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

[shilsen]

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.

This is also my main beef with the spell. I'm currently planning to use a Will save for half damage, but am also considering having no save with a max damage of 10 x caster level. I have some time, because the PCs are a while from having access to it yet.

 

[Tom Cashel]

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

Oh, I get it, Chumpy. You have one of those campaigns where everyone's "epic" level and they fight gods and stuff. How many Thors have your players killed? Do they all have Mjolnirs now?

Okay, okay, just kidding. In all seriousness, we don't use D&Dg (at least not the stats) and I don't have any interest in the ELH. But again, I'll wager that's a spurious argument since Epic characters probably have ways to nullify little things like 6th level spells. But I don't know, so I'm not making any certain claims.

What I do know is that Harm works the same way it always has, and I've never had a problem with it. I haven't yet seen an argument here that exists outside a vacuum...i.e. taking into account Harm and one other factor, maybe two factors.

If someone could come up with an example of a "standard" party of PCs facing off against the evil harm-wielding priest, and try to take into account what's going to happen to the evil priest once he walks right into the middle of the angry PCs to deliver that touch spell that doesn't even take the PC down right away...well, I think you'll see that there are factors to mitigate the putative ubermacht of Harm. I'm completely unconvinced by the 1-4 hp equals Death argument. It reminds me of playing D&D in high school..."I only have 3 hp left, I might as well quit now." Hell, that's still 13 hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.

Honestly, I'm torn on this issue. I started the thread to see some varying viewpoints (and hoo boy, have I), but I'll certainly take the viewpoint of abusive folks with a grain of salt. Fly off the handle much, hmm?

In response to the claim that the Harm/Heal Dichotomy is "nonsense"...Harm started out as the 'reversible' option of Heal. One spell takes away all but 1d4 hp, one gives back all but 1d4 hp. If that ain't symmetry, then somebody take me back to school.

Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits? Falling from heights? The drowning rule? None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death. No save.

Now, Harm vs. the DM's precious baddies is another issue. I'm torn on this one too. It does truly suck when PCs teleport to the last encounter, cast harm, and make off with the treasure. Heal and Anti-magic shell are two options to counter this, but they would get old against players accustomed to using Harm (and if used as trump enough would make Harm functionally useless anyhow).

To quote the Dude, "This is a complex case, man...lots of facets...lots of strands...a lot of strands to keep straight in the little Duder's head, man."

I can't decide. I can't decide!

 

[Piratecat]

I'm completely unconvinced by the 1-4 hp equals Death argument. It reminds me of playing D&D in high school..."I only have 3 hp left, I might as well quit now." Hell, that's still 13 hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.

Tom, as you say, you can't look at this in a vacumn. Many intelligent opponents who are powerful enough to use harm will also be utilizing a haste spell. That means:

a. Cast defensively as partial action; large concentration skill guarantees success. Slap opponent, and watch their hit points drop. Depending on the DM, watch the opponent make a fort save vs massive damage.

b. Use standard action to either cast damaging spell (inflict moderate wounds or higher, or perhaps searing light) or make a full attack.

c. Nudge opponent's corpse with foot.

Alternatively (and again, not looking at this in a vacumn) every enemy usually goes on the same initiative. That means the non-hastede cleric casts harm on you, and before any ally can act his fighter buddy next to him hits you twice with his sword. Dead.

The difference between 3e and previous editions is that harm utilizes a touch attack; touch ACs are ludicrously easy to hit for most powerful adventurers.

 

[Tom Cashel]

c. Nudge opponent's corpse with foot.

Well put!

Alternatively (and again, not looking at this in a vacuum) every enemy usually goes on the same initiative. That means the non-hasted cleric casts harm on you, and before any ally can act his fighter buddy next to him hits you twice with his sword. Dead.

I actually do individual initiative for enemy NPCs, and have groups of similar creatures (i.e. a band of 5 orcs) go on the same initiative. But I'm not being contrary, just specifying. There's still a lot of ifs in your example, PC...those two hits aren't certain, by any means.

In any case, I admit that Harm would benefit from a save. Partly because it's harsh on PCs, partly because it's harsh on NPC enemies, and partly because I'm considering the removal of raise dead from my campaign, and retaining only the resurrective and miraculous spells.

But that's another thread.

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

Tom, if you take away raise dead from our campaign, I'll have to kill you. (Don't worry, I'll raise you, though).

 

[shadracht]

One other thing to keep in mind. Basically, when you use harm, you are opening a direct channel to the negative plane, which is where all these hit points go. In my campaign, this is unbelivably dangerous, as it is an inherently evil act, no matter what the discriptor states.

And I agree with Tom. You cannot judge anything's merits or flaws in a vacuum. There are ALWAYS circumstances.

 

[MasterOfHeaven]

First, I completely agree with those who say Harm should require a save. I've seen it in action, and frankly, it's broken. I require a save, Will (partial), and cap it at 250 maximum damage.

Second, Xarlen, I completely disagree with your assertion that save or die spells are neccessary for Wizards to do well against Fighters. I have used Evokers before that could easily rip apart an entire group of high level fighters using not one save or die spell. It's like Furn says, proper use of tactics and the Fighters don't even stand a chance.

I don't really care about save or die spells, but I do know that Wizards can easily survive and thrive without them.

 

[mikebr99]

I completely disagree with your assertion that save or die spells are neccessary for Wizards to do well against Fighters. I have used Evokers before that could easily rip apart an entire group of high level fighters using not one save or die spell. It's like Furn says, proper use of tactics and the Fighters don't even stand a chance.

I don't really care about save or die spells, but I do know that Wizards can easily survive and thrive without them.

The higher the Campaign... the worse off the damage spells are... Fireball cannot really compete with high DC - Save or Die spells.

The high level opponents have way to many hit points... but their saves (and AC for that matter) doesn't scale as fast. YMMV

 

[Shard O'Glase]

The higher the Campaign... the worse off the damage spells are... Fireball cannot really compete with high DC - Save or Die spells.

The high level opponents have way to many hit points... but their saves (and AC for that matter) doesn't scale as fast. YMMV

At the PH level I think damaging spells can compare with DC save or dies. Saves go up quickly(attributes, items etc) so the % chance of success it usually somewhat slim. Once you add in greater focus, and those power things the save DC gets beyond what poeple can legitimetly save against and then yes damage dealers are outclassed.

Personally I like save or dies for that fear factor, and because it actually gives a point for will and fort saves. Also if they were removed it would be a power loss for spell casters whether or not they could adapt loss in versatility is still a loss, and especially for the d4 arcane casters for whom virtually every attack upon them is you don't get a save you just die, some compensation should be in order if they were removed.

 

[Blackthorne]

Another solution would be to cap Heal and Harm's effects to a fixed amount of hit points. Say, 150 or 200.

We do this with 10 HP/level.