The Heal/Harm revision?
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
Tom Cashel said:
Just to note, I'm not getting involved in the flame war here, I've always respected Tom's opinions in the Harm debates.
However, I've heard this argument many times before concerning many different threads, and personally consider it bunk.
While many people on these forums are great dms, many dms across the world that play the game are simply average. The system should not require a dm's skills to keep the game balanced.
For instance, in the polymorph other/shapechange/shifter arguments, many have said "well if you just don't use certain monsters, then the players will never get those forms and it will be balanced." And I say if a Dm's creativity is ever limited by the players then something is horribly wrong.
Its the same with harm. In order to protect my monsters from harm, I have to think up a host of quirky magic items, special monsters, and advanced tactics to keep harm in its place. Every time I create a good monster, I then have to go "oh wait, what about harm. Damn, guess I'll have to change this guy." And many Dms can do that, many even enjoy doing that. But however, many can't or don't want to, and they shouldn't be expected to just to maintain the balance of a few spells.
I have seen other good arguments for keeping harm the way it is, many from Tom himself, but I don't agree wtih this one.
Viktyr Gehrig
First Post
*uses Reach Spell to cast Harm and then a Quickened Inflict on this thread in hopes of making it go away* 
Tom Cashel
First Post
Stalker0 said:
Thanks. Likewise.
Stalker0 said:
Yep. It is bunk. It's a reaction to the utterly worn-out Harm debate. S.H.I.N.Y. is a sarcastic organization. I truly think that the damage cap is a great idea for Harm, and the saving throw is probably a good idea as well. Save or die is bad enough; die w/o save is pretty unfair. But I also think that Harm should be classified as an "evil" spell, thereby removing it from the arsenal of most PC clerics.
[/end truthfulness]
I want my Harm spell left alone! You hear me? You'll have to pry it from my cold dead fingers!!
Last edited:
Anyone who has DM'd a campaign above 12th level has felt the unwarranted impact of these spells. There really is very little reason to memorize or use any spells besides save/die or Harm, until you run out. No choice, no good secondary option. It's obvious. That's a balance problem.
It makes sense that the recommendations will be seen in our 3.5 Edition. Andy Collins (who wrote the article) is on the "R&D" design team. The only thing I question is whether they'll be quite so generic. The recommendations that Andy presented are VERY close to the house rules that we use. The only significant exception is that having a 6th level spell doing 20d6 + 1d6 per level (the same) as 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells is a little tough for the level. It still goes miles with evening out the toughness of this spell.
Harm at 11th - 110 hp
Disintegrate at 11th - 31d6 (Avg 108.5)
Chain Lightning at 11th - 11d6 (Avg 38.5)
It makes sense that the recommendations will be seen in our 3.5 Edition. Andy Collins (who wrote the article) is on the "R&D" design team. The only thing I question is whether they'll be quite so generic. The recommendations that Andy presented are VERY close to the house rules that we use. The only significant exception is that having a 6th level spell doing 20d6 + 1d6 per level (the same) as 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells is a little tough for the level. It still goes miles with evening out the toughness of this spell.
Harm at 11th - 110 hp
Disintegrate at 11th - 31d6 (Avg 108.5)
Chain Lightning at 11th - 11d6 (Avg 38.5)
Apok
First Post
ashockney said:
Well, you also have to take certain things into consideration. First, the suggestions were meant to be used at higher level play where a character's HP's offer more protection from damaging effects. A save or die spell, as we all know, is so much more potent because it bypasses that passive defense mechanic (HP) completely. Also, if you were to incorporate these rules into games lower than 20th level, keep in mind that the tremendous damage these modified spells do on a failed save is still much better than outright death. At least you have a chance to survive if the dice roll badly. Another thing to consider is the fact that all of the save or die spells (except for Circle of Death which has a HD cap as a limiter) only affect one target. So, you are trading moderate damage to many for massive damage to one. Implosion is the only other death spell that can deal with multiple targets, but it has limitations and it's a 9th level spell.
It's interesting point to argue, though. Which is better, a 6th level spell that can do 35d6 points of damage to one target on a failed save or a 8th level spell that deals 15d8 points of damage to several targets with a 1/2 save? (I avoided Meteor Swarm as a comparison spell since it has multiple damage patterns, whereas Horrid Wilting is simple). With regards to Chain Lightning, I think the two are still comparable. True, Disintegrate would do way more damage on a failed save, but it only works on one target and if they make the save the damage is almost a non-issue (3d6 +1/caster level). Chain Lightning will give you good damage, failed save or no, and affects multiple targets without being an area-effect spell so you don't need to worry about hitting comrades.
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
Tom Cashel said:
Tom, you traitor! I can't believe that we're going to have to kick the founder out of S.H.I.N.Y. But you're out! Go back to DM school and don't come back till you can handle Harm as written!
One thing to note... I think the variant play of taking away the instant death spells from Epic Level play makes spellcasters useless. At Epic levels, a fighter will always do more damage in a round than any high-level damage spell. The only thing spellcasters have going is that they can take down the big bad in a single stroke. Don't mess with it, I say.
