Still not a fan of harm

[Spatzimaus]

As written? It can kill on a failed save. Grammatically speaking, the "can't reduce below 1" is part of the conditional clause stated at the start of the sentence.

How it was intended? I'm betting no death on failed saves. Like many other places in the books, I'm betting they just screwed up.

How will we play it IMC? No death on failed save.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I believe they intended the spell to kill on a failed save. Put me in the "death" camp.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

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.

I disagree. Save or dies of any level should be balanced by the fact that when you save the effect is negligible compared to other spells of a same elvle when you save. Harm and heck destruction fail in that regard. 5/hp a level and 10d6 are actually on par or superior to successful saves for direct damage spells on there levels. And for save or dies it just shouldn't be that way.

 

[buchw001]

2 more for each side

Death
7 - Strongbow
8 - (Psi)SeveredHead

No Death
6 - Spatzimaus
7 - Shard O'Glase

? (Not stated yet)
1 - youspoonybard
2 - HYP
3 - Darklone
4 - Spatula
5 - Al
6 - EtherHulkRending

 

[LokiDR]

No death, hands down.

 

[Beelzebub]

Put me down for no death. I belive the history of the spell and the grammer of the current book support this. Now it's up to the Sage to sort this all out...

 

[ruleslawyer]

Re: Re: My $0.02

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."

No offense, Artoomis, but this seems just pulled out of thin air.

"Harm" is not modified by any phrase in the above-quoted text. The "if... damage" portion of the sentence is an if-then (conditional) clause that explains how harm works on a successful save. It is separate and independent from the clause that begins "but it cannot...". If there were no "it" in the final clause of the second sentence of the above-quoted text, the if-then clause could be read to encompass the entire sentence. As written, though, the second sentence is actually unambiguous to the effect that harm (the spell, irrespective of save result) cannot kill the target.

 

[Ravellion]

Yuck! How could they screw up an anaphoric reference like that? Didn't they write their own essays at university?

In any case, balance, grammar and history point to NO DEATH (in my opinion).

Rav

 

[Darklone]

I'm in the no death camp. Tradition rocks.

C u later, I have to go slaughter another holy cow.

Honestly, I would use my "death effects mean -1 hp" rule.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Why is it that so many folks try to manipulate the intended rule by purposely misinterpreting the words?

Harm was never intended to be a save or die spell. They were trying to create a reasonable version of Harm that still wasn't capable of killing a person.

Go with the intention of the rule instead of trying to purposely misinterpret a certain bit of text for your own benefit. Writing up imaginary spells is hardly an exact science. Sometimes the text will leave small openings that rules manipulators will attempt to pervert.

No death vote from me until Andy or another WotC representative says otherwise.