Still not a fan of harm

[EtherHulkRending]

I actually think I'm in the other camp on this spell, I would have prefered to keep it the way it was and just given it a save. My example is this...how many 11th level characters have 110 hps?

mages? no
rogues? no
bards? no
clerics-doubtful
druids-doubtful
rangers-doubtful
paladins/fighters, possible with good roling and/or high con
barbarians, more likely


this spell is more powerful than other 6th level and higher spells now.
Fire Seeds
firestorm
chain lighting
disintegrate
Delayeb blast fireball
horrid wilting

The balancing factor of these is they are random numeric, and not a flat damage. Harm is actually more unbalanced now in my opinion. I can see how it's not against some monsters, but in the grand scheme, the majoiry of opponents( depending on campaign) are classed humanoids. This spell is still just too powerful,

 

[Trickstergod]

You seem to be forgetting that all of those spells you compared it to, except Disintegrate, can all affect multiple opponents, and, in the case of Fire Seeds, can be used in a few different ways. As for Disintegrate, you can do it at a distance, instead of getting up-close and personal. A single-target spell should be doing more damage than a multiple-target/area affect spell.

Also keep in mind Harm now allows a save. Front-line fighter types all have good Fortitude saves. If a spellcaster is successfully casting Harm on a low-Fortitude save creature, there's something wrong with the victims tactics, for letting the spellcaster get up-close and personal.

I don't know how you see it can in anyway be more powerful than the Harm of previous editions, or, at least, should have been left taking all but 1d4 hitpoints and now allowing a save. Harm still can't drop the opponent to less than 1 hitpoint.

Is it too powerful still...? Perhaps. But saying it's more powerful than a bunch of area affect spells - which should be doing less damage than Harm - or even spells that can be used at a distance, doesn't make for the best of comparisons.

 

[ForceUser]

Harm is extremely powerful, but only to a single opponent you can touch in melee who fails his Will save. It's balanced when compared to other 6th-level damage spells, most of which can affect multiple opponents at range and can be maximized or empowered (harm can't be).

 

[Trickstergod]

Well, hot diggity, Harm's a Will save. I'll be darned.

In which case, well, those with low hitpoints are more likely to make the save, those with high hitpoints have a higher chance of surviving with more than one hitpoint to show for it.

And it still stands that it should do more damage than a spell which affects multiple people.

 

[youspoonybard]

Fire Seeds is still insanely strong. It has NO save.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Harm still can't drop the opponent to less than 1 hitpoint.

Actually, that's now debatable.

"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."

By the phrasing, a successful save deals 5/level (max 75) and cannot drop the target below 1.

A failed save deals 10/level (max 150) and can kill.

-Hyp.

 

[ForceUser]

Fire Seeds is still insanely strong. It has NO save.

Most ranged touch attacks don't.

 

[AuraSeer]

By the phrasing, a successful save deals 5/level (max 75) and cannot drop the target below 1.

That's not really what the sentence says. The bit about leaving the victim with 1 hit point is a separate independent clause, and is not restricted in the same way as the other clause in the sentence. (If we removed the word "it" from the last clause, it would have the meaning you thought, because that would make it into a dependent clause.)

I know this is a fine point, and I do think they should have been more clear, especially since not all D&D players are native speakers of English. Still, we must assume Andy knew what he was writing; until we're told otherwise, harm leaves the victim alive regardless of the save.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's not really what the sentence says. The bit about leaving the victim with 1 hit point is a separate independent clause, and is not restricted in the same way as the other clause in the sentence. (If we removed the word "it" from the last clause, it would have the meaning you thought, because that would make it into a dependent clause.)

If they wanted to make it a blanket condition of Harm, it should go in its own sentence - if not its own paragraph! - not in a clause tacked onto the end of a sentence that begins with a conditional!

"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.

Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1."

As it stands, I read:

What happens if the target fails? Harm deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level).

What happens if the target successfully saves? Harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

-Hyp.

 

[takyris]

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.