Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Destan" data-source="post: 1429042" data-attributes="member: 12157">I'm not sure I agree.  But I'm also not sure I disagree.In the SRD, it states:It seems fairly clear to me that, if they intended Harm to be incapable of killing an opponent outright, they would (should?) have worded it thusly:I'm inclined to think the intent was to not allow Harm to kill an opponent outright, but that's not what's reflected in the rules.  I may change my ruling; I had ruled the target could be killed by a Harm spell.The second issue:The PHB's only guidance on a critical dealt from a spell is that the spell must require an "attack roll."  Clearly, Harm requires an attack roll.From the post above, how would one rule a critical delivered with a shocking grasp spell delivered with an unarmed strike?  Is the spell damage doubled?  Is the unarmed strike damaged doubled?  Are both?  I think we begin to wade into DM adjudication waters in this instance.If we say that a touch spell cannot deliver a critical, then we're clearly ignoring the statement which states that a spell need only have an "attack roll" in order to be critical-worthy.So, in the end, I ruled that: Harm could kill an opponent outright that had failed his save, and that Harm could indeed be doubled from a successful critical hit.  If either of those rulings fall through, the charater would have survived (I think).Needless to say, I don't have a warm fuzzy about any of the above interpretations.D</blockquote>

Verification