Still not a fan of harm

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, agree that that's what the sentence appears to currently read, although I also agree that it's probably not what they intended. Come on, WotC, get an SAT II Writing Test Tutor in there to show you how clauses work.

It may be that Auraseer is completely right, and that if it's parsed carefully, the two are unrelated. But if I were writing the sentence with the intention of only putting a floor on the damage on a successful save, that's pretty much how I'd write it - I wouldn't expect the inclusion/exclusion of "it" to completely change the meaning of the sentence as it stands.

If that's "accurate", it's almost like it's deliberately in there to trip people up!

-Hyp.

 

[Cedric]

I'll be honest in saying that most of the magical changes I disagree with. I've seen what a high level Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue can do with a reach weapon and it's disgusting.

By contrast, I've not seen a magically oriented character that can hold a candle to him in terms of sheer versatility and destructive capability.

The balance of the game has changed in a way which I do not care for...but I can see how some people would like it.

I'll definitely continue to play it though...the games I'm playing in with the people I play with matter to me infinitely more then which game system we are using.

I will just play melee characters and leave the spell casters whose changes I lament to others to be played.

Cedric

 

[ForceUser]

By contrast, I've not seen a magically oriented character that can hold a candle to him in terms of sheer versatility and destructive capability.

Then obviously you've never seen what a high-level wizard can do with an empowered cone of cold.

 

[Cedric]

I just realized that I pretty much hijacked this thread...sorry about that.

/hijack off

Cedric

 

[Darklone]

Hmm. Let's see.

My newbie group:
Dwarven Fighter 5: 70 hitpoints
Dwarven Rogue/Fighter 2/3: 53 hp IIRC
Human Paladin 4: 38 hp
Elven Shaman 5: 35 hp
Halforc Bbn/Sor 1/4: 35 hp
Gnome Bbn/Clr 1/4: 52 hp
Human Clr 4: 43 hp IIRC

Extrapolating these to lvl11 and looking for their chance to make that save... Nope, I like the new spell.

 

[buchw001]

My $0.02

It may be that Auraseer is completely right, and that if it's parsed carefully, the two are unrelated. But if I were writing the sentence with the intention of only putting a floor on the damage on a successful save, that's pretty much how I'd write it - I wouldn't expect the inclusion/exclusion of "it" to completely change the meaning of the sentence as it stands.

If that's "accurate", it's almost like it's deliberately in there to trip people up!

-Hyp.

I am NOT an English major, so I asked one and this is what they said, "The it pronoun refers to the Harm spell (all of it), not just the failed saving throw."

As such (as it is written), I agree that Harm can not drop the opponent to less than 1 hitpoint. I also feel that this is what they wanted to say (although they did not do it clearly).

Here is a much better explination modified by the same English major...

"Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. The spell cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

 

[Darklone]

I just have to get this weird mental image out of my head...

WotC game designers sitting in their room, cackling about the renewed confusion they unleashed into the world...

 

[Artoomis]

Re: My $0.02

I am NOT an English major, so I asked one and this is what they said, "The it pronoun refers to the Harm spell (all of it), not just the failed saving throw."

Your English major friend is only partially correct.

"Harm charges a subject with negative energy that deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level). If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

As written, the "it" refers to "harm" that is in the same sentence. However, the "harm" in that sentence is modified by "If teh creature succesfully saves...," effectively changing the meaning of "harm" in that sentence to "harm with a succesful saving throw."

It looks to me like the intention was to change harm so that it may kill unless a saving throw is made, in which case it cannot kill.

In any case, it is very poorly written.

 

[Al]

Um, not to be facetious, but look at Slay Living, which is a level lower.

How many classes can survive instant death?
Wizard: No
Sorceror: No
Rogue: No
(ad nauseam)

Slay Living does more damage on a failed save (or at least as much) and less on a successful save (by about 35-50 points depending on caster level). For the difference of one level, I think that probably a reasonably trade-off.

 

[buchw001]

I would now like to change my $0.02

In light of the previous arguments and what follows below, I would like to change my opinion on this matter.

The above arguments are excellent and I will add...

For Fireball, it lists Saving Throw: Reflex half.

For Harm it lists Saving Throw: Will half; see text.

The fact that it says "see text" here is further evidence that the difference in a successful saving throw and a failed saving throw is indeed MORE than simply half.

I now believe that a failed saving throw can mean death, but a successful saving throw can (at most) reduce the tarrget's hit points to 1.

So I am now on the same side of the fence as HYP.

I should have known better than to go against some one with over 5000 posts.