If Harm is broken, what's the best house rule for it?

[Tom Cashel]

You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...

...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points." Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...

...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points." Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.

The ELH and D&Dg come to mind, as does U_K's all-but-released IH.

 

[Anubis]

You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...

...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points." Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.

It's a little release called the Epic Level Handbook, Slappy. Just about EVERYTHING in there has thousands of hit points.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.

THEY ALL HAVE SAVING THROWS. Harm is basically instant-death in 99% of ALL cases, making it the same as instant-death spells. Harm, just like those instant-death spells, should also have a save.

 

[Piratecat]

Anubis - deep breaths, please. This isn't worth getting worked up about. It certainly isn't worth becoming rude over.

So it works okay without a save in Tom's campaign - who are we to say it's broken? If these boards have shown anything in the last few years, it's that what's broken for one person doesn't have to be a problem for someone else. Sometimes, it's best just to agree to disagree.

 

[Ravellion]

You must have gotten a copy of the Monster Manual II...

...because I can't seem to find any monsters with "thousands of hit points." Even the legendary Tarrasque has only 840.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.

Look at the target's saves. Look at the DC for a 9th level spell. Harm is better. By lots. I'll take save or die with a 5% chance of failing over death any day.(which 1 to 4 hitpoints is, especially with quickened spells or a potion/boots of haste)

If we cannot agree upon the fact that 1-4 hp is 99,9% equivalent to death, this discussion is closed at my end of it.

Rav

 

[Xarlen]

Exactly, P-Kitty.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Alariel]

Where's kreynolds when you need him? You've probably got some of them feats he talks about, like "Thick-Headed" I believe. Any 6th-level spell that can deal thousands of damage with no save is broken, plain and simple. Unless you can come up with something, ANYTHING to disprove what I have proven, something that refutes the plain and clear evidence, then all you're doing is being stubborn.

Anti-Magic Field is a stupid dragon's best friend.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

Anubis - deep breaths, please. This isn't worth getting worked up about. It certainly isn't worth becoming rude over.

So it works okay without a save in Tom's campaign - who are we to say it's broken? If these boards have shown anything in the last few years, it's that what's broken for one person doesn't have to be a problem for someone else. Sometimes, it's best just to agree to disagree.

we'll just have to see how many times his PC's get killed off by evil clerics before his group, though maybe not him, decides its broken..

joe b.

 

[ForceUser]

Where's kreynolds when you need him? You've probably got some of them feats he talks about, like "Thick-Headed" I believe. Any 6th-level spell that can deal thousands of damage with no save is broken, plain and simple. Unless you can come up with something, ANYTHING to disprove what I have proven, something that refutes the plain and clear evidence, then all you're doing is being stubborn.

Sure, I'm being stubborn. You haven't said anything that my own players haven't noted many times in the past. All the other DMs I've played with have house-ruled it sight-unseen. I have a theory that I can create a game environment where harm, as written, is not the end-all be-all solution to all the party's problems. Thus, I want to experience it for myself, in-game, as-is, as DM. Like P-Cat said, calm down. You've now insulted me twice.

 

[Kibo]

As well you should!

I know that with harm as written, I could kill the most powerful undamaged PC in my high level game in one round, with virtually no chance of PC survival and no way to avoid the death. Is this fun for either the player or me? No. Do similar spells (ie inflict spells) require a saving throw? Yes. Has the game's architect (Monte Cook) said that he believes a save should be required? Yes.

Thus, I change it to will save = inflict critical wounds damage, min 4 hp. And it works beautifully for me.

Oddly enough what bothers me about Harm, isn't so much the instant death nature of it. Although, that's somewhat less that ideal, and stylisticly destruction or slay living would tend to be more 'cinematic'. What bugs me is the lack of the continuous spectrum, it is a more terrifying spell the more powerful you are. Which is perhaps alright for egalitarian "the meek shall inherit the earth" sentiments, but hardly the stuff of ledgend. When a farmer laughs mockingly at the divine might of your chosen patron, but all the dragons plan nervously for they day you might come for them, something is amiss. I'm tempted to go with a lowers you to your con bonus per hit die or level (effortless to calculate). At least this would meat out divine retribution in reasonable proportion. With con penalties, maybe do a minimum of 1 hp per hd or level. But I would tend to go with the weaker wither before the power of the spell and are incapacitated or killed. This would perhaps be a little 'unbalancing', but I would think that it would never be so against the PC's (how many players would really take a con penalty into high levels? and even if they did they've obviously got a lot invested more in the sickly aspect of the characters concept than the accumulation of power as part of a game.) and mostly if it did come into play it would be the players giving wrath unto the npcs or npcs to each other.

A better formula can certainly be devised, but a formula that has the same quality/simplicity quotient, well I'll leave that to better people. Though I do like the idea of reduced to (con bonus)*(victim level) + (victim level) - (caster level), perhaps easier than adding a bunch of dice, but it seems a little much.