Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 1429310" data-attributes="member: 111">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.</blockquote>