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

[Dinkeldog]

I moved it. About time, too.

 

[Happy Monkey]

Problem to me is that harm circumvents one of the base mechanics of D&D, HP.

Everyone wants lots of HPs because they give a sense of longevity to characters and really distinguish high from low level.

Save v death spells are feared because they potentially can get around this, but there are defensive options such as boosting saves, Deathward etc...

Harm is a touch spell that is relatively easily delivered leaving the victim very fragile. Touch is very effective vs large+ enemies. Defenses v Harm are fewer and less effective, especially if the victim is outnumbered due to the turn based actions system D&D uses.

The classic Dragon in his lair (unable to fly) gets a lot more easier with this spell. Note easier not easy.

I believe every attack should have a defence and Harm does not.

I am not considering the potential damage output of Harm because I rate it closely with the save or die spells which potentially do a similar amount.

I have been playing with harm as is but am considering:

1) Making "Negative energy protection" an effective defence. It is lower level but not a certain counter due to the opposed roll. Freely available by level but not 100%, only problem here is that it may make NEP a "must-have" spell. That i can do without.

2) A save, likely will, like the inflict spells. Harm would possibly need to be reduced to 5th level with slay living being moved to 6th...

3) Cap damage to 1/2 HP. The spell has diminishing returns beyond the first hit but still inflicts great damage.

4) NEP and 1/2 HP cap? Other combos

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

 

[Ferox4]

I believe every attack should have a defence and Harm does not.

Sure it does:

Spell Immunity
Repulsion
Anti-Magic Field
Holy Aura
Iron Body
Anti-life shell

and to a lesser extent:

Spell Resistance
Wall of Force
and probably more....

I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, BUT if a saving throw is instituted into Harm shouldn't it be a Fortitude save vs. a Will save? All the other Necromantic spells that allow saves ask for Fortitude.

 

[Happy Monkey]

By defence I am not meaning the more situational types. Otherwise you can include wide chasms, successful diplomacy or invisibility (to a degree).

By defence I am meaning a method of resistance that improves with level as per the whole point of levels in D&D. Usually this resistance comes in the form of more hitpoints, better saves or even better AC.

Touch attacks laugh at the above. That said the touch attack mechanic is very believable in my view.

Nup, believe it or not not everyone is sick of this thread, despite its exhaustive length. Once it slips to page2 though...

Will if you place it with the inflict spells and fort if with the save or die. Choices.

 

[S'mon]

From the SRD:



Broken? No. Effective? By all means.

Negative Energy Protection provides no proof against this spell, of course, but the simplest way to counter it is with a Heal spell. Which leads to the idea that if you're able to heal, you should be able to harm. And don't let's forget that a range of Touch can be a little dicey at Challenge Ratings that include the use of 6th level Cleric spells.

Harm preserves rules-symmetry and gives villains a nice smackdown to use on Billy Badass PCs. I like it! Who's with me?

I've decided to restrict both Harm & Heal to a maximum of 10 hp per caster level, eg CLR-20 can't harm or heal more than 200 hp per application. Nothing to stop a hasted cleric from doing it twice in one round, though!

 

[Happy Monkey]

Methinks I'll go for the 1/2 damage will save.

Still hurts a lot. Potentially ravaging a single opponant.

 

[Ferox4]

By defence I am meaning a method of resistance that improves with level as per the whole point of levels in D&D. Usually this resistance comes in the form of more hitpoints, better saves or even better AC.

I misunderstood, HM. Yes, you're point is valid.

I think that despite whatever fix is instituted, a saving throw MUST be allowed (Will or Fort, depending upon perception of the spell). If not, the spell is too low in level and should be 8th or 9th.

 

[Happy Monkey]

It's all good Ferox4

I for one do not like deliberately altering core rules, spells in this case. But until 3rd & 1/2 is done, and I think no time soon, I'll have to act.

For the record I as a dm have used Harm exclusively in our games. The pc's never have, levels being 10-11, now 9-10...

It probably should be noted that I use open rolls and no fudges. My significant villains use cheap tricks if inclined and even fodder tend to wolf-pack. I like the game hard but am generous with rewards.

My point is that my solution, I think, will suit my style of dming, not many others.

 

[Ferox4]

I am both PC and DM. In both campaigns we have just reached levels that give access to Harm. The other DM and I are always concerned with game flow and especially streamlining the mechanics of play. With that in mind, I have been trying to see how others have handled this spell so that when it comes up (tomorrow night) I have some suggestions on how it can be fixed. This thread has been particularly helpful with that. I will discuss it some more with the other DM and institute our own fix. Thanks to everyone who posted on this topic.
F4

 

[Anubis]

I'm sure everyone is sick of this thread by now, BUT if a saving throw is instituted into Harm shouldn't it be a Fortitude save vs. a Will save? All the other Necromantic spells that allow saves ask for Fortitude.

Harm more closely resembles the Inflict line of spells than anything else, and all of the Inflict spells are Necromancy spells with Will saves.