Still not a fan of harm

[Hypersmurf]

Re: My $0.02

I am NOT an English major...

"... but I play one on TV."

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

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.

Well, there's an explanation for that from the other side, as well.

If I have 4 hit points and get hit by Harm, one a failed save, I drop to 1, and on a successful save, I drop to 1. Therefore, I don't take exactly half damage, necessarily, even on a successful save, hence "see text".



-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

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.

I have a history of disagreeing with Hyp, and in the words of the self proclaimed worlds worst lurker PCMN.

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.

I read that the other way around. The save is not the only thing that will reduce the amount of damage delt. If you have 61 hp, are hit with a harm from a 12th level caster and don't make the save, you still take 1/2 damage. The save isn't the only thing that makes the damage go down.

The other explanation is that a different person wrote the stat block than the one who wrote the complete description.

The other reason I believe that harm can not kill a target is history. 2e and 3e both agreed that Harm would only put you at a low hp score, not kill.

 

[Artoomis]

Re: Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

I read that the other way around. The save is not the only thing that will reduce the amount of damage delt. If you have 61 hp, are hit with a harm from a 12th level caster and don't make the save, you still take 1/2 damage. The save isn't the only thing that makes the damage go down.

Huh?!? What ARE you talking about? Depending on how you read it, either they'd be at -59 hp or 1 hp.

The other reason I believe that harm can not kill a target is history. 2e and 3e both agreed that Harm would only put you at a low hp score, not kill.

This is the ONLY real evidence I see that supports your side of the argument, but it's pretty weak. Harm never had a saving throw before, so using the history of the spell does not seem to be terribly relevant.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

Huh?!? What ARE you talking about? Depending on how you read it, either they'd be at -59 hp or 1 hp.

Yup - depending on how you read it, they either take 120 damage, or 60 damage, and 60 is half of 20

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

Yup - depending on how you read it, they either take 120 damage, or 60 damage, and 60 is half of 20

-Hyp.

Oh. I get you. If you can only to to 1 point, then you'd have taken 59 points of damage to end up with only 1 left. Not the same as "half damage," but I understand the point, now.

 

[buchw001]

Well, there's an explanation for that from the other side, as well.

If I have 4 hit points and get hit by Harm, on a failed save, I drop to 1, and on a successful save, I drop to 1. Therefore, I don't take exactly half damage, necessarily, even on a successful save, hence "see text".



-Hyp.

I can't argue with that. There is definitely room for interpretation here.

I read that the other way around. The save is not the only thing that will reduce the amount of damage delt. If you have 61 hp, are hit with a harm from a 12th level caster and don't make the save, you still take 1/2 damage. The save isn't the only thing that makes the damage go down.

I can't see any problem this way. See above

The other explanation is that a different person wrote the stat block than the one who wrote the complete description.

While I agree this might explain how this problem arose (and would make consistency a more difficult goal), it does not help answer the question.

The other reason I believe that harm can not kill a target is history. 2e and 3e both agreed that Harm would only put you at a low hp score, not kill.

This is a valid argument, but changing editions were also meant to change some rules (spells, etc...). So since many people cried "Harm is broken" how do we know if they didn't change it for just that reason?

I can see strong arguments for BOTH view points, so I will wait for further discussion.

 

[buchw001]

BUMP

Just curious to see what others think about this...

 

[Spatula]

Re: I would now like to change my $0.02

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.

The "see text" I believe relates to the differences in how the spell affects the living and the dead. For living opponents, the save is "Will half", for undead it is "Will negates (harmless)". Hence the note.

 

[youspoonybard]

Most ranged touch attacks don't.

Yes, but a 6th level ranged touch without SR, save, up to 20d6 damage to a single target?

I like.