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

[IceBear]

Well, in all fairness to Anubis, the cleric would normally be level 11+, so against a 200hp opponent, it would be doing 22+ hp on a failed save whereas slay living would do 3d6 + caster level (or 10.5+11) on a failed save. So, as I was saying, at these lower hp levels, this version of Harm is (at best) equal to Slay Living (I would say worse because Slay Living would kill on a failed save, whereas with harm there is ALWAYS a chance if you're not dead).

IceBear

 

[Hikaru]

But look at it in the wider context--those are the best clerical spells, hands-down, for dealing or healing damage. You put a cap on those and clerics can't stand up to wizards anymore.

And WHY should they, spell-wise?? They already can cast more spells per day, do no need 8 hours of sleep before they can get their spells back, can cast in armor, and... have better saves, better hit dice, better BAB.

Poor Cleric, s/he really got the shaft.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Good point.

I'm still using Harm and Heal as written, though.

 

[Al]

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

Well, if you're going to do that, then there is no possible way that a fair comparison can be made.

I could pull a fighter out of Sultans of Smack who could torch your pitiful monk, and you could spend hours engineering the ultimate monk combat machine. But then it just becomes an exercise in whichever poster can engineer the best smackdown for his championed class, rather than a reasonable comparison of the relative powers of the classes. Using the DMG standard is the only fair method.

 

[Kibo]

Oh ye of little faith....

Well, if you're going to do that, then there is no possible way that a fair comparison can be made.

Well if you're not even going to try to look for a solution....

A simple to concieve, difficult to test, solution might involve a series of static opponents, the more varied and comprehensive the list of opponents, and the more rigorous the examination of fight the more accurate the result. Given the number of attributes to look at, it shouldn't be too difficult to create something akin to a Quarter Back Rating for proposed characters. It's not like a broad approach like this hasn't been used for quite a long time to address the difficulty inherent in such comparisions. In fact the only real complication in such a proposal is comming to agreement on which and how many opponents the little examination should involve, the methods or actual math of the examinations to be used, and the formula to be used to do the scoring.

Given the trivial nature of the question looking to be answered, the time it would take one person decide, design and refine everything, and how unlikely reaching any sort of consensus is, it probably won't be done. But won't and can't are VERY different things.

 

[Al]

An interesting idea...

...but one that is going to run into minefields.

Firstly, which characters are you going to use? If you use the DMG standards, then Anubis still won't be happy, as this was his original objections. If you don't, then how do you get a 'standard' character of any class.

Secondly, selecting the opponents to go toe-to-toe with is going to be difficult. A very broad spread could be achieved, but it would have to be weighted in favour of 'commonly encountered' monsters. An orc should have a greater 'weighting' than, say, a Ravid. There are added complications with what level to play the scenario at, as this does greatly affect the performance of the classes (e.g. wizard). Surely you don't propose testing a 'basket' of monsters at all levels then taking an average? If so, I'd rather you be doing it than I .

Thirdly, you have to bear in mind that some classes are stronger than others into the short-term and the long-term. That is why it is difficult to compare the spellcasting classes in a direct comparison with the fighting classes. In a series of three monsters, spellcasters will fare much better than in a series of ten. Again, this will be cause of dispute.

Finally, there is the problem of non-combat abilities. The hapless bard is (rightly) slammed, but part of this is due to their strengths in the non-combat field. Similarly, rogues are strongest in areas outside the straight-up fight. By contrast, the fighter is generally useless outside a combat scenario (discuss...)

So, these four problems, in addition to those you mention (although I'll admit there's an overlap in our reservations) make the task fiendishly difficult and prone to dispute. I'll stick to comparing stat blocks.

PS If you do manage to find a reasonable system (despite the inherent difficulties) then I'd be more than happy to test it.

 

[zorlag]

Harm...

How about this? :
----------------------

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: Special (see text)
Spell Resistance: Yes

Harm charges a subject with negative energy that causes 15 hp / caster level of damage on the living target creature. If this damage reduces target below 1 hp, it remains at 1 hp instead and has to make a will saving throw against normal caster DC (10 + wisdom modifier + 6 + applicable modifications) or die. If this saving throw is successful, target retains 1 hp and stays alive. If Harm is used on undead creature, it heals it 15 hp / caster level.

If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal.

----

As a GM I have been wondering why inflict serie spells use will save instead of more sensible fort save which is used to remove negative energy levels? I would probably use fort save for above harm version since I have house ruled inflict series to that save also.

Z.

 

[Kibo]

reStartup.com: The return of venture capital.

Some how I don't think there are quite the same demand for a 3Dmark and a PCmark 2003. So don't hold your breath . My characters tend towards the high concept, lowish power end of the spectrum. So statistically modeling the most successful power gaming combinations falls pretty low on my list.


When I was mudding on the other hand, my characters could really throw down. . Ahhh those were the days...but I've got that monkey off my back.

 

[IceBear]

I'm not sure why they use Will saves either other than the fact that big tough monsters with lots of hitpoints tend to have good Fort saves, so the inflict line of spells help balance the need for decent Will saves too.

IceBear

 

[hong]

I'm not sure why they use Will saves either other than the fact that big tough monsters with lots of hitpoints tend to have good Fort saves, so the inflict line of spells help balance the need for decent Will saves too.

Might also have to do with how they didn't want to break the rule that undead are generally immune to effects that have Fort saves.