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

[Xarlen]

We have a Dinkle!

 

[Anubis]

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

Raise Dead.

Raise Dead does squat against Harm. Try again.

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

Do you play the same game we're talking about? Pound-for-pound, clerics out-perform damn near everything in the game without a problem. Only monks can even come close to that level of power.

Also remember that clerics are NOT supposed to be attack mages. That's what a wizard is for. So giving clerics even better destructive powers than a wizard is a dumb move.

 

[Anubis]

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.

So? If the party knows ANYTHING about teamwork, this is not a problem. That attack succeeds 99% of the time, so it is a moot point.

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.

Even though natural spell progression would suggest that to be the exact right thing to do? Our goal is to make it better than Slay Living and worse than Destruction. My modification does EXACTLY that.

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

That solves nothing. At any particular level, if the players know anything about the game, 10% of a creatures hit points will still disappear within a single round after Harm, at least 80-90% of the time. Then you still have pretty much the same problem as before.

Before the save, Harm should stay the same, to keep it with the same level of potential power. With a successful save, it should do very little, to be balanced with other spells that pretty much do the same thing.

 

[Anubis]

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.

The reason a damage cap is a bad idea is because it would still overpower everything else of the same level. To get ANY other spell to do maximum potential damage, you have to add three levels to it with Maximize Spell. Why should Harm get that maximum with no save?

Treat it as an instant-death spell, seriously. That's what it is, when you look at it from a realistic standpoint. That means it does normal on a failed save, but a set damage upon successful save. This should be more than Slay Living and less than Destruction. Giving it full 15d6 damage after save also goes against every other spell in the game, so it needs to be less than 7d6. Thus, I came up with 6d6, double Sly Living's damage.

 

[drnuncheon]

Harm and Heal are the only spells I can think of that become less effective when the Maximize Spell feat is applied to them.

I'm thinking I will try a "save for half damage" solution (i.e. on a successful save, the spell reduces you to half your current hit points), which still leaves Harm as a very effective spell - hopefully without leaving it too effective.

J

 

[Anubis]

Harm and Heal are the only spells I can think of that become less effective when the Maximize Spell feat is applied to them.

I'm thinking I will try a "save for half damage" solution (i.e. on a successful save, the spell reduces you to half your current hit points), which still leaves Harm as a very effective spell - hopefully without leaving it too effective.

J

This was actually my first idea, but it was quickly pointed out to me that even at half damage, it is more effective than every other damaging spell out there, and more powerful than all other spells of a relative level, because it could still potentially do hundreds or thousands of points of damage.

Reducing it to a half damage upon save basically means that the more powerful you are, the more damage you take, which should never be the case with a successful save. That's why I downgraded it to a basic save or die type of spell where if you fail, you're pretty much dead, but if you succeed, you're in the clear, just like other spells of similar power.

Consequentially, I am bringing in a more powerful version of Harm at 9th level. Anyone who played Final Fantasy IV should remember a spell called Wind or Weak in the SNES version. I say bring that in as a 9th level spell at Harm's current level of power, but without the touch attack.

 

[mirivor]

Qoute from Anubis


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.


If that is the limit of what you can replay with, allow me to expound. Cause Serious Wounds is broken. It deals damage and, using the above stated hypothesis, it kills. As does every other damage dealing spell in the game. All magic is broken. Cripe, what the heck kind of argument is that? I can name a thousand other things that are just as deadly. Mosty people who think that Harm is broken site the "vs. (insert high hit-point, powerful creature)". This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced. However, consider the enemies that you must successfully TOUCH to use this spell. Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm. I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell. If a party gets close enough to a dragon to touch it, yet retain any resources worth speaking of, then the dragon was poorly played. Many of you may disagree, that is fine.


Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.

 

[Shalewind]

This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced.

I'm glad you agree.

Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm.

Given. However, clerics are not always the worst off in melee. While they don't own up to the fighter, they can often buff themselves. In addition, the cleric may not be the only target and the big nasty can't always assume the cleric is charging to HARM.

I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell.

That is cool. I salute your experience and wisdom. I too have not seen a very abusive situation. I have heard complaints from PCs though in other games and when reading the description.

Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.

I don't really agree with this statement as it can apply to ANY argument.

In the end, I believe the main point of the spell is that it is over powerful for its level. Many has suggested it is on par with 9th level spells (and I firmly believe it was a quick fix by the playtest staff and probably a debated point even then). In addition, there is no save, and that is always shaky ground to be walking on. Third, any creature can be killed with this and a combination quicken damage spell. And that in my opinion is far too over the scale of what I want happening.

I have yet to see someone counter Al's arguments effectively.

 

[Anubis]

If that is the limit of what you can replay with, allow me to expound. Cause Serious Wounds is broken. It deals damage and, using the above stated hypothesis, it kills. As does every other damage dealing spell in the game. All magic is broken. Cripe, what the heck kind of argument is that? I can name a thousand other things that are just as deadly.

Ah, another of my favorites, the "anything can kill" argument. This one is even worse than the other one . . .

Listen, anything can kill, we all know that. Please don't treat us like children. The problem with Harm is that it kills so easily for a 6th-level Divine spell AND it is more powerful than any other spell in the game. Compare it to ANYTHING. Harm wins EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Mosty people who think that Harm is broken site the "vs. (insert high hit-point, powerful creature)". This is valid and is the main reason that the majority, including myself, feel that Harm MAY be unbalanced.

That is the point. Name a single other spell that can reduce a Great Wyrm from full hit points to dead in a single round that has a hit roll a Level 1 character could make 95% of the time and no save. What's that? No other spell exists? There you go!

Not only is there no other spell that powerful, but even the most powerful of spells can't match it!

However, consider the enemies that you must successfully TOUCH to use this spell. Dragons, vampires, high-level adventurers, etc. all have innumerable ways to kill you while you attempt to close in and touch the beastie that you wish to Harm. I am both a DM and a player of over 15 years and have not seen anyone overly abuse this spell. If a party gets close enough to a dragon to touch it, yet retain any resources worth speaking of, then the dragon was poorly played. Many of you may disagree, that is fine.

Does AC 2 mean anything to you? Your players must be a bit on the stupid side if they can't move their cleric into position to cast Harm against an enemy just because of its size. The Great Wyrm will have a SINGLE chance for an attack of opportunity, and last time I checked, a Great Wyrm could NOT kill a powerful cleric in a single hit. Any number of way? Try ONE. Unless the player is dumb enough not to cast on the defensive, which is likely to automatically succeed every time.

Finally, Harm is not all that unbalanced for one reason. If YOU can zap me, then I can zap you.

So your villains are armies of clerics? That would be fun to see. The number of enemies that cast Harm can be counted on one hand, except for NPCs. In a game where monsters are galore, this argument is invalid simply because most monsters don't have access to Harm.

That's why this argument is invalid in ANY rules discussion.

Some people need to learn common sense. I hate trolls.

 

[jgbrowning]

heh

my favorite example of harm... (actually how i convinced my group of harm=broken)

my party.. 17th levelers... 4 of em.

bad guys..
1 wiz 13th level
4 clerics of 11th.

wiz scrys PC's when they are sleeping (1's on watch.. the dwarf.. heh chance in hell hell see it!). casts 4 reduces on clerics. then teleports without error the clerics and himself to party, clerics already having cast harm and holding it. clerics touched the dwarf (figher), the human (cleric), human (thief), but wern't close enough to the human (wiz).

bad guy wiz casts a quickened magic missle and kills the dwarf, thief and cleric. he then casts a regular magic missle, poor good wiz.

good mage wakes up. casts quickened teleport.

ouch! the PC's realized it could have been a tpk that they really can never have adaquate defenses against. they also agreed that the set up was not a stretch of the imagination....

anywhoo...

joe b.