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

[Anubis]

After more careful consideration, I have found an even more perfect fix for Harm. Let's just make it clear right now that Harm is effectively an instant-death spell as it stands right now. Few beings ever survive after being hit by Harm, so although it's not instant death by default, it is not only as effective, but actually MORE effective than instant death, solely because it gives *no save*, unlike actual instant-death spells. The lack of a saving throw is what breaks Harm, plain and simple. No amount of debate can change that.

Even by the DMG's standards, Harm is broken. This is a spell that can potentially do thousands of points of damage and yet gives *no save*. There is not a single other spell in the entire game, of any level, that can match the damage potential of Harm. Even Epic Spells fail to stand up to the mighty Harm. This all proves that Harm IS, in FACT, broken as-is.

Here is my solution.

Harm
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points. The subject can negate the damage with a successful Will saving throw.

If used on an undead creature, Harm acts like Heal.

There, it's powerful, but not TOO powerful. It still overpowers Slay Living, but it doesn't overpower Destruction. Perfect balance, it's now an all-or-nothing spell.

 

[IceBear]

That just means your players don't know how to play monks.



It's a great class, I've seen the destruction. I've DONE the destruction. Monk is a powerful class, but it is also a VERY COMPLEX class. It takes a lot of skill to play a monk correctly. That's actually where the balance is.

Not just my players but also by observing other groups and reading other people's gaming insights here. But, obviously you've had different experiences so your opinion is different.

IceBear

 

[Al]

Will negates

???

It still overpowers Slay Living

Um...how? Let's see: Slay Living kills the target on a failed save and wounds them for 3d6+level on a successful save. The latest version of Harm reduces them to d4 hit points on a failed save and does squit on a successful save. How, exactly, do this overpower Slay Living?

More attacks than any other class . . . More damage than any other class . . . Evasion and Improved Evasion . . . Five attacks instead of four . . . Immune to poison and most diseases . . . SR . . . Damage reduction . . . They don't age . . . The best saves in the game . . . Best speed in the game . . . Need I go on?

Okay.

More attacks: Well, okay. But this doesn't matter, as number of attacks is simply a 'sub-set' of 'dish out damage'.

More damage: Erm, no. Take the DMG standard characters.
At 1st level, fighter has +5 to hit and does d10+2 damage. The monk has +2 to hit and does d6+2. Even if the monk flurries, the fighter deals out better average damage against an opponent with an AC of better than 10.
At 10th level, the fighter has +15/+10 to hit and does d10+6 damage to the monk's +9/+6/+3 and d10+2 damage. Even if the monk flurries, the fighter does more damage against an opponent *whatever it's AC*, assuming the fighter uses Power Attack. For an opponent with an AC better than 11, the fighter needn't even use Power Attack.
At 20th level, the fighter has +33/+28/+23/+18 to hit, doing d10+14 damage. The monk has +18/+15/+12/+9/+6, doing d20+3 damage. In order for the monk to inflict more damage, the opponent needs to have an AC worse than 10, he must flurry and the fighter must not Power Attack.

Evasion and Improved Evasion: Granted.

Five attacks instead of four: Covered.

Immune to poison and most diseases: Okay.

SR: Fair enough.

Damage reduction: Sure- against all those CR 20 beasties that don't have the equivalent of +1 weapons...

They don't age: How long are your campaigns? I can't see this actually being of use.

Best saves: Take the DMG standard. Save sum=+48. Cleric has +49, druid has +50, paladin has +54. You were saying?

Best speed in the game: Er, big deal? Fly gives you a speed equal to that of the monk, and is virtually a staple at high level.

Need I go on: Yes. You could actually playtest them.

 

[Anubis]

???

Um...how? Let's see: Slay Living kills the target on a failed save and wounds them for 3d6+level on a successful save. The latest version of Harm reduces them to d4 hit points on a failed save and does squit on a successful save. How, exactly, do this overpower Slay Living?

Hmmm . . . You have a point there . . . Hey, finding the fix is difficult! It's easy to see that Harm is broken, but finding the fix is much more difficult!

Basically, half damage doesn't work because then the spell still deals LOADS of damage even upon a successful save, which would make it overpower Slay Living AND Destruction. A set amount of damage doesn't work because then the spell could deal more damage after a save than before it against creatures with less hit points.

Obviously, the solution must be a function of either the creature's hit points (which on a save means the stronger the creature is, the more damage it takes, which is silly) or a function of caster level (finding the function is the hard part). Wait a sec . . . I got it!

I'll post again the big solution in a moment! First to refute your arguments . . .

Okay.

More attacks: Well, okay. But this doesn't matter, as number of attacks is simply a 'sub-set' of 'dish out damage'.

More damage: Erm, no. Take the DMG standard characters.

Let's not. The DMG characters, first off, are NPCs, not PCs, and regardless of that fact, the DMG characters are pathetic.

At 1st level, fighter has +5 to hit and does d10+2 damage. The monk has +2 to hit and does d6+2. Even if the monk flurries, the fighter deals out better average damage against an opponent with an AC of better than 10.

We're talking about total potential, not damage at a specific level.

At 10th level, the fighter has +15/+10 to hit and does d10+6 damage to the monk's +9/+6/+3 and d10+2 damage. Even if the monk flurries, the fighter does more damage against an opponent *whatever it's AC*, assuming the fighter uses Power Attack.

My monks don't put feats into the kama. Instead, I would rather get Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus with Unarmed Strike, and also get a Belt of Giant Strength for damage. By Level 10, my monk has +2 to Strength, Dexterity, AND Wisdom. On top of that, my monks are human and have a bonus feat. Instead of the Dodge chain of feats, I would be taking better combat feats until higher levels, and THEN I might take Dodge to open up Epic Dodge later.

For an opponent with an AC better than 11, the fighter needn't even use Power Attack.
At 20th level, the fighter has +33/+28/+23/+18 to hit, doing d10+14 damage. The monk has +18/+15/+12/+9/+6, doing d20+3 damage. In order for the monk to inflict more damage, the opponent needs to have an AC worse than 10, he must flurry and the fighter must not Power Attack.

This is a weak monk. At Level 20, mine will have +6 to Strength, Dexterity, AND Wisdom, a +5 inherent bonus to Dexterity and Wisdom, and an Amulet of Might Fists +5, plus other goodies. So my monk would have, with base stats as in the DMG:

Str 20, Dex 27, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 28, Cha 8.

That gives me a total of +29/+26/+23/+20/+17, and I'll be doing 1d20+10 points of damage per hit. That not counting other fun stuff I could do.

They don't age: How long are your campaigns? I can't see this actually being of use.

My campaigns can be generational at times, so this does have an effect.

Best saves: Take the DMG standard. Save sum=+48. Cleric has +49, druid has +50, paladin has +54. You were saying?

Again, crappy monk. First off, I would spend a little bit on a Cloak of Resistance +5, considering they're so cheap. My saves would be Fort +21, Ref +25, Will +26, giving me a total of +72. Only a paladin with very high Charisma could beat that, and even then not by much, because I have all good saves and the paladin does not.

Best speed in the game: Er, big deal? Fly gives you a speed equal to that of the monk, and is virtually a staple at high level.

A staple? Since when? Maybe one Mass Fly for creatures out of reach, but a staple? I think not. There are much better spells at those levels, and a thing called archers along with the fact that flyers can't usually hit you any better than you can hit them, except for dragons and some.

Need I go on: Yes. You could actually playtest them.

Been there, done that, got the kill count.

 

[Anubis]

I finally found it! The perfect solution for fixing Harm! Here you go!

Harm
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1% of its current hit points (rounded up). Upon a successful save, the subject instead takes an amount of damage equal to 1% of it's current hit points per caster level (up to 20%, rounded down).

If used on an undead creature, Harm acts like Heal.

Sound good? Now the spell still does tremendous damage on a failed save, the damage upon a successful save is a function of the caster level, AND the spell can't do more damage on a successful save than on a failed save. The spell thus retains its FULL utility, yet is no longer broken!

How's THAT?!

 

[IceBear]

Listen, give it time and there'll be someone here who'll say how they dominated play as a 20th level rogue, a 20th level wizard, a 20th level cleric, etc.

I go with the general consenus on whether or not something is too powerful. If in your campaign you're kicking ass with a monk, good for you, but the general feeling is that the monk isn't overpowered.

Anyway, we've never agreed on anything (other than harm is broken) and I don't expect so now, so it's another agree to disagree

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

I finally found it! The perfect solution for fixing Harm! Here you go!

Harm
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will partial (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1% of its current hit points (rounded up). Upon a successful save, the subject instead takes an amount of damage equal to 1% of it's current hit points per caster level (up to 20%, rounded down).

If used on an undead creature, Harm acts like Heal.

Sound good? Now the spell still does tremendous damage on a failed save, the damage upon a successful save is a function of the caster level, AND the spell can't do more damage on a successful save than on a failed save. The spell thus retains its FULL utility, yet is no longer broken!

How's THAT?!

I think it makes it too weak, as now you have to hit and make a save and if the save is successful you'll do squat for damage - a 15th level cleric hitting something with 100hp will do 15 points of damage on a successful save.

I'm leaving it as a Will save for 1/2 as it goes along the lines of the cure/inflict spells and keeps harm as something to be feared (which is should be).

IceBear

 

[shilsen]

I was originally thinking of using the Will save for half damage, but I don't like the fact that this still leaves no cap on the spell. What I'll probably end up using is no save, but give it a damage of 10 hp/lvl, capping at 200. And if the damage is high enough to kill the recipient, it survives with 1d4 hp.

This, IMO, balances nicely against Slay Living and Destruction. While Harm won't kill automatically, it will give the user a sure-fire way to cause damage. So it becomes a tactical choice - do I use Slay Living, have to make a touch attack, maybe get lucky and kill the enemy, and allow it a save for low damage? Or do I use Harm, where I know it won't kill it, but definitely cause some serious damage. Works for me.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, I might introduce a cap as well if it still ends up being overpowered. In my campaigns, no one tends to have a lot of hitpoints so a cap isn't needed right now. I'm taking a wait and see approach.

I think the main reason many people don't use a cap is because of trying to keep the new harm symmetrical with heal. If there is a cap on the amount of damage you can inflict, there should be a cap on the amount you can heal.

IceBear

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

What the heck are Bracers of Striking?

Is that from Forgotten Realms? If so, we need to ignore it, because EVERYTHING in Forgotten Realms is broken.


Are you telling me that Sword & Fist isn't broken? Paying for three weapons with an Amulet of Mighty Fists is fair? Three weapons? S & F was poorly done. Just look at the Halfling Outrider and tell me if it were balanced or not.