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

[Anubis]

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

WHOA! Hold it!

Hey, I NEVER said the monk was OVERPOWERED . . . I merely stated that it was generally the most powerful of the core classes . . .

I do not feel that the monk is overpowered, nor is the monk broken. Sorry if that's how it sounded.

I was merely stating that the cleric and monk were the two most powerful of the core classes, outperforming most all of the others. That's ALL.

 

[Anubis]

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

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that a successful saving throw was SUPPOSED to make the spell do far less.

Take Slay Living, which kills on a failed save, and does barely 20 damage on a successful save. Or Destruction, which kills on a failed save but does an average of 35 damage on a successful save. Both of these do squat for damage on a successful save. Why should Harm be different?

The problem with giving Harm a save for half is that it can STILL do MORE damage than any other spell in the game at the mid-level range! At Level 15, Delayed Blast Fireball will do 52.5 damage on a FAILED save, half that on a successful save. Against something with 100 hit points, your Harm (which is 6th-level and not 7th-level, and is Divine, not Arcane) does a minimum of 96 damage on a failed save and 50 on a successful save!

You gotta think about balance. Harm is powerful, just like many other spells. Making your save, however, is SUPPOSED to considerably weaken the damage.

Make it a save for half, and it STILL outperforms every other spell in the game!

 

[Anubis]

Are you telling me that Sword & Fist isn't broken? Paying for three weapons with an Amulet of Mighty Fists is fair? Three weapons?

Let's see, you pay the cost of three weapons and get only ONE in return . . . If you ask me, it may be OVERBALANCED! Certainl;y not broken!

S & F was poorly done. Just look at the Halfling Outrider and tell me if it were balanced or not.

Um . . . Halfling Outrider sucks . . . That's a very poor example . . . Try using a powerful class like Weapon Master . . . And yes, it's balanced . . . Prestige Classes are SUPPOSED to be powerful!

 

[Anubis]

Does anyone hear what I'm saying about Harm? Just make it do 1% per caster level (maximum 20%) of the victims current hit points in damage on a successful save! Just make sure the creature is taken to 1% on a failed save . . .

Can anyone give a single reason why that doesn't balance perfectly? No? Thought not . . .

 

[IceBear]

I did - it makes Harm too weak compared to Slay Living

Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack. If you fail the save you die, if you make the save you take damage.

Your harm would require a touch attack (so you have to get up close an personal). If you fail the save you're near dead, but if you make the save you take laughable damage. A 20th level caster hitting someone with 100hp will only do 20hp of damage. It's close to balanced, but it's still too weak if the save is made. Sure, it works better the more hitpoints the monsters have, but not all monsters are going to have 300+ hitpoints.

IceBear

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack.

It's a melee touch attack.

 

[IceBear]

Sorry, sorry, I was thinking of Finger of Death (which is a higher level and is ok) - been awhile since anyone cast any high level spells so I got them mixed up.

Anyway, I don't like 1% per caster level as it makes the spell too weak against monsters with lower hitpoints. It might be close to a solution, but I'd go with Slay Living if the monster had less than 200hp rather than this version of harm. Maybe 2% per level?

Edit: I'm not a big fan of having to calculate percentages in the middle of combat (Ok, the monster has 143hp and loses 15% of his hitpoints - not as easy to determine than he takes 141 points of damage on a failed save and 70 on a successful), but in the case of harm I might make an exception.

IceBear

 

[Anubis]

I did - it makes Harm too weak compared to Slay Living

The only problem with that statement is that . . . IT DOESN'T. It does comparable damage on a failed save (being left with that few hit points is the same as death in 99% of ALL circumstances where the spell will be used), and it still does reasonable damage on a successful save.

Slay Living is what does a laughable amount of damage, being about 10.5 + caster level in damage. By the time you can cast the spells regularly, Harm is always doing more damage! (After Level 20, few enemies have LESS than 300 hit points.)

Harm thus beats Slay Living in every aspect. Yeah, against vreatures with few hit points, Slay Living will do more. Why, however, would you cast Harm on something with fewer hit points? YOU WOULDN'T. Characters know what have loads of hit points and what don't, it ain't rocket science.

Harm wins nearly every time, making your "point" invalid.

Slay Living is a lower level, requires a ranged touch attack. If you fail the save you die, if you make the save you take damage.

It's a regular touch attack, and they're both basically save or die.

 

[IceBear]

Anubis, I personally don't like you so maybe that's why I'm against your house rule for harm - it's clouding my judgement. I don't know why I don't like you other than you come across as an arrogant ass in nearly every thread I've seen you post in.

Question - you're attacked by a dragon. Does the dragon have 150hp or 350hp? How do you know? Better yet, you're attacked by a human in armor with a sword - is he a 10th level fighter or a 20th level fighter. In the case of the first, Slay Living might do more damage than harm (depending on the caster level). That, and the fact that I don't want to have to calculate percentages in game is the reason I don't like it.

Again, I might have a different opinion of this if someone other than Anubis posted this houserule. I really wish I knew why.

IceBear

 

[Anubis]

Anubis, I personally don't like you so maybe that's why I'm against your house rule for harm - it's clouding my judgement. I don't know why I don't like you other than you come across as an arrogant ass in nearly every thread I've seen you post in.

I know I can come across as an arrogant ass. I'm not really, but I'm a very . . . um . . . "passionate" debater, and that's what does it. I am arrogant, although I'm not usually an ass, at least not in real life. In a debate, though, watch out!

I have some advice: don't take it personal. It's my style of debating. I guess that's half the problem. I don't weigh in on subjects with opinions, I only weigh in on things with facts and circumstances to back up arguments. In that way, however, I don't play around, I take my debating quite serious. Not so serious that it is an essential part of my life, but serious enough to make a slid attempt at offering proof for everything I say.

So anyway, don't take it personal. Yeah, when I'm in a debate, I'm obnoxious. It's just the way I am. I know how to debate and I'm damn good at it. That may be detrimental to people's opinions of me, but it's just who I am. I seriously mean no offense at any time.

Question - you're attacked by a dragon. Does the dragon have 150hp or 350hp? How do you know?

I usually assume that the bigger they are, the more hit points they have. I always assume dragons to have at least 100 hit points after around Level 6.

Better yet, you're attacked by a human in armor with a sword - is he a 10th level fighter or a 20th level fighter.

That's where I'd use death spells. Other actual characters usually don't have as many hit points as the big monsters do.

In the case of the first, Slay Living might do more damage than harm (depending on the caster level). That, and the fact that I don't want to have to calculate percentages in game is the reason I don't like it.

It's easy. Since you need a calculator for the game anyway, it's not putting you out or nothing. For calculating the failed save, multiply current hit points by 0.01 and round up. For calculating the successful save, that the cleric's level as a percentage and multiple it by the creatures hit points, rounding down, and that's how much damage the beastie takes. (For instance, a Level 15 Cleric attacking something with 300 hit points, it makes the save, take 300 x 0.15, which equals 45, and the beastie takes 45 damage.)

See? Nothing to it!

Again, I might have a different opinion of this if someone other than Anubis posted this houserule. I really wish I knew why.

I wish I knew why as well. Not liking someone is no grounds on which to judge the person's statements. Just calm down, realize the actual virtue of my arguments, even test them in a game if you need to. Compare it to other spells of the same level. You'll see that my solution makes sense. It took a while to find a good solution, but I do believe that this one is the best for it because it takes everything into consideration without making Harm super-powerful even on a successful save, which no spell should do, at least not at that level.