Wait, and it wasn't before? You say you'd rather they just gave it a save and otherwise left it alone, but that would be more powerful than it is now in 3.5, where it has a save and a damage cap. The cap doesn't mean much vs PC-types at the level you first get it; what the cap does is keep you from killing 300+ HP creatures with a harm followed by anything else that does damage. And once you reach higher levels, the cap keeps the spell from dominating play (even against PC types)EtherHulkRending said:
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Still not a fan of harm
- Thread starter EtherHulkRending
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Well, I think I'll choose to interpet harm to not kill only on a successful save. I just plain like it better that way, and when things are so muddy, you just have to choose which way you prefer the spell to run.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
EtherHulkRending said:
Uhm... Excuse me? You are saying that the spell is too powerful now? It wasn't before? Before we had a nearly unavoidable (a touch attack made by a cleric has the tendency to hit eventually) spell that robbed you of all but 1d4 of your hit points. Now we have a spell that robs you of up to 150 (save for half) hit points that still won't kill you. The old spell was amongst the most terrible mistakes in the rules, while the new one is quite OK.
The old one may be less powerful if you gave it a save for no damage, but even half of all your hit points is quite a lot (especially if you're a red dragon).
Re: Re: Still not a fan of harm
If your only opponents are classed humanoids, the new harm would "deal" more damage, under the idea that it could dish out 150 damage where the old harm just "delt" the 90-1d4 that they had or whatever. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I see the idea.
The reason I like the new harm is that it eventually tapers off in usefulness at near epic levels, which is good. Lower level spells are supposed to be less usefull at higher levels. Also, the spell no longer takes down nearly anything, as the old harm did. Both good changes. I like the new harm and I'm glad it is the new standard.
KaeYoss said:
If your only opponents are classed humanoids, the new harm would "deal" more damage, under the idea that it could dish out 150 damage where the old harm just "delt" the 90-1d4 that they had or whatever. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I see the idea.
The reason I like the new harm is that it eventually tapers off in usefulness at near epic levels, which is good. Lower level spells are supposed to be less usefull at higher levels. Also, the spell no longer takes down nearly anything, as the old harm did. Both good changes. I like the new harm and I'm glad it is the new standard.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Still not a fan of harm
Since harm won't kill anybody, it will deal 89 damage in that case, while the old would deal 86-89 damage. (I do believe that harm can't kill, whether you make that save or not). Not much difference. If you are fighting against monsters (or PC's) with more hit dice, it will deal 150 damage, while the old one would deal more than that (as much as it takes). Plus, the new harm has a save for half, so while the old would almost kill our 90hp-example, the new would leave it with 15 hp still in place (if it saves).
The new harm is definetly better than the old one (which was a joke).
LokiDR said:
Since harm won't kill anybody, it will deal 89 damage in that case, while the old would deal 86-89 damage. (I do believe that harm can't kill, whether you make that save or not). Not much difference. If you are fighting against monsters (or PC's) with more hit dice, it will deal 150 damage, while the old one would deal more than that (as much as it takes). Plus, the new harm has a save for half, so while the old would almost kill our 90hp-example, the new would leave it with 15 hp still in place (if it saves).
The new harm is definetly better than the old one (which was a joke).
Pagan priest
First Post
Maybe D&D 4th edition will clear all this up! Any word on how soon we can expect it to be released?
Since many other spells have changed significantly from previous editions, I think I am going to enter this debate on the "death on a failed save" side. The reasoning behind that will have to wait for a time when I am less rushed...
Since many other spells have changed significantly from previous editions, I think I am going to enter this debate on the "death on a failed save" side. The reasoning behind that will have to wait for a time when I am less rushed...
Lord Vangarel
First Post
I kind of like the fact that Harm could kill on a failed save. It was always a pet hate that Harm was followed up by a Cause Light Wounds.
buchw001
First Post
Collecting data
So if you were forced to make the decision right now how would you rule?
A - DEATH - The target can be killed IF fails saving throw
B - NO Death - The target can NOT be killed regardless of save.
Here is my unofficial tally...
(Please speak up if I have you listed in the wrong "camp")
DEATH
1 - Lord Vangarel
2 - Pagan Priest
3 - the Jester
4 - ForceUser
5 - Artoomis
6 - buchw001
NO Death
1 - KaeYoss
2 - Takyris
3 - AuraSeer
5 - Trickstergod
? (Not stated yet)
1 - youspoonybard
2 - HYP
3 - Darklone
4 - Spatula
5 - Al
6 - EtherHulkRending
So if you were forced to make the decision right now how would you rule?
A - DEATH - The target can be killed IF fails saving throw
B - NO Death - The target can NOT be killed regardless of save.
Here is my unofficial tally...
(Please speak up if I have you listed in the wrong "camp")
DEATH
1 - Lord Vangarel
2 - Pagan Priest
3 - the Jester
4 - ForceUser
5 - Artoomis
6 - buchw001
NO Death
1 - KaeYoss
2 - Takyris
3 - AuraSeer
5 - Trickstergod
? (Not stated yet)
1 - youspoonybard
2 - HYP
3 - Darklone
4 - Spatula
5 - Al
6 - EtherHulkRending
Let's not forget that the damage is caster level based. A cleric gets harm at 11th level, and potentially does 110 points of damage, not 150. Said cleric would have to be 15 level to do 150 points of damage. It may not sound like much, but that 40 points of damage difference is life and death for a lot of characters. I post this so that people who read this thread don't get the idea that Harm always does 150 points of damage.
It's frustrating to try and divine the intent of authors, beyond looking at grammar. Take the benchmark 6th level attack spells, for example. Disintegrate does ~77 damage (22d6) at 11th level, and 5d6 on a passed save. While it has the virtue of increased range, it does less damage on both passed and failed saves. Flesh to Stone turns the target into a statue, and takes Break Enchantment or Stone to Flesh to restore the target. Since Break Enchantment has a 1 minute cast time, it is not a combat spell, but the spell does not kill you. These two examples are fine and good, but what about Slay Living? Ahh, there's the rub. A Cleric 5 spell that kills you outright. Its Sor/Wiz 5 counterpart? Baleful Polymorph, which doesn't kill you, but renders you mostly harmless. Hmmmm. This doesn't make much sense.
Since wizards are supposed to have more destructive firepower than clerics (a claim I hope none will dispute) and one of the goals of this revision is to reduce the lethality of the game, I believe that Harm should not kill you on a successful save. I do wonder why they left Slay Living at 5th level and Save or True death when all the other good similiar attack spells don't kill you, but render you helpless/nearly helpless, but that musing is for another thread.
If Harm does kill, then man do clerics have it good in 3.5. Slay Living and Harm will kill similiar level creatures. Ah, my last point that just came to mind is that you can protect against BOTH Slay Living and Harm with Death Ward. The 3.5 Death ward will stop all negative energy (Harm) and death effects (Slay Living, which has the death descriptor). Sometimes it is best to think out your arguments before you post them...
It's frustrating to try and divine the intent of authors, beyond looking at grammar. Take the benchmark 6th level attack spells, for example. Disintegrate does ~77 damage (22d6) at 11th level, and 5d6 on a passed save. While it has the virtue of increased range, it does less damage on both passed and failed saves. Flesh to Stone turns the target into a statue, and takes Break Enchantment or Stone to Flesh to restore the target. Since Break Enchantment has a 1 minute cast time, it is not a combat spell, but the spell does not kill you. These two examples are fine and good, but what about Slay Living? Ahh, there's the rub. A Cleric 5 spell that kills you outright. Its Sor/Wiz 5 counterpart? Baleful Polymorph, which doesn't kill you, but renders you mostly harmless. Hmmmm. This doesn't make much sense.
Since wizards are supposed to have more destructive firepower than clerics (a claim I hope none will dispute) and one of the goals of this revision is to reduce the lethality of the game, I believe that Harm should not kill you on a successful save. I do wonder why they left Slay Living at 5th level and Save or True death when all the other good similiar attack spells don't kill you, but render you helpless/nearly helpless, but that musing is for another thread.
If Harm does kill, then man do clerics have it good in 3.5. Slay Living and Harm will kill similiar level creatures. Ah, my last point that just came to mind is that you can protect against BOTH Slay Living and Harm with Death Ward. The 3.5 Death ward will stop all negative energy (Harm) and death effects (Slay Living, which has the death descriptor). Sometimes it is best to think out your arguments before you post them...
Similar Threads
