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

[Spatzimaus]

I'm of the opinion that Harm needs to be fixed, but Touch spells in general also need a tweak. I mean, a range of Touch should be a BAD thing. Instead, you're forced to have dragons go through elaborate precautions just to stay alive.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that these attacks are too consistent. There's no save, and at high level you can Cast Defensively automatically. So here are some changes to make things more unpredictable:

1> When a touch attack is done, it is considered to be still in the process of casting from the moment it's cast to the moment it's delivered. That means if you're hit while trying to deliver it (by an AoO or readied action) you must make a Concentration check as if hit while casting a spell. A roll of a 1 on this check means you hit yourself accidentally (no save, no SR, WHAM)
This partially solves the "Cleric take an AoO and Harm the dragon" problem, at least if they cast BEFORE running in. Getting hit for that much is going to fizzle the spell, and there's the off chance of much worse. Now, admittedly in the base MM all Dragons have a DEX of 10 and no Combat Reflexes, but that's an easy change (IMC the average dragon is DEX ~16 with 4 less STR and 2 less CON, and most pick Combat Reflexes early on). Since they have nice reach, it becomes very tough to deliver a touch spell safely.
2> On a touch attack roll, if you roll a 1 you hit yourself (no save, no SR). A "ranged touch" attack does the same, although at the DMs discretion you could instead hit an unintended target near the line of sight.
On the other hand, if you roll a 20 on the attack roll, you do a "critical" attack, bypassing saves (and SR?).
3> Casting Defensively is too consistent. At low levels you can almost never succeed; at high levels it's automatic. So, change how Cast Defensively works, making it more like an opposed roll against the other guy's attack bonus.
For example, make the existing check a bit easier at low levels (DC 10+(2*spell level) instead of 15+spell level), and use however much you exceed the check by as a Dodge AC bonus against AoOs. Failure still causes you to lose the spell, though.

EXAMPLE: Bob the Cleric (level 15, CON 12, Concentration +20) wants to Harm a Great Wyrm. He runs up, and tries to cast the spell defensively. The DC is 22 (10+6*2), so he'll succeed unless he rolls a 1, but we want to know by how much. He rolls a 10, giving a result of 30, so his AC increases by 8 against the resulting AoO. In most cases that'd make him practically untouchable, and most enemies wouldn't waste their AoO hitting something with that kind of AC bonus. In this case, though, the dragon still whacks him anyway, causing him to lose the spell; bobbing and weaving doesn't help you dodge an arm the size of a bus.

Now, personally, I like this better than just adding saves on a case-by-case basis, but you can do that too.

 

[mikebr99]

Casting Defensively is too consistent. At low levels you can almost never succeed; at high levels it's automatic. So, change how Cast Defensively works, making it more like an opposed roll against the other guy's attack bonus.

Consider using reflex save instead of Attack bonus... big, slow giants shouldn't be good at reacting...

 

[Anubis]

At the PH level I think damaging spells can compare with DC save or dies. Saves go up quickly(attributes, items etc) so the % chance of success it usually somewhat slim. Once you add in greater focus, and those power things the save DC gets beyond what poeple can legitimetly save against and then yes damage dealers are outclassed.

Personally I like save or dies for that fear factor, and because it actually gives a point for will and fort saves. Also if they were removed it would be a power loss for spell casters whether or not they could adapt loss in versatility is still a loss, and especially for the d4 arcane casters for whom virtually every attack upon them is you don't get a save you just die, some compensation should be in order if they were removed.

As someone who plays in Epic Levels, I can say that this is absolutely NOT the case. At higher levels, there are simply way too many ways to protect against instant-death and raise saves for instant-death spells to be effective. Damaging spells with Metamagic Feats do MUCH more.



As for wizards not being able to take hits . . . What kind of players do you have? My wizards almost always have over 100 by level 15, and over 200 by Epic Levels, because their first item selection is things that boost Constitution and hit points, along with Toughness feats. My wizards easily have at least as many hit points as clerics.

 

[bret]

As someone who plays in Epic Levels, I can say that this is absolutely NOT the case. At higher levels, there are simply way too many ways to protect against instant-death and raise saves for instant-death spells to be effective. Damaging spells with Metamagic Feats do MUCH more.



As for wizards not being able to take hits . . . What kind of players do you have? My wizards almost always have over 100 by level 15, and over 200 by Epic Levels, because their first item selection is things that boost Constitution and hit points, along with Toughness feats. My wizards easily have at least as many hit points as clerics.

I'm surprised that you think the damage spells are so effective considering your second paragraph.

100 / 15 = 6.6666 hp / level. Assuming all saves are failed, it takes two direct damage spells just to take your wizard down.

I'm guessing you've got an effective 18 Con. I assume you've got at least an 18 Int (otherwise you couldn't even cast your 8th level spells), which makes it sound like some pretty big attributes. I know you could get +2 Con from a Toad (waste of familiar), and up to another +6 from an Item. That is a large investment.

I'm not sure how others play Wizards, but I've usually got problems getting that good an attribute pump from an item. What are other people's experiences at these levels?


The other thing is that if the Wizard can afford that good a Con and Int, I assume the Fighters can afford a good Str and Con. The fighters are going to have more hitpoints, requiring even more direct damage spells to take them down. The more you inflate the attributes, the harder it is with direct damage spells.

 

[Henry]

Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits? Falling from heights? The drowning rule? None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death. No save.

The thing to note here however, Tom, is that in all of these cases, the damage is capped to what is capable within a given dice roll. In the case of critical hits, rarely do you see hits for 500 points of damage, outside of theoretical "Sultans of Smack" articles. Falling damage is often criticized as TOO WEAK, rather than too damaging - terminal velocity being survivable by the average 15th level cleric, 12th level fighter, or 10th level barbarian. Finally, I have not once seen a PC in two years die due to suffocation or drowning. I have been thinking of making the drowning rules tougher myself, but only slightly.

Harm, however, is a spell available to every cleric of 11th level or higher. It is quite common above 10th level, and many players restrain themselves from using it liberally, for fear their DM's will do the same thing. Its commonality, and its touch attack capability are what make it difficult for so many people to swallow.

One other possiblity for those who find it too tough would be to return it to "standard attack" spell status, instead of merely being a touch attack. In this way, dragons with their fearsome AC's, and mages with their scads of bonuses would not need to worry about a simple AC 10 to 15 attack bypassing every protection they have, and cleaving away all of their hit points as if they were a stick of butter.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

at 15th level on average the wizard has 30 less hp than a cleric and 45 less than a fighter. Con items are important to them too. All hp can be fairly low when you see the damage any class can dish out. 30-45hp frequently is the difference in being up the after one full attack, and not being up. People who are up can take actions like getting away, healing etc to mitigate there massive hp loss. I've seen more wizards drop to a single rounds worth of attacks from one foe than I cna count, whether form a ful attack, a partial charge crit form a pissed of barb, or some sneak attacks.

 

[jgbrowning]

heal harm

well i think both of them are broken.


all the cure spells have saves. Will half (harmless).

Heal and Harm don't although they are progressions of the same idea.

8d8+clerics level... will save half (harmless)?

would make it more leathal...


joe b.

 

[Al]

Just a general comment of some of the points:

As for wizards not being able to take hits . . . What kind of players do you have? My wizards almost always have over 100 by level 15, and over 200 by Epic Levels, because their first item selection is things that boost Constitution and hit points, along with Toughness feats. My wizards easily have at least as many hit points as clerics.

Slightly off-topic, but I'll comment on it nevertheless. In order for an average 15th level wizard to have 100 hit points, he would need a constitution of 18 or greater, so that's not unfeasible with Endurance. However, it is relatively easy at this level to dish out a similar amount of damage: a Power Critical can deal this out in a single round, and even failing that, a barbarian with 30 str wielding a +4 greataxe can easily muster a similar amount of damage off three attacks: d12+19 damage per hit, so average damage of just over 75 points per round. So if the barbarian is hasted or uses Power Attack, he can dish out 100 damage in a round. Toughness feats, by the way, are normally regretted around level 2. As for clerics and wizards having equal hit points, nonsense. Do your wizards normally have 4 points higher constitution than your clerics?

Back to the main argument:

Yes, but I think you missed an earlier point. A really, really high SR won't do diddly against a burley fighter with a big ol' sword. So Harm's a high level spell that gives clerics a chance to do lots of damage just like a fighter might. But of course, Harm's much more powerful than any melee attack... but it has to first overcome with SR.

Fair point, but spells have to be compared against other spells. The issue is question is: is Harm broken? If the question were: is the cleric broken?, then a comparison with the fighter is reasonable. Since the issue is the spell, not the class, it has to be compared with other spells.

Hell, that's still 13 hit points away from death if your friends are nearby.

Quickened Inflict Moderate Wounds: you have a 63-in-64 chance of taking off those 13 hit points unless he makes the save. And with a Quickened Inflict Serious Wounds, he's probably dead even with a save.

In response to the claim that the Harm/Heal Dichotomy is "nonsense"...Harm started out as the 'reversible' option of Heal. One spell takes away all but 1d4 hp, one gives back all but 1d4 hp. If that ain't symmetry, then somebody take me back to school.

Fair enough. Allow Heal a save when used against undead. Symmetry maintained, no problem.

Again, if you give Harm a save, will you remove critical hits? Falling from heights? The drowning rule? None of those have saves either, and any one can result in instant death. No save.

Well, let's examine these. A critical hit is significantly more difficult to pull off than a touch attack, and does substantially less damage. Falling rules cap damage at 10d6. Drowning rules allow the character to hold your breath for (Con) rounds. Yes, they can result in instant death- but Harm (virtually) guarantees it.

In a game that has countless ways to Save Or Die (i.e. ignoring hit points altogether), a spell that leaves you with 1-4 hp is pretty darn fortunate.

The first word in save or die is 'save'. Harm allows none. That is the issue.

 

[Krakken]

I just have one thing to say right now.
It's easier to destroy than to create.
And any character can optimize their ability to kill someone where spells are concerned, such as putting up a blade barrier with a wall of force around them, or a hasted (magic item) cleric doing harm with quickened damage spell, or if you want to make sure you hit the touch attack, have a 1st sorcerer/cleric doing truestrike+harm

 

[Stalker0]

First off, I'm in the save for Harm school. However, unlike a lot of people, I would give harm a set damage on a successful save. Slay living has one, and harm should be able to outright kill you in my opinion if you have that few hitpoints.

I'm curious about the dragon campaign though. This cleric went in to touch great wyrums with 10-15 foot reaches....and why is he not sitting in the dragon's belly right now? With the snatch feat, and the fact that unless your cleric is incognito, there's usually clues that the cleric is a cleric, the dragon would be smart enough to be like (ah, a cleric, kill him first, rest of the weak mortals will die). Then he snatches you up, and crushes you in his mouth for about 35 damage, which is about average for a collosal red dragon.

So then you'd be forced to make a concentration check on that spell (although its only 26, so you should make it fairly easily).

You still get off a hurt on the dragon, but I could see him swallowing you before you got to kill him.