Clerical spell Harm, too powerful?

[AuraSeer]

For the hundredth time, HEAL! Why doesn't Heal count?

Because it doesn't help.
Harm is effectively a save-or-lose spell; if you get hit with it, you're gone. Before you have a chance to cast Heal, you will take at least 1d4 damage from the cleric or one of his allies, and you will be dead. Once you're dead (or dying), you can't cast spells.

Harm's specific check, balance, whatever you want to call it, is Heal!

An opposite spell is not necessarily a counter.

Think about this one: what's the balancing factor for Slay Living? It sure as hell isn't Raise Dead, which is the opposite spell. You can't even raise someone who has been hit with SL. The correct answer is Death Ward; it protects against SL before it hits.

 

[Isollae]

=-]

heres a spin for you...

Why is your cleric casting Harm in the first place?

Harm is the channeling of Negative Energy. If your playing a good priest (therefore channeling positive energy when turning) why are you using negative energy. I sure hope your not letting a priest of pelor, or lathander channel negative energy.

this thought deals with the inflict spells as well. negative energy.

before Harm and Heal even come up....you should have asked these questions. While i am sure there are situations that channeling negative energy for a good pourpous has and will happen. i cannot intilectually understand why they would be allowd to memorise them on a regular basis.

the bad thing is that THIS is the sort of stuff that should have been delt with LONG before Harm and Heal come up.

iso
"...I don't know whats hotter, you or that car."

 

[Tom Cashel]

Harm is effectively a save-or-lose spell; if you get hit with it, you're gone. Before you have a chance to cast Heal, you will take at least 1d4 damage from the cleric or one of his allies, and you will be dead. Once you're dead (or dying), you can't cast spells.

Probably, yes.

But not necessarily.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re

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

It's snide comments like that which bring the bad blood into the thread...

At any rate, that is not sufficient to justify the low spell level of harm. Sure, counterspells work great (if you happen to be a cleric, and you can afford to prepare a counterspell and wait while the rest of the party hacks on you.) But the existence of countermeasures is not sufficient to justify the existence of a spell at a given spell of the same level.

The fact is, in comparison to other spells of the same level, harm is way too easy to pull off, as only a very small proportion of creatures have touch ACs that even close to compare to their saves at that level.

Are you a dumb enough DM to only put your players up against one major fight per day?

Are your players dumb enough to blow it on a lackey when they know the BBEG still waits in his chambers?

Are you so dense that every battle has an easily-identifiable "boss" monster?

No, not every battle has to be this way. But then, it should not be made an unviable campaign choice by the existence of a single spell for which the designers failed to fully appreciate the implications of the new touch attack rules for.

 

[IceBear]

heres a spin for you...

Why is your cleric casting Harm in the first place?

Harm is the channeling of Negative Energy. If your playing a good priest (therefore channeling positive energy when turning) why are you using negative energy. I sure hope your not letting a priest of pelor, or lathander channel negative energy.

this thought deals with the inflict spells as well. negative energy.

before Harm and Heal even come up....you should have asked these questions. While i am sure there are situations that channeling negative energy for a good pourpous has and will happen. i cannot intilectually understand why they would be allowd to memorise them on a regular basis.

the bad thing is that THIS is the sort of stuff that should have been delt with LONG before Harm and Heal come up.

There's nothing stopping a good cleric from casting harm. It could be a good house rule, but it's not how the offical rules work.

IceBear

 

[Tom Cashel]

Re: Re: Re: Re

It's snide comments like that which bring the bad blood into the thread...

No, I suggest you look back to Ssendam69's last post, in which he thought it would be really fun to accuse me and my entire gaming group of being idiots.

IceBear...I thought you'd escaped the troll-fest?

 

[Psion]

Why is your cleric casting Harm in the first place?

Because your deity expects you to smite evil with it and destroy those who would prey on the weak.

Sorry, there is nothing in the rules that say that:

1) clerics who turn undead cannot inflict or harm (and, conversely, those who control cannot heal...)
2) Harm or inflict are evil.

Of course, you are welcome to make such a house rule if it fits your game. Just be advised that you will run into the same problems you are having now with harm with heal when it comes to undead.

 

[Psion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

No, I suggest you look back to Ssendam69's last post, in which he thought it would be really fun to accuse me and my entire gaming group of being idiots.

He was wrong then, you are in the wrong now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[IceBear]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re

IceBear...I thought you'd escaped the troll-fest?

No, I meant I was going ignore Lucius (or any other obvious troll post). Isollae is quite polite and is asking questions to which I feel I should respond.

I do apologize for my earlier remark to you. I see that you are being quite light hearted in all this so I shouldn't brand you as being like Lucius.

IceBear

 

[Tom Cashel]

You can come up with killer combos ("smackdowns") for lots and lots of spells, all of which will probably be lethal.

Claiming that Harm is broken because it makes it easy to a.) have a quickened inflict spell ready for the follow-up, b.) have one of your buddies drop the killing blow, or c.) insert other tactic, is not sufficient to claim that a spell that doesn't even kill you on it's own...ever is imbalanced.

I'll make a bet: the "revisions" will cause more imbalances than they'll fix. There's a reason why buildings aren't held together with band-aids.

He was wrong then, you are in the wrong now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Okay. Agreed.