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

[ForceUser]

I have a suggestion about a change in harm. Instead of reducing an opponent to 1d4 hp, it reduces the opponent to 10% of it's current hitpoints.

Wow. I really like this idea, especially coupled with "no save." It scales nicely and keeps with the spirit of the spell.

Hmm. Going to have to think about it.

 

[Anubis]

I still think it sounds like a neutered Slay Living. Slay living Kills you, touch attack, 3d6 damage.

Harm does Not kill you, but puts you at 1d4, so yet another thing has to happen to kill you; waste of a spell, action, etc. It's a touch attack.

Destruction kills you. It's a *ranged* attack.

So we go from Touch, Die or Damage, Touch, d4 or Damage, Ranged Death or damage.

All you're making harm into is more damage on a failed save, and making that d4 there. I still think that with said modifications, it needs some Spice to it. Something that makes it more attractive then Slay living, other then the fact that it just does 3d6 more damage on a failed save.

The way you have it set up, it'd be no different then just Hightening Slay living. Infact, it'd almost be better, because Slay Living kills you, dead, no need for wasting a second action on you, cuz you dead.

Some people just don't have the capacity to pay attention . . .

As things stand now, Harm is BETTER than Slay Living in EVERY WAY! It gives no save and STILL kills the opponent! Sheesh!

The "it doesn't kill" argument is semantic nonsense. That's IDENTICAL to saying guns don't kill people, bleeding kills people. It's an utterly ridiculous statement at best, complete stupidity at worst.

Technicalities do not apply to common sense. Harm kills, plain and simple.

 

[Anubis]

Shut up.

Bite me. You just can't admit that I'm right, that's all. You've run out of any logical arguments, so you just do the childish thing. "Oh, shut up."

Blah. Heh, this debate is over.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Bite me. You just can't admit that I'm right, that's all. You've run out of any logical arguments, so you just do the childish thing. "Oh, shut up."

Blah. Heh, this debate is over.

You're the one who claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "foolish," Anubis. You call that a "logical argument"? That's the back-handed idea I was trying to get across...that your supposedly logical arguments are stated in language that makes them a bunch of poo.

I am glad the debate is over, though. Hooray! We agree!

 

[Shalewind]

I'm in agreement with Anubis on this one (in reference to the save being neccessary and harm being broken), but I think we should all play nice.

(I know this isn't bad yet, but I'd perfer the thread not get killed yet)

 

[Anubis]

You're the one who claimed that anyone who doesn't agree with you is "foolish," Anubis. You call that a "logical argument"? That's the back-handed idea I was trying to get across...that your supposedly logical arguments are stated in language that makes them a bunch of poo.

I am glad the debate is over, though. Hooray! We agree!

Language in an argument does not change the argument. I said that, sure, but I also "backed it up" so to speak with what can only be considered undeniable proof, and that logic stands on its own.

Only the foolish dismiss arguments just because of the language including within, because logic stands on its own without the need of any help.

 

[Alariel]

Sure, Harm is a very powerful spell, assuming it's used against PCs, NPCs, and monsters with the intelligence of a rock, but as has been mentioned before, there are plenty of defenses against it: spell resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Displacement, simply not being within range of a touch attack. By the time the PCs are high enough to be casting Harm, the enemies should have a modicrum of brain matter between their ears to either be prepared for it at the beginning of battle, or be able to set up defenses. Worse comes to worse, an INT of 5+ is enough to let the enemies know that retreating is a better option.

I can understand Harm getting through once against an enemy and taking him/her/it down. If the rest of the enemies are incapable of learning the lesson after that, then that's the DM's fault (case in point: running through 7 dragons, one after another, with the same spell selection). Don't blame the spell for the DM playing the NPCs as morons.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Like I said earlier, which many people missed, Harm is like an uncapped Power Word, Kill, except without the pesky HP limit.

I also look favorably upon the one who made it a 9th level spells. In many ways, it certainly acts like one. If one examines other 9th level spells such as Imprisonment, Temporal Stasis, and Power Word, Kill then we'll see a lot of similarties. All do not have a save and each means certain doom for the target (if SR is defeated). Now if we look at Harm, it has these same characteristics, but is 3 levels lower and on the *cleric* spell list.

True, Harm does not kill the opponent outright. Neither does imprisonment or temporal stasis, but all three spells equate to a win if they are successfully casts and discharged.

 

[Anubis]

Sure, Harm is a very powerful spell, assuming it's used against PCs, NPCs, and monsters with the intelligence of a rock, but as has been mentioned before, there are plenty of defenses against it: spell resistance, Anti-Magic Field, Displacement, simply not being within range of a touch attack. By the time the PCs are high enough to be casting Harm, the enemies should have a modicrum of brain matter between their ears to either be prepared for it at the beginning of battle, or be able to set up defenses. Worse comes to worse, an INT of 5+ is enough to let the enemies know that retreating is a better option.

VERY FEW monsters have those abilities, and even more do not just expect clerics to walk in and cast Harm. You can NEVER judge the power of a spell based on the defenses around it, mainly because ALL spells have those same defenses, generally speaking. SR applies to most, Antimagic to all, and Displacement to all touch. You can't judge it's power comparing it to defenses, otherwise all the instant-death spells would be Level 4 because that's when you get Death Ward.

You must judge a spell based on its own merits and what it entails. Harm is certain death when it hits, and has no save, unlike EVERY OTHER INSTANT-DEATH SPELL IN THE GAME. The 1d4 hp you keep at the end does NOT balance the no save. That's just ridiculous!

Use your heads, people! Harm=Death in 99% of all cases, has no save, making it THE most powerful spell in the entire game!

I can understand Harm getting through once against an enemy and taking him/her/it down. If the rest of the enemies are incapable of learning the lesson after that, then that's the DM's fault (case in point: running through 7 dragons, one after another, with the same spell selection). Don't blame the spell for the DM playing the NPCs as morons.

We frown upon metagame thinking. These dragons were thousands upon thousands of feet apart. The scaves spanned MILES, not feet. The individual dragons had no way of knowing what was happening to the others. That would be metagame thinking. The caves were so dangerous, AND the mayor of the metropolis had promised protection, so the dragons figured it to be reasonably safe down there. Know the facts before opening your mouth.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Language in an argument does not change the argument. I said that, sure, but I also "backed it up" so to speak with what can only be considered undeniable proof, and that logic stands on its own.

Only the foolish dismiss arguments just because of the language including within, because logic stands on its own without the need of any help.

Sez you. Only the foolish describe their own opinion as undeniable and undebatable, thus attempting to shut down contrary notions before they can be stated.

While we're on the subject, let's talk about your "logical argument" being "undeniable"...

You can NEVER judge the power of a spell based on the defenses around it, mainly because ALL spells have those same defenses, generally speaking. SR applies to most, Antimagic to all, and Displacement to all touch. You can't judge it's power comparing it to defenses, otherwise all the instant-death spells would be Level 4 because that's when you get Death Ward.

You must judge a spell based on its own merits and what it entails. Harm is certain death when it hits, and has no save, unlike EVERY OTHER INSTANT-DEATH SPELL IN THE GAME. The 1d4 hp you keep at the end does NOT balance the no save. That's just ridiculous!

Use your heads, people! Harm=Death in 99% of all cases, has no save, making it THE most powerful spell in the entire game!

First you say that a spell must be judged only "on its own merits," and then you leap to the conclusion that Harm, a spell that does not kill (this is not semantics, this is spell description), is 99% fatal. Fatal on its own merits? No, fatal because the NEXT shot is likely to take you out.

Now, I agree that Harm is likely to kill if you're not ready for it, if opponents all go on the same initiative, etc. etc. etc. I do not agree that your arguments are anything but your opinion.

Bite me.

Childish? Sure. But you seem awfully willing to sink to my level.