D&D 3.0 Harm spell

[reanjr]

Okay, does anyone here remember if there was ever an OFFICIAL piece of errata in 3.0 which stated that the harm spell allowed a saving throw? I remember there being a lot of complaining about how broken the spell was, and I know there were plenty of designers who said it should allow a saving throw, but I can't find anything official supporting this. Can anyone help me here? My group is trying to settle a rules dispute, and we play 3.0.

There's errata. It's called 3.5. Otherwise, no there is no errata. It's correct as written.

 

[hong]

Actually, "the question I asked" was whether anyone remembered if it had been errataed, and saying "No" is saying "Nope, no one remembers," if you're taking it literally. But that's just a nitpick.

Besides that, though, I think it's bad form to post a one-word answer. Why reply at all if you're going to be useless about it? In any case, I'd rather not derail my own thread, so I'll request here: please--no more replies unless they contain information pertinent to the 3.0 harm spell. I've already explained what I was looking for, and from appearances, it looks like I'll be researching it myself.

The 3.0 errata for the harm spell can be found somewhere in the vicinity of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and an algorithm for constructing a square of equal area to a circle of a given radius using only compass and straightedge. I have found a truly remarkable proof of this proposition, but this post is too small to contain it.

 

[UltimaGabe]

"No" was probably the most unhelpful answer possible. I mean, if you want to ignore the thread altogether, fine, but posting something like that is worse than useless.

I beg to differ. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm the king of Hyperbole- but I believe an answer along the lines of "Twelve, please" or "Chicken Soup at half past six" would have been less helpful than Thanee's answer- which, I will add, was completely correct and concise. You asked a question, Thanee answered it. It's one thing to not be satisfied with an answer, but to respond with rude comments to someone answering exactly what you asked is, in my opinion, bad form. Why does an answer need to be longer than necessary? I, for one, think that this world is far too full of unneeded information. Take my post, for example. I've done nothing but back up what three or four people have said, and yet I'm still typing. Was all this necessary? Goodness no. So in the future, it's fine to ask for more information than you're given, but don't get snoody just because someone didn't meet your unstated standards.

 

[weiknarf]

Don't bother looking in Dragon. If it's not on the Wizards website in the official errata .pdf then it don't count as offical.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's watch the personal attacks, kids.

As stated, there's no official change to the 3E Harm spell until you make the shift to 3.5.

This thread has gotten off on a bad foot, so I'm going to close it.

derverdammte - if you want to start another thread asking about suggested house rules for 3E Harm, feel free to do so... though the House Rules Forum might be a better bet.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)