3.5 harm spell and official wizards FAQ [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.5 harm spell and official wizards FAQ [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
grick
11-30-04, 02:04 PM About the Harm spell the text in the 3.5 Player Handbook says:

"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."

What i have understood by reading the text is:

case 1, you pass the saving throw: harm deals you half damage but cannot bring you to less than 1 hp.
case 2, you fail the saving throw: you take the full damage, harm can kill you. (differently from the 3.0 version which never kills. The 3.5 text do not specifies whether harm can kill or not)

Now, this is in conflict with what I found in the wizards official FAQ .
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv11192004.zip

The guy which makes the question writes (page 30, bottom right):
"[...]What if I have 110 hp and an 11th-level caster casts harm on me? I'll take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or 55 points if I make my save, right?"
...and then goes on with the problem which concerns him, which is the Fortitude saving throw for massive damage.

What I want to underline is that the one who answers DO NOT CORRECTS HIM when he says that by FAILING his will saving throw he receives only 109 damage points (leaving him at 1 hp).
In the FAQ, wrong assertions contained in the questions are ALWAYS confutated when answering.
This just to avoid confusion and wrong deductions.

Finally i'd like to have an official response (no house rules), because in both cases there is something to correct: or the Players Handbook version, or the Official FAQ one.

Thanks to everyone will solve this question. :cool:
Seeker95
11-30-04, 02:53 PM Death from massive damage is an optional rule.
It has nothing to do with the question about harm.

The FAQ explains how much damage is taken.
The result of that damage is going to vary depending on whether your campaign uses "death from massive damage" or not.
tarkin
11-30-04, 03:08 PM Official FAQ always over-rides the PHB.

However, the question remains did the answer actually refute the PHB or just ignore a mistake made by the questioner.

That I am sorry to say is not something that there is an official Answer for. You simply can not get what does not exist.

I would have to rule that you have mis-interepreted the PHB book and the "never less than 1" line refers to both a failed save and a made save.

Any other interpretation would require assuming the FAQ people are wrong. While they may be mistaken, when trying to decide what the official rules are you must assume they are not wrong and that any assumptions you personally made may be wrong.

Furthermore, the spell Harm is generally considered extremely powerfull, so it is safer and more intelligent to err on the side of making it weaker.
Seeker95
11-30-04, 03:12 PM Not disagreeing with tarkin in the least on this. Just adding that while harm can't kill you, the damage it causes you can result in you dying. If your DM uses death from massive damage, this is completely independent of the number of hit points of damage harm causes, with or without a save.
Stuntman
11-30-04, 05:09 PM Not disagreeing with tarkin in the least on this. Just adding that while harm can't kill you, the damage it causes you can result in you dying. If your DM uses death from massive damage, this is completely independent of the number of hit points of damage harm causes, with or without a save.

If you use death from massive damage you have some unusual results. Basically if you have more than 50 hit points, there is a chance that Harm does 50 points of damage to you which forces you to make a Fort save or die. However, if you had only 50 hit points or less, Harm can never do more than 49 hp of damage, so you never need to make the Fort save or die. Basically, Harm can kill someone with more than 50 hp, but can never kill anyone with 50 hp or less. This is unusual since you would expect that the more hp you have, the less chance you have of dying. Apparently, the situation is reverse with Harm if you use the death by massive damage rule.
cwslyclgh
11-30-04, 05:29 PM just thought that I would point out that as writen, death by massive damage is not an optional rule... (The variations of it in the DMG, where the massive damage threshold is changed based upon size are optional, but the rule itself is no more optional then any other rule in the books).
bitnine
11-30-04, 05:38 PM This is unusual since you would expect that the more hp you have, the less chance you have of dying.It really isn't that unusual. Harm - as per this interpretation - brings you to the brink of death. The shock from being healthy and suddenly going to the brink of death is far greater than the shock of going from the brink of death to slightly closer to the brink of death.
grick
12-01-04, 02:19 PM So i have to consider right the FAQ.
But it's been just a discussion in this forum to foster the doubts:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=224910

In this discussion almost everyone consider right the PHB version.

If anyone has a different opinion supported by something of official, please post. ;)
Seeker95
12-01-04, 03:08 PM If anyone has a different opinion supported by something of official, please post.You've seen the FAQ.
The FAQ is official.
What opinion could someone else offer?
bitnine
12-01-04, 03:16 PM What opinion could someone else offer?You know, there have been a few occaisions where the FAQ was errata'd because it clearly didn't line up with the rulestext. He might be concerned that this is one of those cases.

Bah, I don't have my old file with blatant contradictions later retracted from the FAQ. I only have my one from the sage (when asked about energy enchantments on ranged weapons):Sage:
There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons, but that's not what happens. Check out ranged weapons and ammunition on Page 183 of the DMG. The bonuses of, say, a magical bow and a magical arrow stack, but only the arrow's magic applies when the arrow actually hits.SRD:
Shock weapons deal +1d6 points of bonus electricity damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so enchanted bestow the electricity energy upon their ammunition.Believe you me, that retraction was not long in coming.

However, that's not to say that this case is equivelent.
cwslyclgh
12-01-04, 03:20 PM actaully the sage was correct... projectile weapons DO NOT impart thier special qualities ono thier projectiles... UNLESS the property itself specifically says so... there are exceptions to most rules out there.
bitnine
12-01-04, 03:22 PM actaully the sage was correct... projectile weapons DO NOT impart thier special qualities ono thier projectiles... UNLESS the property itself specifically says so... there are exceptions to most rules out there.Actually, I do know that. That's why I mentioned in my opener that that was his response when asked about energy enchantments on ranged weapons.
Hypersmurf
12-01-04, 03:59 PM You know, there have been a few occaisions where the FAQ was errata'd because it clearly didn't line up with the rulestext. He might be concerned that this is one of those cases.

Bah, I don't have my old file with blatant contradictions later retracted from the FAQ.

One of the more recent ones was the "Weapon Finesse lets you take a penalty to attack rolls to add to your AC" answer.

-Hyp.
Beckett
12-02-04, 02:45 PM 3.5 Harm may kill the target if they fail the save, the Faq was based on 3.0 Harm (which I have printed in my Dragon mag which confirms it was 3.0), because it did specify back then that it could not and the spell worked differently. A special note is that 3.5 Harm can be Empowered now, (I believe this is the correct metamagic feat. . .). Empower Spell increases all variable, numeric effects by x1.5, (or half again as much). Harm is variable now in regards to level, (10 points per caster level), which is a numerical effect. It does not say variable numerical DICE effects. Some one told me there is an update to this, (that is Empower Spell), but I can not seem to find it, so I may be wrong.
Hypersmurf
12-02-04, 03:01 PM Harm is variable now in regards to level, (10 points per caster level), which is a numerical effect. It does not say variable numerical DICE effects.

That's not a variable numeric effect.

If someone casts Harm a hundred times, it will always deal the same damage. It's a fixed effect.

Otherwise you could apply the same logic to, say, Greater Magic Weapon. The enhancement bonus is a numeric effect; it changes dependent on Caster Level; so you could claim that an Empowered Greater Magic Weapon would give +6 instead of +4, say.

The simple test is to say "Does Maximize Spell make any difference?" If Maximizing a spell causes you to evaluate it differently, you can Empower it. Maximizing Harm makes no difference, so there is no variable numeric effect. For you, since your level is fixed, the damage is fixed.

-Hyp.
bitnine
12-02-04, 03:12 PM Wait - there's a difference between scaling and variable effects?

Bah, nuts, no more empowering Magic Missile to get half against the number of missiles. Or empowering one target/level spells to affect half again the number of people.

Way to crush my dreams.

;)
Neraren
12-02-04, 04:54 PM Somewhat related questions that my DM and I have been "discussing"

I'm a 12 Cler / 1 Contemplative / 1 Hierophant that chose Divine reach as my special ability (All my touch spells are reach spells) and soon to take Improved Critical (Ray).

My DM claims that I am not able to crit harm as it is not variable damage, while I contend that it does not matter and that crits still deal double. Who is correct? Would I be able to critical Heal too? Would only my Cure/Inflict XXXXX Wounds be critable since they are variable damage?

I think the SRD agrees with me.

RANGE

A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following.

...

Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
cwslyclgh
12-02-04, 05:39 PM by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm... That doesn't mean that your DM cannot house rule it for his game. as for heal... I would say no crits with heal as it doesn't do any damage.
Bane
12-02-04, 06:12 PM Of course, you still can't kill someone with a critical from a Harm spell. Due to HP loss, I mean. Massive damage still works, just not any better.
Seeker95
12-02-04, 08:48 PM by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm...To confirm the crit, does it require hitting against the touch AC or the regular AC?

(Clarification:
The threat occurs on a 20 against the touch AC.
The confirmation must be made against the _______ AC?)
RaspK FOG
12-02-04, 09:19 PM The written form might be a bit confusing but what the spell should be read as is: "If you succeed on the save, you take half damage; however, the spell cannot bring you below 1 hit point." Simple as that.
Zherog
12-02-04, 10:38 PM by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm... That doesn't mean that your DM cannot house rule it for his game. as for heal... I would say no crits with heal as it doesn't do any damage.

Unless, of course, you were casting heal on an undead critter. ;)
cwslyclgh
12-03-04, 12:06 AM Unless, of course, you were casting heal on an undead critter.
I didn't consider that possibility since Undead are immune to critical hits :P

To confirm the crit, does it require hitting against the touch AC or the regular AC?What ever AC you were trying to beat in the first place.
Zherog
12-03-04, 12:46 AM I didn't consider that possibility since Undead are immune to critical hits :P

:blush:

Details, details. :P
bitnine
12-03-04, 07:43 AM The written form might be a bit confusing but what the spell should be read as is: "If you succeed on the save, you take half damage; however, the spell cannot bring you below 1 hit point." Simple as that.I'm sure that many things would be a bit cleaner if spells were always written to clearly and accurately convery what they meant. However, ambiguity rears its head in the oddest places.
grick
12-03-04, 09:42 AM Finally, I have received a response from customer service. I hope this solve the question:

Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1, if they fail
the save or not. So even if someone fails the save for Harm, they can
still only be reduced to 1 hit point. So there is no conflict.<-- :rolleyes:
Have fun and good gaming!

Trevor
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496

Thanks everybody! ;)
Seeker95
12-03-04, 11:32 AM Not to spoil your picnic, but...

The Customer Service answer doesn't preclude death from massive damage.
(In case you thought it might).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
grick 11-30-04, 02:04 PM	About the Harm spell the text in the 3.5 Player Handbook says: "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." What i have understood by reading the text is: case 1, you pass the saving throw: harm deals you half damage but cannot bring you to less than 1 hp. case 2, you fail the saving throw: you take the full damage, harm can kill you. (differently from the 3.0 version which never kills. The 3.5 text do not specifies whether harm can kill or not) Now, this is in conflict with what I found in the wizards official FAQ . http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv11192004.zip The guy which makes the question writes (page 30, bottom right): "[...]What if I have 110 hp and an 11th-level caster casts harm on me? I'll take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or 55 points if I make my save, right?" ...and then goes on with the problem which concerns him, which is the Fortitude saving throw for massive damage. What I want to underline is that the one who answers DO NOT CORRECTS HIM when he says that by FAILING his will saving throw he receives only 109 damage points (leaving him at 1 hp). In the FAQ, wrong assertions contained in the questions are ALWAYS confutated when answering. This just to avoid confusion and wrong deductions. Finally i'd like to have an official response (no house rules), because in both cases there is something to correct: or the Players Handbook version, or the Official FAQ one. Thanks to everyone will solve this question. :cool:
Seeker95 11-30-04, 02:53 PM	Death from massive damage is an optional rule. It has nothing to do with the question about harm. The FAQ explains how much damage is taken. The result of that damage is going to vary depending on whether your campaign uses "death from massive damage" or not.
tarkin 11-30-04, 03:08 PM	Official FAQ always over-rides the PHB. However, the question remains did the answer actually refute the PHB or just ignore a mistake made by the questioner. That I am sorry to say is not something that there is an official Answer for. You simply can not get what does not exist. I would have to rule that you have mis-interepreted the PHB book and the "never less than 1" line refers to both a failed save and a made save. Any other interpretation would require assuming the FAQ people are wrong. While they may be mistaken, when trying to decide what the official rules are you must assume they are not wrong and that any assumptions you personally made may be wrong. Furthermore, the spell Harm is generally considered extremely powerfull, so it is safer and more intelligent to err on the side of making it weaker.
Seeker95 11-30-04, 03:12 PM	Not disagreeing with tarkin in the least on this. Just adding that while harm can't kill you, the damage it causes you can result in you dying. If your DM uses death from massive damage, this is completely independent of the number of hit points of damage harm causes, with or without a save.
Stuntman 11-30-04, 05:09 PM	Not disagreeing with tarkin in the least on this. Just adding that while harm can't kill you, the damage it causes you can result in you dying. If your DM uses death from massive damage, this is completely independent of the number of hit points of damage harm causes, with or without a save. If you use death from massive damage you have some unusual results. Basically if you have more than 50 hit points, there is a chance that Harm does 50 points of damage to you which forces you to make a Fort save or die. However, if you had only 50 hit points or less, Harm can never do more than 49 hp of damage, so you never need to make the Fort save or die. Basically, Harm can kill someone with more than 50 hp, but can never kill anyone with 50 hp or less. This is unusual since you would expect that the more hp you have, the less chance you have of dying. Apparently, the situation is reverse with Harm if you use the death by massive damage rule.
cwslyclgh 11-30-04, 05:29 PM	just thought that I would point out that as writen, death by massive damage is not an optional rule... (The variations of it in the DMG, where the massive damage threshold is changed based upon size are optional, but the rule itself is no more optional then any other rule in the books).
bitnine 11-30-04, 05:38 PM	This is unusual since you would expect that the more hp you have, the less chance you have of dying.It really isn't that unusual. Harm - as per this interpretation - brings you to the brink of death. The shock from being healthy and suddenly going to the brink of death is far greater than the shock of going from the brink of death to slightly closer to the brink of death.
grick 12-01-04, 02:19 PM	So i have to consider right the FAQ. But it's been just a discussion in this forum to foster the doubts: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=224910 In this discussion almost everyone consider right the PHB version. If anyone has a different opinion supported by something of official, please post. ;)
Seeker95 12-01-04, 03:08 PM	If anyone has a different opinion supported by something of official, please post.You've seen the FAQ. The FAQ is official. What opinion could someone else offer?
bitnine 12-01-04, 03:16 PM	What opinion could someone else offer?You know, there have been a few occaisions where the FAQ was errata'd because it clearly didn't line up with the rulestext. He might be concerned that this is one of those cases. Bah, I don't have my old file with blatant contradictions later retracted from the FAQ. I only have my one from the sage (when asked about energy enchantments on ranged weapons):Sage: There has been considerable talk about projectile weapons imparting their special properties to weapons, but that's not what happens. Check out ranged weapons and ammunition on Page 183 of the DMG. The bonuses of, say, a magical bow and a magical arrow stack, but only the arrow's magic applies when the arrow actually hits.SRD: Shock weapons deal +1d6 points of bonus electricity damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so enchanted bestow the electricity energy upon their ammunition.Believe you me, that retraction was not long in coming. However, that's not to say that this case is equivelent.
cwslyclgh 12-01-04, 03:20 PM	actaully the sage was correct... projectile weapons DO NOT impart thier special qualities ono thier projectiles... UNLESS the property itself specifically says so... there are exceptions to most rules out there.
bitnine 12-01-04, 03:22 PM	actaully the sage was correct... projectile weapons DO NOT impart thier special qualities ono thier projectiles... UNLESS the property itself specifically says so... there are exceptions to most rules out there.Actually, I do know that. That's why I mentioned in my opener that that was his response when asked about energy enchantments on ranged weapons.
Hypersmurf 12-01-04, 03:59 PM	You know, there have been a few occaisions where the FAQ was errata'd because it clearly didn't line up with the rulestext. He might be concerned that this is one of those cases. Bah, I don't have my old file with blatant contradictions later retracted from the FAQ. One of the more recent ones was the "Weapon Finesse lets you take a penalty to attack rolls to add to your AC" answer. -Hyp.
Beckett 12-02-04, 02:45 PM	3.5 Harm may kill the target if they fail the save, the Faq was based on 3.0 Harm (which I have printed in my Dragon mag which confirms it was 3.0), because it did specify back then that it could not and the spell worked differently. A special note is that 3.5 Harm can be Empowered now, (I believe this is the correct metamagic feat. . .). Empower Spell increases all variable, numeric effects by x1.5, (or half again as much). Harm is variable now in regards to level, (10 points per caster level), which is a numerical effect. It does not say variable numerical DICE effects. Some one told me there is an update to this, (that is Empower Spell), but I can not seem to find it, so I may be wrong.
Hypersmurf 12-02-04, 03:01 PM	Harm is variable now in regards to level, (10 points per caster level), which is a numerical effect. It does not say variable numerical DICE effects. That's not a variable numeric effect. If someone casts Harm a hundred times, it will always deal the same damage. It's a fixed effect. Otherwise you could apply the same logic to, say, Greater Magic Weapon. The enhancement bonus is a numeric effect; it changes dependent on Caster Level; so you could claim that an Empowered Greater Magic Weapon would give +6 instead of +4, say. The simple test is to say "Does Maximize Spell make any difference?" If Maximizing a spell causes you to evaluate it differently, you can Empower it. Maximizing Harm makes no difference, so there is no variable numeric effect. For you, since your level is fixed, the damage is fixed. -Hyp.
bitnine 12-02-04, 03:12 PM	Wait - there's a difference between scaling and variable effects? Bah, nuts, no more empowering Magic Missile to get half against the number of missiles. Or empowering one target/level spells to affect half again the number of people. Way to crush my dreams. ;)
Neraren 12-02-04, 04:54 PM	Somewhat related questions that my DM and I have been "discussing" I'm a 12 Cler / 1 Contemplative / 1 Hierophant that chose Divine reach as my special ability (All my touch spells are reach spells) and soon to take Improved Critical (Ray). My DM claims that I am not able to crit harm as it is not variable damage, while I contend that it does not matter and that crits still deal double. Who is correct? Would I be able to critical Heal too? Would only my Cure/Inflict XXXXX Wounds be critable since they are variable damage? I think the SRD agrees with me. RANGE A spell’s range indicates how far from you it can reach, as defined in the Range entry of the spell description. A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted. Standard ranges include the following. ... Touch: You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.
cwslyclgh 12-02-04, 05:39 PM	by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm... That doesn't mean that your DM cannot house rule it for his game. as for heal... I would say no crits with heal as it doesn't do any damage.
Bane 12-02-04, 06:12 PM	Of course, you still can't kill someone with a critical from a Harm spell. Due to HP loss, I mean. Massive damage still works, just not any better.
Seeker95 12-02-04, 08:48 PM	by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm...To confirm the crit, does it require hitting against the touch AC or the regular AC? (Clarification: The threat occurs on a 20 against the touch AC. The confirmation must be made against the _______ AC?)
RaspK FOG 12-02-04, 09:19 PM	The written form might be a bit confusing but what the spell should be read as is: "If you succeed on the save, you take half damage; however, the spell cannot bring you below 1 hit point." Simple as that.
Zherog 12-02-04, 10:38 PM	by the rules as written you are correct, you can critical hit with harm... That doesn't mean that your DM cannot house rule it for his game. as for heal... I would say no crits with heal as it doesn't do any damage. Unless, of course, you were casting heal on an undead critter. ;)
cwslyclgh 12-03-04, 12:06 AM	Unless, of course, you were casting heal on an undead critter. I didn't consider that possibility since Undead are immune to critical hits :P To confirm the crit, does it require hitting against the touch AC or the regular AC?What ever AC you were trying to beat in the first place.
Zherog 12-03-04, 12:46 AM	I didn't consider that possibility since Undead are immune to critical hits :P :blush: Details, details. :P
bitnine 12-03-04, 07:43 AM	The written form might be a bit confusing but what the spell should be read as is: "If you succeed on the save, you take half damage; however, the spell cannot bring you below 1 hit point." Simple as that.I'm sure that many things would be a bit cleaner if spells were always written to clearly and accurately convery what they meant. However, ambiguity rears its head in the oddest places.
grick 12-03-04, 09:42 AM	Finally, I have received a response from customer service. I hope this solve the question: Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1, if they fail the save or not. So even if someone fails the save for Harm, they can still only be reduced to 1 hit point. So there is no conflict.<-- :rolleyes: Have fun and good gaming! Trevor Customer Service Department Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 Thanks everybody! ;)
Seeker95 12-03-04, 11:32 AM	Not to spoil your picnic, but... The Customer Service answer doesn't preclude death from massive damage. (In case you thought it might).