Harm Changes

[Plane Sailing]

As written, except the maximum hp drained cannot exceed 10 hp/caster level. So between 110-200 hp.

Conversely, Heal cannot heal more than 10 hp/level of caster.

Interestingly I came up with almost exactly the same rule independently. It hasn't been an issue yet, but I wanted to be fully prepared!

I rule that it does a straight 10 hp per caster level, which can kill. A 12th level caster who harms a goblin will see the goblin crumble to dust, rather than get lightly bruised

 

[Dark Dragon]

Harm got a Will save. On a success, it deals 1d8+1 per caster level (but the victim has always a minimum of 1d4 hp), on a failure, it works normal (see PHB).

 

[Spatzimaus]

I didn't give it a save, because the problem isn't the no-save, it's that touch attacks (which almost never have saves) are too good in general, especially against most non-human monsters (the ones with only Natural Armor to save them). Nerf Harm, and people will just use Otto's Irresistible Dance.

So, here are some changes:

1> Anyone taking damage while "carrying" a touch attack must make a Concentration check (as if casting the spell) to avoid losing it. A natural 1 on this check means you accidentally hit yourself (automatically failing SR as well).
(Readied actions and AoOs will now prevent a lot of touch spells from landing)
2> Harm, as the ultimate negative-energy spell, gains the EVIL descriptor. Heal, as the ultimate positive-energy spell, gains the GOOD descriptor (same for Mass Heal). Remember that Good Clerics/Druids can't cast Evil spells and vice versa.
3> Currently, Base AC is 10 for all creatures, and most just add a size penalty and Natural Armor on to that. Go back and change the big-NA monsters to have half be NA and half be a higher Base AC.
Example: dragon with 16 Natural Armor would now be Base AC of 18 and 8 NA. No ability allows you to bypass Base AC. Against a touch attack he'd still have a good AC that way. Instead of half across the board, vary it a bit by monster type.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Can't say I'd agree with most of those changes spatzimaus - 3 makes no sense at all (what is causing this AC increase? Are all monsters suddenly protected by invisible forcefields?), nor does 2, but to a lesser degree (are you saying that heal is good aligned while resurrection isn't? Or that harming a demon would be an evil act?).

The first idea is not so bad, although you don't need to specify that SR doesn't apply (sr NEVER applies to a creatures own abilities).

Personally I favour changing the description of harm such that it causes (victims HPs - 1d4) negative energy damage, and then allowing a fort save to take half damage.

 

[Geoff Watson]

Will save half.

It's still nasty against the big bad monsters (even if they save) but it's not an easy instant win (if they save).

Geoff.

 

[Ruvion]

Recent changes...

I've recently changed Harm to this:

From Ruvion's House Rules
Harm: When the target of the spell has current hit points less than the caster's current hit points, the target gets a Will saving throw. If the save is successful, the target loses half of his current hit points (round down). The spell functions normally on a failed save: target is reduced to 1d4 hit points. If the target has equal or greater current hit points than the caster, the subject and the caster must both make Will saves where the one that fails the save receives the crippling effect of the spell (Will saving throw for half damage). This spell acts like Heal when used against undead (or negative energy creature).

Heal: When the target of the spell has current hit points less than the caster's current hit points, the spell functions as normal. If the target has equal or greater current hit points than the caster, the subject and the caster must both make Will saves where the one that fails the save gets the benefit of the spell. This spell acts like Harm when used against undead (or negative energy creature).

Heal and Harm achieves their effect by connecting the life force of the subject to the caster. Thus the hit point comparison (although some may argue that hit point is a poor gauge for life force). The moral of the change is: there is always a chance of a "backlash" when connected this way.

What do you think?

 

[Someone]

I use also the Will save- 1/2 hp variant.

 

[SupaFreak]

Considering this

here's what im considering for my upcoming game (whenever it starts)

Failed save:100 hp or normal effect, whichever is LESS

Made save: 50 hp or half hp, again whichever is LESS

 

[Al]

Spatzimaus, I'm slightly curious as to some of your assertions:

Nerf Harm, and people will just use Otto's Irresistible Dance.

Harm is clearly superior to OID (read: in combination with Quickened Inflict X Wounds for instakill), and OID is an 8th level arcane spell.

I do like point 1., and two makes sense as well (since the Inflict school is channeling negative energy and hence is slightly evil), but I'm very dubious about 3.: it just doesn't make sense to talk about Base AC. Game balance is well and good, but not at the expense of suspension of disbelief.

As for me, I use the Will save for 6d8+level, cannot reduce below 5hp. 4d8+level seems too small when the lower level Slay Living kills on a failed save and does 3d8+level on a passed save.

As a silly question, what would Maximised Harm do? Reduce them to 4hp?

 

[Spatzimaus]

Saeviomagy:

The Base AC thing was from this board a while ago, wasn't my idea. But it kinda fit with the concept, and it definitely helped balance.

A "touch attack" assumes that all I have to do is touch you for the effect to take place. But, it doesn't take into account thickness, for example. If you have an outer shell protecting you (even if it's just a really thick hide), the energy from the attack might not get to where it could really harm you. That's what the Base would represent: that part of the Natural Armor that can't be bypassed by anything.

Some people argued that this shouldn't just apply to Natural Armor; what about normal armor? For example, take Melf's Acid Arrow. Ranged touch attack that delivers acid onto the target. If I'm in full plate armor, why would getting splashed by acid harm the person inside the armor? It might eat away at the plating, and I'll want to clean it off, but shouldn't the armor help defend? Same for Flame Arrow.

One person suggested letting the target of a touch attack keep half of their Armor and Natural Armor ACs to represent this sort of thing.

As for the Good/Evil thing, it's really simple: if the spell uses Positive Energy, it should inherently good, if a spell uses Negative Energy it should be inherently evil. According to the PHB (the section on Turning) channeling positive energy is a good action, which is why only Good (or Neutral) Clerics can turn undead and vice versa. So, just extend that to these spells.
If Resurrection doesn't say anything in its text about what type of energy it uses, it should be usable by anyone. Not everything revolves around positive/negative energy.
(There are other ways to get around the "but Evil Clerics can't heal then!" argument, like letting Domains override this, but for this argument just say that it's the AMOUNT of energy that matters, that it only affects Heal/Harm.)