Does anyone think Harm is too powerful of a spell?
- Thread starter Creampuff
- Start date
- Status
Re
Harm needs a save of some kind. It is way too powerful as it is currently written.
That stupid BS about DMing skills is ludicrous and unsupported. Your DM would basically have to make most creatures running cowards until they killed all the clerics to be run well according to their logic. They couldn't enter melee or stay in any kind of attack range period.
The majority opinion is that Harm should be modified. If someone could post one of the old polls, I believe 70% plus feel Harm should be changed.
Harm needs a save of some kind. It is way too powerful as it is currently written.
That stupid BS about DMing skills is ludicrous and unsupported. Your DM would basically have to make most creatures running cowards until they killed all the clerics to be run well according to their logic. They couldn't enter melee or stay in any kind of attack range period.
The majority opinion is that Harm should be modified. If someone could post one of the old polls, I believe 70% plus feel Harm should be changed.
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
WotC employees have called it broken. It's going to be altered, so these arguments will stop.
Anyway, read my sig, but I'm sure you've seen those arguments before
Anyway, read my sig, but I'm sure you've seen those arguments before
Instead of insulting other forum members, can you give us a good reason why it isn't broken in your campaign, besides your "superior" DM style?
Last edited:
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
I don't really see how it was insulting. I think perhaps you might be defensive about having to implement house rules. Don't be... for a lot of DMs, it's really necessary. Personally, I shy from house rules.
As for Harm, well, first of all is DOESN'T kill you. And anything not killed, can be healed. And I don't buy the argument that every cleric is walking around with a quickened cause light wounds.
Second, you have to be up close and personal to cast Harm. That's gonna be dangerous against a 500 HP dragon. In fact, if you don't overcome his huge spell resistance, you're cleric may likely die the next round.
Third, there's tons of spells that get around Harm. Fly is an easy one. Plus Mirror Image (some would say it would dischage the spell if you hit an image), Displacement, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, Gaseous Form, Wall of Force, Bigby's Interposing Hand, AntiMagic Field, Mislead, Project Image, Protection from Spells, Spell Resistance, Repulsion and so on. So as the DM, I just toss a few of these spells into the mix.
Harm's a great spell, but it's not a game breaker... at least for some DMs.
Re
Here is my problem with your logic Lucius.
D&D by its very nature is a group game. It is not meant to be played solo.
Given this reality, Harm is overpowered because used in conjunction with the capabilities of other characters it becomes nigh on an unbeatable way to end an otherwise challenging encounter.
True, if all you had to deal with was a single cleric wandering by himself in a dungeon, Harm would be fine as it is currently written. I would have zero problem with it. This is not how D&D is played.
D&D must take into account the capabilities of a party, not a single character. Now once you take into account that the cleric is going to be casting Harm after the rest of the party has prepared themselves to take advantage of its effect, then Harm becomes a nightmare for the DM.
Not only does this spell suck for the DM, but it can greatly suck for the players as well. In my opinion, it is not very fun for a player to have their 300 hit point fighter run into melee, and then suddenly be struck by a Harm followed by a melee attack. Yet, this would happen all the time if I were to DM properly, because I could find no reason why the enemy would not use the most powerful possible spell combinations they could muster to destroy the party.
Harm is a spell that ruins encounters both for the DM and the players in a way that no other spell I can think of does. It turns challenging encounters into trivial encounters and can be used to destroy entire parties before they know what hit them.
Personally, Lucius, your DM doesn't seem very good tactically if he or she hasn't taught you the imbalance of Harm by hammering your party with it. I know I could TPK my party over and over again with a no save Harm spell without even resorting to cruel DMing.
Here is my problem with your logic Lucius.
D&D by its very nature is a group game. It is not meant to be played solo.
Given this reality, Harm is overpowered because used in conjunction with the capabilities of other characters it becomes nigh on an unbeatable way to end an otherwise challenging encounter.
True, if all you had to deal with was a single cleric wandering by himself in a dungeon, Harm would be fine as it is currently written. I would have zero problem with it. This is not how D&D is played.
D&D must take into account the capabilities of a party, not a single character. Now once you take into account that the cleric is going to be casting Harm after the rest of the party has prepared themselves to take advantage of its effect, then Harm becomes a nightmare for the DM.
Not only does this spell suck for the DM, but it can greatly suck for the players as well. In my opinion, it is not very fun for a player to have their 300 hit point fighter run into melee, and then suddenly be struck by a Harm followed by a melee attack. Yet, this would happen all the time if I were to DM properly, because I could find no reason why the enemy would not use the most powerful possible spell combinations they could muster to destroy the party.
Harm is a spell that ruins encounters both for the DM and the players in a way that no other spell I can think of does. It turns challenging encounters into trivial encounters and can be used to destroy entire parties before they know what hit them.
Personally, Lucius, your DM doesn't seem very good tactically if he or she hasn't taught you the imbalance of Harm by hammering your party with it. I know I could TPK my party over and over again with a no save Harm spell without even resorting to cruel DMing.
Test
Anyone who thinks Harm is fine, try running RttToEE (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) to the end while playing those evil clerics to the hilt, using timed combinations of harm and quickened spells or some other people who can attack after harm... Your players are going to get so badly creamed it's not funny. Every high-level cleric on that adventure has Harm memorized... Really, try it and see your TPK/Kill count go up to stratosphere.
Z.
Anyone who thinks Harm is fine, try running RttToEE (Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil) to the end while playing those evil clerics to the hilt, using timed combinations of harm and quickened spells or some other people who can attack after harm... Your players are going to get so badly creamed it's not funny. Every high-level cleric on that adventure has Harm memorized...
Really, try it and see your TPK/Kill count go up to stratosphere.Z.
Henry
Autoexreginated
THREE THINGS:
1) Creampuff, welcome to the boards! I see you registered in December, and I don't know if you found us them or lurked a while, but welcome, all the same!
2) Creampuff, If you get any strange response to this, it's because this issue is one of the Top Ten issues that get discussed on these boards with no satisfactory answer. Hammymchamham has the best answer for it. It's pretty much a three-way plit here on this opinion.
3) TO ANY POSTER - I'll say this once - if there is ANY insulting of fellow posters' campaigns, intelligence, or play style, or any rabid flames, this becomes the first thread of the New Year to be closed. Deal?
1) Creampuff, welcome to the boards! I see you registered in December, and I don't know if you found us them or lurked a while, but welcome, all the same!
2) Creampuff, If you get any strange response to this, it's because this issue is one of the Top Ten issues that get discussed on these boards with no satisfactory answer. Hammymchamham has the best answer for it. It's pretty much a three-way plit here on this opinion.
3) TO ANY POSTER - I'll say this once - if there is ANY insulting of fellow posters' campaigns, intelligence, or play style, or any rabid flames, this becomes the first thread of the New Year to be closed. Deal?
Thanks for the welcome. I am glad I am not alone on the harm thing. I know this isn't the house rules section, but for harm we modified it that a fort save was allowed to keep the target from loosing all but 1d4 hp, and if it made the save, it lost a max of 100hp. Seems to have solved the problem.
It's always seemed to me that Harm was grandfathered in as a sixth level spell without thought to the fact that 2 more levels of spells were added to the cleric's list. Several 1st/2nd Ed cleric spells (like Harm) were meant to be the most powerful things possible for a cleric to cast - Eartquake, for example, was 7th level, and among the most destructive spells out there.
I think the best way to fix this one is to create 2 new healing spells - just have 2 more adjectives worse than "critical," like "cure mortal wounds" and "cure 'look you can see his brain!' wounds" - and place them at 6th and 7th levels, following the xd6+level (max of 5*spell level) pattern in the other healing spells. Then place Heal at 8th level and Mass Heal at 9th. Problem solved.
I think the best way to fix this one is to create 2 new healing spells - just have 2 more adjectives worse than "critical," like "cure mortal wounds" and "cure 'look you can see his brain!' wounds" - and place them at 6th and 7th levels, following the xd6+level (max of 5*spell level) pattern in the other healing spells. Then place Heal at 8th level and Mass Heal at 9th. Problem solved.
Tom Cashel
First Post
Who Summoned ME?
Did they get past the Slaad's SR?
I'm sure this is well-documented in the Compendium of House Rules to which you no doubt have access, but the rest of us will need to see some proof.
Perhaps I will!
By the same token, Harm only becomes broken when DMs use munchkinesque tactics to make it an insta-kill, like having all the evil cleric's minions ready their actions for the moment the Harm spell is cast. What came first, the munchkin or the power-gamer?
Uh...see what I mean? Of course your TPK rate will go up if you're a power-gaming DM who's out to find tricky ways to slaughter your PCs.
People who refuse to play Harm as written are running simplistic campaigns, possess dubious intellects, and are (quite frankly) engaging in a play style that simply should not be allowed. I am frothing at the mouth with flames jetting from my ears as I type this. Join S.H.I.N.Y.!!! Happy New Year!!!
What about Mass Harm? Where do we put that?
The best solution is to consider Harm as having the "Evil" descriptor. This is already implied, if not stated outright, in the rules. Then you don't have supposedly "good" PCs channeling negative energy, and Harm becomes a terrifying spell used by enemy clerics (i.e., the DM). DMs should be able to play the spell in a responsible way that won't break their game.
Of course, if you're the sort of DM who lets the players do anything they want, then I'm sure you'll think lots of spells are broken.
Hell, clerics are broken as a class. Let's house rule them.
Anyway, please take all this with a grain of salt, join S.H.I.N.Y., and have a great New Year. Only six months until you get your precious revised version of Harm.
Creampuff said:
Did they get past the Slaad's SR?
Chun-tzu said:
I'm sure this is well-documented in the Compendium of House Rules to which you no doubt have access, but the rest of us will need to see some proof.
Lucius Foxhound said:
Perhaps I will!
Celtavian said:
By the same token, Harm only becomes broken when DMs use munchkinesque tactics to make it an insta-kill, like having all the evil cleric's minions ready their actions for the moment the Harm spell is cast. What came first, the munchkin or the power-gamer?
zorlag said:
Uh...see what I mean? Of course your TPK rate will go up if you're a power-gaming DM who's out to find tricky ways to slaughter your PCs.
Henry said:
People who refuse to play Harm as written are running simplistic campaigns, possess dubious intellects, and are (quite frankly) engaging in a play style that simply should not be allowed. I am frothing at the mouth with flames jetting from my ears as I type this. Join S.H.I.N.Y.!!! Happy New Year!!!
Enkhidu said:
What about Mass Harm? Where do we put that?
The best solution is to consider Harm as having the "Evil" descriptor. This is already implied, if not stated outright, in the rules. Then you don't have supposedly "good" PCs channeling negative energy, and Harm becomes a terrifying spell used by enemy clerics (i.e., the DM). DMs should be able to play the spell in a responsible way that won't break their game.
Of course, if you're the sort of DM who lets the players do anything they want, then I'm sure you'll think lots of spells are broken.
Hell, clerics are broken as a class. Let's house rule them.
Anyway, please take all this with a grain of salt, join S.H.I.N.Y., and have a great New Year. Only six months until you get your precious revised version of Harm.
- Status
