Harm and critical hits...

[Tatsukun]

Hmm, still looking, but I found this. It's form the 3.5 FAQ:
The Bold is the question, the rest is the answer...

The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster
level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot
take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target
creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is
reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s
hit points to less than 1. What happens when the spell deals
50 points of damage or more to the target (as it might to
any creature that has 51 hit points or more)? Does the
death from massive damage rule apply? What if I have 110
hit points and an 11th-level caster casts harm on me? I’ll
take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or
55 points if I make my save, right? In either case, I’ll have
to make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid death from
massive damage, right? If my hired lackey, who has 49 hit
points, receives the same spell, he’ll take either 48 points of
damage or 24 points. In either case, he’s not subject to
death from massive damage. Is this correct?

Technically, that’s right. If you take 50 points of damage
(or more) all at once, you’re subject to the death from massive
damage rule (see page 145 in the Player’s Handbook). It makes
no difference what the source of that damage is.
In the case of the harm spell, the death from massive
damage rule creates a situation that’s arguably absurd, because
once you have 51 hit points or more, you suddenly become
susceptible to instant death from the spell when lesser beings
(with fewer hit points) do not. If the situation really bothers
you, you might try one of the following house rules:
No Instant Death from Harm Spells: The death from
massive damage rule doesn’t apply to damage inflicted from a
harm spell.
Expended Instant Death from Harm Spells: Whenever you
fail your save against a harm spell, you must make a DC 15
Fortitude save or die, no matter how much damage the spell
actually deals to you. If your save against a harm spell
succeeds, you still have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save or die
if the spell deals at least 50 points of damage to you.
The first unofficial rule should prove easier to remember
and use, and it matches the intent behind the harm spell better
than the second rule. The second rule, however, provides a
better fit with the death from massive damage rule.

It looks like the "you can't die from Harm directly" camp gets two points.

-Tatsu

 

[mikebr99]

Hmm, still looking, but I found this. It's form the 3.5 FAQ:
The Bold is the question, the rest is the answer...



It looks like the "you can't die from Harm directly" camp gets two points.

-Tatsu

Why? Because the Sage chose to answer just the question instead of correcting the entire thing? That's a stretch isn't it?

Mike

 

[Artoomis]

Why? Because the Sage chose to answer just the question instead of correcting the entire thing? That's a stretch isn't it?

Mike

No, because of

The first unofficial rule should prove easier to remember and use, and it matches the intent behind the harm spell better than the second rule.

where he strongly implies that the intent of Harm is to not cause death directly.

This really is a case of strict interpretation vs. intent. If this were a law being debated in court, one would look to the recorded debates, etc., to derive the intent to try and figure if perhaps the language was not as well written as it might have been.

In this case, we have no such recourse. We just have to decide what we think the intent was - keeping in mind that the language throughout the rule books tends to be somewhat less than precise.

Given the history of Harm, it is unlikely that allowing it to kill outright was intended - that's a rather radical change and a change to the basis of how the spell works. It's more likely that it was poorly written, and the last sentence should have been more like:

If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but in any case it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

 

[mikebr99]

No, because of where he strongly implies that the intent of Harm is to not cause death directly.

This really is a case of strict interpretation vs. intent. If this were a law being debated in court, one would look to the recorded debates, etc., to derive the intent to try and figure if perhaps the language was not as well written as it might have been.

In this case, we have no such recourse. We just have to decide what we think the intent was - keeping in mind that the language throughout the rule books tends to be somewhat less than precise.

Given the history of Harm, it is unlikely that allowing it to kill outright was intended - that's a rather radical change and a change to the basis of how the spell works. It's more likely that it was poorly written, and the last sentence should have been more like:

If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but in any case it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

I agree about the history of Harm...

And I'd agree about your other comments if they had followed "harm deals half this amount" with a period (.) instead of a comma (,)... however, YMMV

I'll stay with how it's written...

Mike

 

[buchw001]

Here is my two cents

I am NOT a writing expert, but I asked the experts from the “Writing Center” at California State University San Marcos as to the interpretation of the following two sentences:

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than 1.

They directed me to page 329 (section 47) of the book Keys for Writer’s – A Brief Handbook which states, "A comma separates parts of a sentence; it does not separate one sentence from another".

Thus as the spell is written, a character CAN die if the save is failed. This is because the statement it cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than 1 is a part of the sentence that contains the statement if the creature successfully saves.

This is not my opinion mind you. I truly believe the spell was NOT intended to allow death; however, the sentence structure proves otherwise. As stated before, if there was a semicolon ( ; ) or period ( . ) after the word amount, then the interpretation would be different.

For the second question, I believe that BOTH the unarmed damage and the spells damage should be doubled. Unlike the previous discussion I see no intent in the rules otherwise.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

Somehow I don't think the writers of the PH (or any of the rulebooks, for that matter) had precise rules of written english in mind when they were writing the stuff.

Could harm kill in previous editions? I don't remember. If it could, then let the 3.5 version. If not, then don't. We're not splitting the atom here folks.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Given the history of Harm, it is unlikely that allowing it to kill outright was intended - that's a rather radical change and a change to the basis of how the spell works.

Given the history of Harm, it is unlikely that allowing it to deal half damage on a save was intended - that's a rather radical change and a change to the basis of how the spell works. Let's assume that was a big typo...

Regarding delivering spells with an unarmed strike vs delivering with a touch attack - Tome and Blood rules that you can choose either.

With an unarmed strike, you must hit the creature's normal AC, and if successful, you deal unarmed strike damage along with the spell. Only the unarmed strike damage is multiplied on a critical if this option is chosen, not spell damage.

With a touch attack, you must hit the creature's touch AC. On a critical, the spell damage is multiplied.

-Hyp.

 

[hong]

As buchw001 said (cool last name, buchw001!), as written, harm can kill on a failed save. The only reason to suppose the opposite is because, traditionally, it couldn't kill outright. However, traditionally, you never got a save either. The spell basically is different to how it's been before, so reasons of tradition are suspect.

And yes, a critical hit on the touch attack would mean 300 points of damage. Ick!

 

[danzig138]

I don't know the official stance. You could always rule, right or wrong, that you can crit with Harm, but the damage cap applies even to the doubled damage. Officially, I don't know, but I would rule that Harm cannot bring the target to less than 1 hit point, even on a failed save.

 

[Gilwen]

My comments are embedded

HTH,
Gilwen

Hi,

I play in Destan's campaign and a situation arose this past playing session that we believe we adjudicated correctly, but it left us feeling less than satisfied with the ruling (didn't get warm fuzzies that it was the right thing to do).

I rather imposing evil outsider cast a harm spell and rolled a 20 on his touch attack. According to page 140 of the PHB, any spell that requires an attack roll can score a critical. The crit was confirmed and the character (not me, fortunately) failed his Will save. This outsider was of sufficient level to inflict the maximum for the spell (150 hp on a failed save), so doubled, the attack did 300hp of damage and killed the character outright.

It wouldn't have killed him outright. Harm will leave them with 1 HP regardless of the damage inflicted....now it would trigger the save from massive damage and if they failed that saving throw it would have killed them...according to the rules, at least the way I read them, your milage may vary.

Questions;
1. Can harm spells (or any spell without variable damage, for that matter score a critical hit.

Yes. If there is a roll involved to deliver the spell then they can threat on a natural 20 and then confirm that threat according rules.

2. Does a failed save mean the spell can take a character below 1 hit point? It clearly states that "if the creature saves..." the target's hit points cannot be reduced below 1. This led us to believe that a failed save could indeed bring a character below 1. Agree? Disagree?

Disagree. IMHO, they should have made this part "but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1." Into it's own sentence.

Harm is still pretty nasty especially if delivered with an unarmed or natural weapon. The unarmed attack or natural weapon does it's full damage but it is againist the full AC and might provoke an AOO if using unarmed attacks or natural weapons provokes AOO for you character. For instance if the outsider had opted deliver the spell in this fashion it could have killed the character, since I am sure the outsider could do at least 1 point of damage with an unarmed attack .