Harm Changes

[The Serge]

We play it the way it's described in the PH.

Fact of the matter is, as a DM, I know of countless methods and means to kill off all players at any time. I'm not worried about players having the ability to walk up and possibly kill an NPC, even a BBEG (who, in most cases, isn't who my players think s/he is). And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If PCs know about harm and its benefits, it's a certainty that some of their more powerful and wise opponents do as well.

No offense, but I think a lot of people (not necessarily those on this thread) are overreacting to the spell. More intelligent creatures/adversaries will take the necessarily precautions against this and other similarly powerful spells.

IMC, the one cleric has used harm a total of two times, although he had access to the spell for months. Heck, not only did he have access to it, he also had the Reach Spell Feat from Defenders of the Faith which allows all touch spells prepared at two levels higher to function as 20 foot ranged touch spells. The first time he used it, it was against a very nasty, slightly higher level Priestess. It hit, reduced her to 2 hp, and she healed herself the next round because all attempts to hit her missed (and the Wizard rolled too low on his Initiative to blast her will a magic missile. The second time it was used was against an Ancient Green Dragon. Again, he had used the Reach version, broke the SR, and reduced the Dragon to 1 hp. The cleric, benefiting from a mass haste spell, followed up with a searing light spell and did not break the SR. A dwarf (with boots of flying) swung and missed. The next round, everyone rolled abyssmal Initiatives (I require new Ini every round) and the Dragon teleported away. Not once has the harm spell as worded hindered me. On the other hand, it's been used twice against the PCs to devastating effect.

I don't see what the gripe is about this spell. Please, someone enlighten me as to why it seems so overpowered when it's worked fine for me.

 

[Caliber]

Well, not to be rude, but you realize that rerolling of initiative factored into both of those situations. If you weren't playing with that house rule, very possibly the Dragon and the Priestess would have been dead meat. Would that have effected your campaign in any way?

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'm with Caliber here. Besides, the whole "the monsters can do it too" argument doesn't work, because we're not debating whether it's biased towards the players, we're debating whether the spell is too deadly compared to other spells of its level. Most people seem to accept that it is.

Look at those two situations you mentioned: in one shot, the dragon was down to 2 HP. One good shot with a bow, or a Psychic Warrior using Deep Impact (or the similar Feats), or a spellcaster using a level 1 spell enough times to beat SR, and you've just beaten a really high-level opponent with almost no danger.
Since a Dragon only has natural armor, with his size penalty he's got an AC well below 10 against touch attacks. A level 11+ Cleric will have a BAB higher than that. It's an automatic hit, with no save. Only SR will save you (and he probably has Spell Penetration), and if you're using that ranged touch feat there's no chance of an AoO. Yeah, that's balanced.

To top it off, if I knew the Cleric was going to Harm the dragon, I'd hold my action until after it landed, to make sure I finished it off. If your players didn't do that, it doesn't mean the spell is balanced.

 

[The Serge]

Well, not to be rude, but you realize that rerolling of initiative factored into both of those situations. If you weren't playing with that house rule, very possibly the Dragon and the Priestess would have been dead meat. Would that have effected your campaign in any way?

Excellent point.

However, it wouldn't change my use of the spell because it has the same level of risk. It still allows a chance that the spell make not hit/work. And, if I was using a static Initiative, what if the Dragon or the Priestess were going immediately after the cleric? They would have acted in the same exact manner illustrated above.

And if they were dead meat, so what? The Priestess was only two levels higher than the party (which consisted of six people), so if she had stayed still instead of running around, she would have bitten the dust much earlier (it's a long, but fun story). As for the Dragon, it took quite some time before the Cleric had the means to even get close enough to cast the spell and the Dragon had almost killed two party members. It too was only two 2 ECL higher than the party, so again, it wouldn't have been an issue for me.

If they were fighting stronger foes, it still wouldn't be an issue because in most cases having the ability to effectively cast that spell is not always present. It's like the reverse of a fireball spell. Withouth the Reach Spell Feat, the cleric has to be willing and able to get close to his/her target, has to touch his/her target, and has to hope and pray that the target doesn't take an AoO, that his lackies don't take an AoO, and has to hope that there isn't another cleric nearby thinking the same exact thing he's thinking.

And rolling inititiative each round is not a house rule. It's a variant rule option in the DMG (p. 62).

 

[The Serge]

I'm with Caliber here. Besides, the whole "the monsters can do it too" argument doesn't work, because we're not debating whether it's biased towards the players, we're debating whether the spell is too deadly compared to other spells of its level. Most people seem to accept that it is.

Well the "fact" that most people seem to think that the spell is too deadly compared to other spells of its level is irrelevant to me. There are a lot of things a mass group will think that is patently untrue, but I don't want to get into a collective behavior argument here.

As for it being imbalanced compared to other divine 6th level spells. Well, heal by itself balances it out completely if not going overboard. A person benefitting from that spell not only gains all of their hps back (they don't gain all but 1d4), they are also cured of all diseases and mental conditions, even those caused by a symbol spell... which is an 8th level spell.

Planar Ally could allow a good cleric to call on a Planetar for aid, effectively doubling the clerics spells (and then some!) and even granting the possibility of another harm spell!

An 11th level cleric can banish up to 22 HD of creatures instantly. Heck, that means that there's a good chance that a CR 16 Pit Fiend or a CR 18 Balor are effectively sent away by a mortal five or seven "levels" lower...

And you think harm is overpowered compared to other spells of the same level?

Look at those two situations you mentioned: in one shot, the dragon was down to 2 HP. One good shot with a bow, or a Psychic Warrior using Deep Impact (or the similar Feats), or a spellcaster using a level 1 spell enough times to beat SR, and you've just beaten a really high-level opponent with almost no danger.
Since a Dragon only has natural armor, with his size penalty he's got an AC well below 10 against touch attacks. A level 11+ Cleric will have a BAB higher than that. It's an automatic hit, with no save. Only SR will save you (and he probably has Spell Penetration), and if you're using that ranged touch feat there's no chance of an AoO. Yeah, that's balanced.

To top it off, if I knew the Cleric was going to Harm the dragon, I'd hold my action until after it landed, to make sure I finished it off. If your players didn't do that, it doesn't mean the spell is balanced.

Well, I think I kind of touched on this issue in the previous response to Caliber, but I'll elaborate.

So the Dragon got caught off guard (and he did. His approach was part of a ploy to distract the PCs. He did not expect them to attack him, but to to flee or to watch him carefully while something else happened. This worked, but not as he had hoped to his chagrin and pain). It's his fault. He should have been more prepared. Perhaps he should have had shield cast. Perhaps he should have researched the means to reduce the potential of being harmed. Perhaps he should have done more research on the PCs. When it comes down to it, the Dragon did not know exactly what he was facing and suffered the consequences. If he had died... so what?

Now, from a mechanics perspective, he was equal to the Party Level (20), so it was perfectly fine for the PCs to have taken him out... especially after he almost killed two characters and sent a Planetar packing back to Elysium before the harm took effect.

And let me also state that I'm not trying to beat my PCs. I'm challenging them (and believe me, I do so very well). I try not to use my knowledge of how they play to affect how my NPCs respond. If Ridgeback had done his homework, he would have known what to expect. Since he survived that encounter, he will take pains to reduce it as a potential threat in the future.

Simply put, I don't see harm as being overpowered or out of line with other 6th level spells. It works fine the way it is and does not require any tweaks. Most adjustments of this nature do not allow real creative use of the established rules and, in some cases (and I'm not accusing those here of this since I don't know you), changes of this sort are made because the DM feels that things become too easy for the players and harder on the DMs.

But, if you feel so strongly in your games otherwise, do what you think is necessary.

 

[Anubis]

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.

All three of these things are WAY off.

1) Why would your cleric ever carry it? Cast it and touch, it's a standard action by itself. Cleric should not fear melee, they are quite powerful themselves. I've played many clerics, and they are always on the front line beside the fighters. On top of that, what attacks of opportunity are the enemies gonna get? Any cleric worth anything will have Concentration and will cast on the defensive, eliminating such factors as attacks of opportunity.

2) There is absolutely no support for this in any of the rules. Even the statements are invalid. They are not the ultimate negative/positive evergy spells, that are the ultimate healing/inflicting spells. If you make Heal "good" and harm "evil", you'd better be ready to do the same with all the other spells that cure and inflict.

3) This is just silly. Natural armor is part of your body, you need only touch the body for it to take effect. The ONLY possible exception is a turtle's shell. POSSIBLE, but I doubt it.

 

[The Serge]

All three of these things are WAY off.

1) Why would your cleric ever carry it? Cast it and touch, it's a standard action by itself. Cleric should not fear melee, they are quite powerful themselves. I've played many clerics, and they are always on the front line beside the fighters. On top of that, what attacks of opportunity are the enemies gonna get? Any cleric worth anything will have Concentration and will cast on the defensive, eliminating such factors as attacks of opportunity.

2) There is absolutely no support for this in any of the rules. Even the statements are invalid. They are not the ultimate negative/positive evergy spells, that are the ultimate healing/inflicting spells. If you make Heal "good" and harm "evil", you'd better be ready to do the same with all the other spells that cure and inflict.

3) This is just silly. Natural armor is part of your body, you need only touch the body for it to take effect. The ONLY possible exception is a turtle's shell. POSSIBLE, but I doubt it.

Hello, Anubis.

While I agree with you on your position, let's remember that this is about House Rules and these are the rules these folks have come up with.

My contention is that in the case with this, and most other adjustments to 3ed D&D, there is no need because it's balanced.
I do think you hit the nail on the head with 2 and 3, though.

 

[Caliber]

While this isn't really the point of the thread (and I should know since I started it ...) I will tell you why I think Harm (and Heal as well) are unbalanced.

There are several spells which are Save or Die spells, below and above 6th level. However, many creatures at higher levels have Saves that are incredibly high. More over, often creatures possess immunity to several effects, and insta-kill effects seem to be a popular one.

Heal offers no save, and while it is not insta-kill, it is close enough that no distinction is required.

The Epic Level rules have made this even more apparent. The 100th level Fighter who is Harmed by the 12th level Cleric is dropped to 1d4 HPs, potentially taking close to 1000 points of damage from a 6th level spell.

Conversely the same Fighter could theoretically heal 1000 points from a Heal.

The house rule I favor (and the one I was looking for) was the 10 HP a level cap. It helps keep these spells in balance, IMO.

But buyer beware, your mileage may vary, so on so forth.

 

[Anubis]

Don't get me wrong, I do think there are probems with Heal, and I am disturbed that there has been no errata for Harm or the Armor of Speed as of yet. Both are VERY broken.

Well, Harm may not be. The jury's still out on that one. I'm leaning toward it being broken, however. Heck, it's the only spell thatcurrenly continues to be one of the most powerful in the game even at Level 100, and without ANY metamagic feats.

As for Armor of Speed, it is currently banned in my game altogether, although I am considering making it an epic ability once I review things more.



Altogether, Harm gets more broken the higher level you reach. At Level 11, it isn't too bad, because it's only doing as much as other spells. At Level 40, however, it does more damage than any other spell in the game, hands down. The damage limit isn't the answer, I don't believe. A save for half damage might be the answer, but then the spell would still be just as good against really powerful enemies, so I am not convinced.

The only actual acceptable solution I can think of is a save for 5d8+caster level damage. I would NOT, however, limit that damage to prevent it from taking an opponent below 4 hp, however. It matters not if it can do more damage on a successful save. There are other spells that do a similar thing, namely Disintegrate and Destruction. Both have the ability to kill on a successful save, and dying from that is MUCH better than failing th save because your body is still in tact. Besides, what are the chances of ANYONE who could die from this successful Harm save actually making the save? Slim to none. There is no support in the rules for damage limits, and therefore none should be applied, not to mention they're not necessary.

 

[Caliber]

Not OT, but Armor of Speed is supposed to work just as Boots of Speed.

In other words, its a Standard Action to activate the Haste effect.

Otherwise, good points Anubis.