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

[Shard O'Glase]

Like I said earlier, which many people missed, Harm is like an uncapped Power Word, Kill, except without the pesky HP limit.

I also look favorably upon the one who made it a 9th level spells. In many ways, it certainly acts like one. If one examines other 9th level spells such as Imprisonment, Temporal Stasis, and Power Word, Kill then we'll see a lot of similarties. All do not have a save and each means certain doom for the target (if SR is defeated). Now if we look at Harm, it has these same characteristics, but is 3 levels lower and on the *cleric* spell list.

True, Harm does not kill the opponent outright. Neither does imprisonment or temporal stasis, but all three spells equate to a win if they are successfully casts and discharged.

Cloudgatherer looks favoribly upon me, doing that happy monkey boy dance.

Anyways I went with 9th level for the reasons Cloudgatherer put forth. Other 9th level spells are very similar, range of touch, no save, only SR saves you. The differences temporal stasis and imprisonment instantly take you out of a fight, harm comes really close to it. Other differences imprisonamnt requires some serious info on the target to make it work, temporal stasis 5,000gp material component, harm no such extra clauses. Basically it is ballanced with other 9th level spells, so it is bizzarre that they would place it at 6th level merely because that is where heal is.

Harm is far from the only spell that is broken, but it is probably the most broken one.

 

[Al]

Anubis, calm down. Other people, don't bait him. Logical argument should prevail, not shouting and ranting.

So...back to the argument.

Now, those who believe that Harm is not overpowered at the current level seem to thrust forward three main arguments,

1. Harm does not kill you.

Whilst it does not technically kill you, it is so close to killing you that it can be reasonably assumed to do so. Using Quickened Inflict Wounds, Haste or teamwork makes it very easy for the Harmed victim to be finished off.

2. It can be avoided with an array of defenses.

As I have repeatedly made explicit, this is not a counterargument. Saying that SR prevents you from being hit by Harm is void. SR protects you against all spells: if a creature had sufficient SR, there would be no difference between Ray of Frost and Meteor Swarm. Spells are compared against other spells, not in isolation. Regarding touch attacks, this is a fair point, but consider Imprisonment and Temporal Stasis require a touch attack, are 9th level...and they don't 'technically kill' you.

3. Harm is only useful against certain creatures.

Again, a rather weak counterargument. The same argument could be made of Power Word: Kill (in fact, they cover almost the same bases). An effective instant death spell will obviously have limits, but then, so do all death effect spells; and, indeed, most spells in general. However, the vast majority of foes are susceptible to Harm- concessions should only be made if the spell affects a very narrow section of beasts indeed.

 

[Shalewind]

Where would we be without you Al? I think his three points are the most valid and well described here. To think I used to be in the unbroken camp...

I would offer one more point:
Many postings have used the logic that enemies should be well enough prepared to handle Harm weilding clerics as a matter of intelligence. I must ask. What creatures fit this bill? How does even a high intelligence foe recognize a "harm weilding cleric"? Surely that dragon cannot be certain of any attacker he sees coming his path. And most of them are fairly intelligent.

In addition, harm has very few defenses (not counting SR, which I believe Al answered to best). Anti-Magic changes the flow of combat so dramaticlly that if you must resort to it every time you are up against harm...? Well lets just say that combat becomes pretty boring for magic users at that point.

Just because you are intelligent, does not mean you have access to or can use effective defenses. DM knowledge is not monster knowledge. If I was a PC and had a tactic that saved the party repeatedly and the enemies had no way of transmitting this information, I'd be rather ticked off if the DM found a new defense strategy just to stop me because something I did was effective.

Just my thoughts. Can anyone in the "non-broken camp" logically counter Al's statements?

 

[Anubis]

Sez you. Only the foolish describe their own opinion as undeniable and undebatable, thus attempting to shut down contrary notions before they can be stated.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about your "logical argument" being "undeniable"...

Actually, it was a theory, not an opinion. Let's not forget that backing a theory up with existing facts makes the theory a fact. Thus, what I said was fact.

First you say that a spell must be judged only "on its own merits," and then you leap to the conclusion that Harm, a spell that does not kill (this is not semantics, this is spell description), is 99% fatal. Fatal on its own merits? No, fatal because the NEXT shot is likely to take you out.

Ha, nice try, but no dice. The argument that Harm kills 99.9% of the time is based on the fact that it doesn't do an amount of damage, but rather always leaves you with too few hit points to take a single hit. That IS the merit of Harm as-is.

Now, I agree that Harm is likely to kill if you're not ready for it, if opponents all go on the same initiative, etc. etc. etc. I do not agree that your arguments are anything but your opinion.

Theory, backed by existing fact, makes it a fact. Opinion is a thought on agreement or liking/disliking. Learn the definitions.

Childish? Sure. But you seem awfully willing to sink to my level.

Yes. As I always say, fight fire with fire. Eye for an eye.

 

[Anubis]

While I agree that Harm is broken, making it a 9th-level spell is not the answer, because then you would have to make Heal 9th-level as well. After all, they do basically the same thing, only in reverse.

That would be grossly unbalanced, moreso toward the monsters now.

Just give the thing a save, simple. I'm 255% certain that it will be address in the near future by WotC.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

While I agree that Harm is broken, making it a 9th-level spell is not the answer, because then you would have to make Heal 9th-level as well. After all, they do basically the same thing, only in reverse.

That would be grossly unbalanced, moreso toward the monsters now.

Just give the thing a save, simple. I'm 255% certain that it will be address in the near future by WotC.

I disagree heal, heals you, and vs an incredibly specific group of creatures one the cleric usually smokes anyways with a simple turn check it has the harm effects. Heal also while it heals you nomatter what the HP, doesn't help you nearly as much as harm hurts because HPs except for monsters are on a much smaller scale. Where the lower level cure/inflict spells helped and hurt roughly on the same scale, harms benefit scales way to well vs higher level monsters. Heal except for maybe dragons, and other extremely high hp spell casting mosnters isn't too powerful for a 6th level spell(so for the pcs at least it is balanced at 6th level). Harm is virtually identical in power to a 9th level spell, so it should just be 9th level.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I didn't say "making it a 9th level spell is the answer", I only said I can certainly see why one would do so. Comparing it to the other 9th level spells (temporal stasis, imprisonment, PWK), it appears comparable if you did not know the level before hand.

Here's an interesting test. Have someone who is unfamiliar with D&D magic read over the 9th level spells. Hell, have them read all the spells *except* harm. Then have that person read harm, and see what level they think it should be. Doesn't prove squat, but it would be an interesting test....

I see it at as the equivalent of an 8th level spell (at least). At 8th level we start getting into the "no save" category of spells.

Are there *any* SRD/PHB spells of 7th level or below that do not allow a save besides the Heal/Harm pair? (Bold because I'd like an opinion/answer)

 

[Lucius Foxhound]

There's one easy defense against Harm that no one has considered ...

Raise Dead.

I think clerics deserve a powerful spell ... they pretty much suck otherwise. Spiritual weapon? What the hell is that gonna do?

 

[Xarlen]

Some people just don't have the capacity to pay attention . . .

As things stand now, Harm is BETTER than Slay Living in EVERY WAY! It gives no save and STILL kills the opponent! Sheesh!

The "it doesn't kill" argument is semantic nonsense. That's IDENTICAL to saying guns don't kill people, bleeding kills people. It's an utterly ridiculous statement at best, complete stupidity at worst.

Technicalities do not apply to common sense. Harm kills, plain and simple.

And You don't pay attention.

I was speaking with Going Along With Your Modifications.

If Harm is given a save, then given 6d6 on a fail, then it's just a glorified Slay Living that doesn't kill the target, and just does 3d6 more damage. Ooo. 3d6 more damage, and I have to take ANOTHER action to kill them.

Slay living kills, 3d6. Destruction is a RANGED touch, 10d6. There should be something in the middle. Something that either offers a little BETTER then Slay living, but is less powerful then Destruction. The serious Power of destruction is not only the damage raising, but the Ranged touch.

So, I just want a difference between Slay living and Harm, other then the mini-raise in damage.

I liked the option of knocking the target to 10% current HPs.

 

[Dinkeldog]

First, Harm is a 6th-level spell because it goes, "Moooooo!"

Second, my fix is to cap it at 100 hp. Someone else did the math that showed that 15d6 maxes at 90 points, so that should be its limit. I agree wholeheartedly, however 100 hp is such a nice round number.

Fortunately, my group hasn't taken to playing with Harm yet, or Heal would get the same cap.

Finally, just saying hi, which should be a polite way of letting y'all know that I know where this thread is.