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

[Anubis]

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

Still hurts a lot. Potentially ravaging a single opponant.

I have one question. Why is it that you all want Harm to still pack a punch on a successful save? The reason for giving it a save is to make it less dangerous. Harm is effectively save or die, and none of the other save or die spells do a lot of damage on a successful save, so why should Harm?

My final solution to the problem is basically give Harm a will save for half damage or 100 points of damage, whichever is less. I think that is a good enough compromise of all of the systems that may just be able to satisfy most parties.

What do you guys think? (By the way, sorry about the heated debate, Harm is just one of those things that gets under my skin.)

 

[Ferox4]

Ok, Anubis (and anyone else who is interested), let me ask you this:

Are you viewing Harm as a Conjuring (Cure/Inflict) spell or as a Necromantic spell, i.e., Slay Living & Destruction?

If the former, then a successful Will save would still subject the recipient of Harm to 1/2 damage (1/2 current HPs).

If the latter, then a successful Fort save should subject the recipient of Harm to approximately 6d6 + 1/caster level HPs of damage.

If we use these distinctions, Conjuration vs. Necromancy, I believe we can make some headway.

Harm is a Necromantic spell whereas Heal is a Conjuring spell. Though they are often considered counterparts they are two distinctively different schools of magic, each with their own properties and their own types of saving throws. If we stick to the ground rules set forth by the two bookend Necromantic spells of Slay Living & Destruction then Harm (with the newly instituted saving throw) would reduce the recipient to 1d4 HPs on a failed save and apprximately 6d6 + 1/caster level on a successful save.

I haven't gone back through the post , but I believe Anubis (or someone else) suggested something similar to this earlier.

This seems to mirror the spirit of the rules and sets no new precedents in the game.

What do you say to that?

 

[Anubis]

Ok, Anubis (and anyone else who is interested), let me ask you this:

Are you viewing Harm as a Conjuring (Cure/Inflict) spell or as a Necromantic spell, i.e., Slay Living & Destruction?

If the former, then a successful Will save would still subject the recipient of Harm to 1/2 damage (1/2 current HPs).

If the latter, then a successful Fort save should subject the recipient of Harm to approximately 6d6 + 1/caster level HPs of damage.

If we use these distinctions, Conjuration vs. Necromancy, I believe we can make some headway.

Harm is a Necromantic spell whereas Heal is a Conjuring spell. Though they are often considered counterparts they are two distinctively different schools of magic, each with their own properties and their own types of saving throws. If we stick to the ground rules set forth by the two bookend Necromantic spells of Slay Living & Destruction then Harm (with the newly instituted saving throw) would reduce the recipient to 1d4 HPs on a failed save and apprximately 6d6 + 1/caster level on a successful save.

I haven't gone back through the post , but I believe Anubis (or someone else) suggested something similar to this earlier.

This seems to mirror the spirit of the rules and sets no new precedents in the game.

What do you say to that?

Unfortunately, that is an incorrect presumption. Check the PH. All of the Inflict spells are Necromacy spells, so that distinction doesn't help in the least.

Any which way, Ferox4, take a look at my post right before yours for what I consider to be the most reasonable way to settle the debate.

 

[Ferox4]

! And I thought perhaps I was onto something......

I must have looked at the cure spells and not the inflict spells. Oh well.

"Uncle"

 

[Happy Monkey]

I still want Harm to cause grief because if it doesn't it probably shouldn't be 6th level.

Despite my Will save idea being akin to the inflict spell I rank Harm close to the save or die spells.

Finger of death will reduce hps to -10 or some piddly damage if saved.

The Harm effect of reducing hps is not so much my issue (although I do not like it), rather the almost uncontested method in which it is delivered regardless of levels.

I can handle an 800hp dragon being reduced to 400 or more likely a 120hp fighter being crippled. If they fail a save I can handle hps being further reduced.

The key to my thinking is that I compare Harm to death effects that can reduce hps to -10 with a failed save. Harm does less on a failed save but more on a successful roll.

Um, that's messy.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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....

Not to continue beating the horse, but:

Spell immunity does nothing against harm (it's capped at 4th-level spells).

The Reach Spell feat (T&B) and the divine reach ability of the hierophant prestige class (FRCS) get around most of the other problems. There's also a greater spectral hand spell floating around in a S&S product, IIRC. Granted, these are supplements, but be sure that harm is balanced for YOUR campaign, and your campaign might include some of these.

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.

As you may have realized, it's likely that heal/harm fall, at least thematically, within the cure/inflict line of spells. As such, a Will save seems appropriate. The Necro spells that trigger Fort saves are generally spells with the [Death] designator.

I'm glad you don't have a problem with the Will half solution any more, Anubis. I don't see why you did in the first place, though. The Will half solution is exactly in line with inflict spells and other damage-dealing spells (which is essentially what harm is), and does mean that harm never will inflict more damage on a successful save than on a failed one.

 

[Ferox4]

Ok, I'm sold. Will half it is. It's also a very easy mechanic during game play.

 

[Anubis]

I'm glad you don't have a problem with the Will half solution any more, Anubis. I don't see why you did in the first place, though. The Will half solution is exactly in line with inflict spells and other damage-dealing spells (which is essentially what harm is), and does mean that harm never will inflict more damage on a successful save than on a failed one.

Actually, what I said is that the save would be Will for half damage or 100 points of damage, whichever is less. I meant that specifically. If it's just a flat Will save for half damage no matter what, it is still far more powerful than any other spell in the game.

Basically, I took the Will save for half damage idea and combined it with the damage cap idea, but ONLY for a successful save. On a failed save, it still reduces a victim to 1d4 hit points.

Also, all of these changes also apply in reverse to Heal used against Undead. That, of course, should go without saying.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

An Enworld newbie's house Rule

Hello!

The way I've decided to treat Harm is as follows:

No saving throw, damage done = Caster Level x5, cannot reduce target below it's Hit Dice (i.e. a 12HD character cannot be reduced below 12 hit points by this spell).

This is far less than other caps I've seen, but I think that a spell can do 120 at caster level 12 is still effectively a save-or-die spell against many targets it will be used against (for example, PCs and NPCs, as opposed to dragons).

One of the main objections to Harm is the way that it breaks the damage cap. Even my CLx5 spell still breaks the damage cap, but it's tolerable to me because you can't Empower or Maximise it.

It's a lot less effective than the original and some of the solutions, but that's because all those options generate too much damage.

By doing much lower damage, it can't really be considered a save-or-die spell anymore, so comparisons with spells like Slay Living and Finger of Death are meaningless. The choice of which to use is a tactical one: "I can Slay Living and have a chance of killing outright, or I can inflict 60 points automatically.

For a cleric having such an effective damage spell is nothing to be sneezed at. I think it's still a very effective spell and will see a lot of use.

By the way, I'm treating Heal the same way. It doesn't heal everything, it heals caster level x5. I've noticed in a high level game, the lower cure wounds become meaningless as do healing potions - why bother when the cleric can use Heal or Mass Heal? With this rule, lower level healing remains viable - a character can use a healing potion and not feel those points will be wasted when the cleric later casts Heal.

Demi

 

[Al]

demiurge: Welcome to the boards!

Now you're welcome, you're prone to attack .

The problem with your solution is that it is, in fact, very weak. Damage equal to CLx5, and only on a touch attack compares very poorly with other spells of similar potency. Since most direct-damage spells that require a touch attack remove the need for a saving throw (as per ELH's guidelines for creating new spells), we can compare the damage directly with traditional blast spells.

We see that it compares poorly. At 11th level, Harm does 55 damage. At this level of spell, it is clearly outmatched by, say, Maximised Fireball or Empowered Flame Strike, which, in addition to inflicting a similar amount of damage, inflict this amount of damage over a wider area. Your fix makes Harm from a 'must-have' spell to a 'don't-bother' one.

A higher cap, or a save (for either half or fixed damage + level) would be more in line with the power of Harm relative to its level.