone to flesh on a dragon see what happens, try harm on a dragon and see what happens. In one case I have to overcome the spell resistence and the dagon has to roll a 1 on their save, in the other just overome the spell resistance(not easy but do-able usualy a roll of 14ish).

A properly played dragon would most likely not fall victim to Harm, nor would they fall victim to Stone to Flesh.

 

[IceBear]

i mean, your party are the HERO's, and they are SUPPOSED to win. scared, brused, and a few guys missing, but ultimatly win.

i say this 'cus im worried that i'm hearing a little of the "My players are kicking my butt". and that means an ego check is neaded.

iso
"...who you callin scruffy lookin?"

I'm sorry if that's what you think - it's an ego thing. If anything I'm too easy on my players - I WANT them to succeed. In general I'm making a story about them, so my enjoyment comes from their success. The main reason I nerfed harm is so I can get them to the point where they are "scared, brused, and a few guys missing, but ultimatly win.". That's what my players enjoy - a long drawn out battle to the finish. Not a harm vs heal fest

That's the reason.

Anyway, I'm out of this. My players are happy and that's all I care about. I have more important things than to fall victim to trolling.

IceBear

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Stone to Flesh would definitely not affect a smart dragon.