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

[hong]

I'm partial to 1d8 per caster level, no save.

 

[drnuncheon]

I still dislike save-for-half. This effectively means that two Harms and you're toast, etc. etc. etc.

Um...no?

I have 500 hit points, I save, I go to 250. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 125. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 63...

Harm in both versions does damage based on your current hp, not your maximum hp.

J

 

[Anubis]

I haven't read through this entire thread, just thought I'd run mine past you guys.

<full metal jacket>
THIS IS MY HOUSE RULE FOR HARM. THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE
</full metal jacket>

Fort save applies. Those who succeed takes 6d8+level in damage, minimum of 4 hit points.

This keeps it in line with the inflict spells. I *know* that it isn't part of the cure chain, but it has a symmetry that I like. Plus it places it in power cleanly between SLay Living and Destruction.

There are three reasons this does not work.

1) Harm and Heal go together, and since they have opposite effects on Undead, giving Harm a Fort save means neither spell can effect Undead because they are immune to things requiring a Fort save unless it can also damage objects, which this can't. If a save applies, it MUST be a Will save.

2) 6d8+level damage on save makes it more powerful after a save than Destruction, which is a level higher.

3) There is NO precedent ANYWHERE in the rules that cap the hit points remaining after a save, meaning "minimum of 4 hit points after damage" has no place in the rules.

If we're gonna fix this, we need to do it by the book. Seriously, whether they officially change it or not, if we wanna fix it, we should AT LEAST come up with something similar to what they would officially change it to.

Although I believe I have proven Harm to be broken, fixing it is indeed the hard part. I'm partial to either a flat 6d6 damage, which I am second-guessing because that makes it more powerful on save than Disintegrate, or a flat 3d8 + 1/2 caster level in damage, which would keep it in line with other cure/inflict spells. (They all do 1d8+level damage, per spell level, half that on save. Harm does considerably more with a regular hit, and thus should do less on a save.)

 

[Anubis]

Hmmm... I actually know very few people that do believe that the monk is one of the more powerful classes out there.

Sure, the monk really looks powerful on the first glance, but effectively, they tend to be rather weak in our games at least, definitely no match for the clerics or wizards.

Let's see . . . More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class once you gain more levels . . . Three good saves . . . A whole lot of nifty special abilities . . . Hmmm . . . I can't see anything NOT powerful about this class.

If you are talking about Ki Strike being an awful ability, well, that's what the Amulet of Mighty Fists is for, not to mention monk weapons. Find something that gives other classes an upper-hand. Try, at least. There is nothing.

About harm and your arguments, Anubis, I want to say one thing.

You can never really prove that harm is broken, simply because there is no fixed (i.e. mathematically sound) definition of what broken means.

Actually, there is. Just take a look at the spell guidelines in the DMG. One of them says to compare a spell to the average spell of the same level, as well as spells of other levels. If it seems about as powerful, then it's okay. This one alone breaks Harm, because it outperforms every other core spell in the game!

As for mathematically sounds, not counting random and somewhat rare outside factors such as difficult SR and such, Harm has about a 95% change to take ANY enemy down to up to 4 hit points UNLIMITED and WITHOUT A SAVE, something that NO other spell in the game does.

I think that is enough. I'm not just talking about opinions here, I'm talking about things that are backed up by the guidelines given in the DMG.

In general, I absolutely agree, tho, that harm is too powerful for its level, as most others seem to do.

Some people, however, do think the spell is ok and balanced by other factors (altho, they surely also admit, that the spell is or at least can be extremely powerful). Their perception of broken-ness is just very different and therefore you'll never come to an agreement (getting back to the point, where broken is not well defined) with them.

Bye
Thanee

That's probably true. At this point, I don't really care anymore. I know it's broken, so I'll just be content to snicker at those who don't believe it, while playing with the balanced version in my game.

 

[drnuncheon]

Let's see . . . More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class once you gain more levels . . . Three good saves . . . A whole lot of nifty special abilities . . . Hmmm . . . I can't see anything NOT powerful about this class.

Just a quick glance at the DMG's sample NPCs...

Monk: +18/15/12/9/6 (1d20+3), AC 34, hp 133
Barbarian: +32/27/22/17 (1d12+11), AC 29, hp 175
Fighter: +33/28/23/18 (1d10+14), AC 34, hp 175

Which one's super powerful again? C'mon, the NPC rogue has a better chance to hit than the sample monk.

J

 

[Shalewind]

Not to be rude guys but this is the harm thread. (I'm guilty of off topic stuff too) But let's drop or move the monk stuff eh?

I'm partial to either a flat 6d6 damage, which I am second-guessing because that makes it more powerful on save than Disintegrate, or a flat 3d8 + 1/2 caster level in damage, which would keep it in line with other cure/inflict spells. (They all do 1d8+level damage, per spell level, half that on save. Harm does considerably more with a regular hit, and thus should do less on a save.)

Flat damage before or after save?

 

[Kraedin]

More damage than any other class once you gain more levels

I assume you mean with unarmed strikes, i.e, the d20 damage.

Alright.

Assuming the monk puts a 14 in strength to begin, and buys a girdle of giant's strength +6, he has a 20 strength, for a +5 strength bonus to damage. Add the amulet of mighty fists +5, you get a +5 enhancment bonus to damage. Is there anything else to pile on? Monks aren't my strong point. Anyway, that gives 10.5 base + 5 strength + 5 enhancment for 20.5 average damage per blow, or 41 on a critical hit, with a 19-20/x2 threat range. It should be noted that the monk, even though he has more attacks per round than the fighter, will, on average, hit fewer times, because of his 25% worse BAB.

Okay, now the fighter. Assuming the fighter put a 16 into strength to begin (fighters don't have to worry about nearly as many stats as monks, so we can have a higher strength score), and buys a belt of giant strength +6, puts 4 of his 5 attribute points in strength, and buys a +5 icy burst flaming burst keen falchion, does 5 base + 12 strength + 5 enhancment + 2.5 fire + 2.5 frost for 27 damage, or 43 on a critical hit, with a 11-20/x2 threat range.

Now the wizard. The wizard has Spell Focus (Transmuation), Greater Spell Focus (Transmutation) Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration and Heighten.

The wizard starts with 18 int (I play 25 point buy and this is easy to do), puts all of his level bonuses into int, gets a tome of int +5, and a headband of int +6, for 34 int. He also casts an empowered empowered empowered empowered fox's cunning on himself, using a lesser rod of empowerment, for an average +10.5 to int that does not stack with the headband That leaves his int at a healthy 38.

He Heightens a flesh to stone to 9th level, and casts it at your monk. DC 39, with a +24 bonus to beat spell resistance, vs your save of 12 base + 5 cloak of resistance + 5 constitution bonus. The monk needs a 17+ to save, while the wizard only needs a 6 or higher to beat SR. Doesn't look so good for mr.monk.

Who's more damaging again?

 

[Al]

A few general comments:

I have 500 hit points, I save, I go to 250. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 125. I get hit with harm again, I save, I go to 63...

My mistake. I guess I misinterpreted it. By this ruling, save-for-half sounds fine.

On the 250hp thing:

I find this difficult to believe: that *most* of your characters can have greater than 250hps. Fair enough, heavy tanks may have upwards of 300, but an average wizard? Assuming average hit point rolls, giving 51.5hps, he'd need a Con bonus of +10 to exceed 250hps. So assuming you wish it up 5 points and have a +6 item, you'd need a Constitution of 19...hmmm, so either your wizard bumps his Con as levelling boosts (er...not likely) or he's a dwarf and put a 17 score in Con (er...also not likely). We can discuss 8xEmpowered Endurance Incantatrices, but are these standard in your game?

1) Harm and Heal go together, and since they have opposite effects on Undead, giving Harm a Fort save means neither spell can effect Undead because they are immune to things requiring a Fort save unless it can also damage objects, which this can't. If a save applies, it MUST be a Will save.

Such is true. Will saves also bring it in line with the Inflict Wounds family.

6d8+level damage on save makes it more powerful after a save than Destruction, which is a level higher.

Now this is unfair. You're assuming that Harm's full effect is comparable to Destruction. Clearly it isn't: Harm requires a touch attack, and reduces the victim to d4hps. Destruction require no touch, destroys the victim completely and means that they can't be restored short of 9th level magic. Hardly an equivalence. You can assume that Harm is similar to a death effect, but remember it actually isn't.

Especially for Wizards, this is QUITE in-character, considering how smart they're supposed to be.

I'm sorry, but this is the worst argument I've seen in a long time. So, wizards are smart in character, so they managed to choose how healthy they are? In your game, they are *so* smart they can manipulate themselves genetically? Or do they simply workout every day, which was *highly* irregular in a fantasy/medieval setting.

This is 150 MINIMUM for most people who roll better than crap

By rolling better than crap, you mean 20% better than average; and his MINIMUM still falls short by 100hps of the 250 you cited earlier.

As for the monk...at high levels, he can be taken out by virtually any other class.

Fighters, paladins, rangers and barbarians can simply take him out through sheer assault power.
Clerics and Druids can buff and bash (Druid + Shapechange=...)
Wizard and Sorcerers...Time Stop.

Indeed, the only classes who would struggle are the rogue and bard. What was that about power?

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Will Save for half of current HP total is what I use.

Monk's are "survivors". That's about the only comment I'll make on that.

I'm usually pretty easy on HP rolls. Once we did an arena style game at 16th level and one guy created a dwarven barbarian with a staggering amount of HP (it was 300+).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Monks need to take Weapon Finesse for high attack bonus and high AC. Strength is good if you need to use your wepaons all the time. IMO monks have too low an attack bonus and do too much damage.

Now, onto the Harm spell.

It's BOO ROE KEN! (That's just my opinion, of course.) If the DM has to engineer every encounter to avoid Harm, giving every fighter a Potion of Displacement and a cleric-bane sword, giving every colossal scorption the fiendish template (for SR), always allowing giants to attack from range, etc., then the problem is the spell, not the DM.