Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dalaeck 01-12-04, 04:31 PM	3.5 harm does 10 damage per caster level up to 150 damage save for half non-elemental damage. That's roughly equivalent to 1d20 per caster level save for half. From a perfectly objective point of view, ignoring the name of the spell and it's previous incarnations be they 1-2 or 3E, exactly how many other people out there think that giving d20 damage to clerical spells is even somewhat rationally fair when the nearest arcane equivalent is disintegrate at 2d6 per level save for a pathetic 5d6 damage?
TheWhaleShark 01-12-04, 04:47 PM	Unfortunately, even though I'd like not to, I DO have to go back and say, "HOW could you let clerics drop something to 1d4 hit points with no save allowed?" There IS no arcane equivalent of that, rest assured. I do admit, though, 3.5 Harm is fairly powerful. 10 damage/lvl is nothing to sneeze at. I'd like to point out, though, that arcane spellcasters CAN accomplish that much damage by using metamagic feats; specifically, a Maximized Disintegrate (admittedly, a 9th-level spell), would do 240 points of non-elemental damage. Generally, around 6th level, arcane spellcasters get to "save or die" spells, so dealing large amounts of damage is a bit moot. I think I'd rather throw around "save or die" more than I'd rather throw around "save or take a bunch of damage"; it's much easier to deal with a bunch of damage than it is to deal with, say, death. That's just my gut feeling, though. 3.5 Harm just doesn't seem so awesomely powerful that it unbalances the game, unlike 3.0 Harm, which I weakened in my old campaigns. Besides, arcane spells tend to carry a much greater damage potential if you factor in things like range and area of effect.
NorthSaber 01-12-04, 04:49 PM	Good point - few people can step back and take an objective look at something they're used to looking at only comparatively. It seems like Harm remains the boil on the :censored: of DnD... One point perhaps worth mentioning though is that Harm still requires touch (right?), while Disintegrate is a ray and can thus be used from a safer distance. I don't have my books with me now; what is the suggested maximum damage for clerical spells of that level (this is mentioned in the DMG someplace)?
Keenath 01-12-04, 05:04 PM	I don't feel like Harm is so much of a horrible thing. After all, when you get down to it, you're still hitting only one target, and that one will never die from it. Comparing Harm to Disintigrate -- well, yes, it is stronger, but it's also got no range to it. By the way, does anyone recall if Protection from Negative Energy works against harm? Comparing Harm to Save or Die -- Harm does half damage on a save, which probably isn't enough to kill anything that you'd be using Harm on. Most of the SoDs have range, but affect only one target. I'd say those are pretty balanced. Comparing Harm to Generic Wizardly Pyrotechnics -- I'd actually say Harm is balanced against your basic Cone of Cold or Chain Lightning. On one hand, you do horrific damage to one target, the other you do quite a bit less, but how many targets can you hit? It's all a matter of tactics. Harm is worthless against a horde, while chain lightning is only marginally useful against a single BBEG.
Dalaeck 01-12-04, 07:05 PM	I'de like to point out that harm does 150 damage at 15th level with save for half, 75 damage. It starts at 110 damage at 11th level when you first get it, with save for 55 damage. Disintegrate does 140 average damage (40x3.5) at 20th level with a save for 17.5 average damage (5d6 = 5x3.5). Disintegrate does 105 average damage at 15th level with a save for 17.5 average damage. Disintegrate does 77 average damage at 11th level with a save for 17.5 average damage. The comparison is absolutely unavoidable. This spell does WAY too much damage for a clerical spell. It is effectively doing d20's for damage. If you maximize disintegrate then you can do 240 damage with a save for 30 damage and it takes a metamagic feat and a 9th level slot. So if the thing saves 50% of the time the 9th level maximized disintegrate does (240 + 30)/2 = 135 average damage, and 6th level harm does (150+75)/2 = 112.5 average damage. The wording is as follows: If the creature successfully saves , harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. Ergo: If the creature does not successfully save, harm is not held to this restriction and can bring you down to -10, i.e. death. Come on people. Someone in the design team has a severe bias or is computationally incompetent.
Seeker95 01-12-04, 07:58 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Come on people. Someone in the design team has a severe bias or is computationally incompetent. The desing team has bias? Come on Dalaeck. You don't like 3.5, so why all the time and energy spent trying to convince others it is a bad thing? Disintegrate vs. Harm. Disintegrate can kill. Harm can't. While you may be able to make a stronger point by dangling the comma modifier, it is self-serving only. Harm cannot reduce a target to below 1 hit point. Harm cannot kill the commoner mayor of the Village of Homlett. Fireball can kill the entire village if you get them assembled in the square. Therefore, fireball must be a broken spell because it is only a 3rd level arcane spell, but it can kill more poeple than a 6th level divine spell!!! Every spell has its "ideal case". As long as you want to find things wrong with 3.5 Dalaeck, you will be able to. You set up the scenario in which your little crusades get played out. But I still gotta ask... why? You spend an awful lot of time bashing a game you already admit you do not play.
Zorlag 01-12-04, 08:02 PM	Yup, Harm is still devastating spell. Bad sides of it are capped damage (it never does more than 150 damage barring critical), it has negative energy type (there are few protections against it unlike disintegrate and it's touch attack instead of ranged touch. Addionally on successful save it can't kill it's target. I'd peg it to 8th level alongside with Heal with those statistics, but we also have spells like Slay Living on 5th level already... :( Z.
NorthSaber 01-12-04, 08:05 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 While you may be able to make a stronger point by dangling the comma modifier, it is self-serving only. Harm cannot reduce a target to below 1 hit point. I disagree. To me the sentence clearly attaches the "cannot kill" clause to making the saving throw, regardless of the comma. A simple errata will fix this if this was not the intention, but it *is* the meaning. But I still gotta ask... why? You spend an awful lot of time bashing a game you already admit you do not play. Obviously we're all hanging around on these forums because DnD is important to us. Although I am also one of those who dislike 3.5, I'm also concerned that as this is the "official" DnD now, spells that continue to be unbalanced will enter "official" tournament play.
Seeker95 01-12-04, 10:27 PM	Originally posted by NorthSaber I'm also concerned that as this is the "official" DnD now, spells that continue to be unbalanced will enter "official" tournament play. Unbalanced spells under 3.5 will enter tournament play at the same rate and with the same frequency as unbalanced spells under 3.0. And as with 3.0, unbalanced spells will gradually be errata'ed out, or simply excluded from tournament play. Tournament play survived the 3.0 haste. It survived all the rules abuses and rules lawyer loopholes. It will survive 3.5 as well. It will survive the splat books. It will survive the supplementary material.
Dalaeck 01-12-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 The desing team has bias? Come on Dalaeck. You don't like 3.5, so why all the time and energy spent trying to convince others it is a bad thing? Seeker, the comparison struck me. It is quite effectively a d20 damage spell. For a cleric. And I remember specifically asking mr. Collins in that forum about "why did horrid wilting drop to a d6?" and he replied "to fit the damage progression". Come on Seeker. I place a d20 damage spell into the rulebooks, will you bite? Disintegrate can kill. Harm can't. I'm sorry Seeker the english language is against you on this one. Harm can and does kill on a failed save. Every spell has its "ideal case". As long as you want to find things wrong with 3.5 Dalaeck, you will be able to. You set up the scenario in which your little crusades get played out. Listen, this spell has been bothering me for awhile, and I'm really dumb and slow to realise that it's the fact that it is effectively a d20 damage per level. For a cleric. Ok?
halzmar of geoff 01-13-04, 01:25 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I'm sorry Seeker the english language is against you on this one. Harm can and does kill on a failed save. Hmm - PHB3.5 - 239 - If the creature saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1. See how it could be read that the spell cannot reduce the creature below 1 hp only on a successful save. Or it could read that the spell could regardless of save not reduce the target to less than 1 hp. Sounds like bad editing to me. You are right about ignoring the name and previous versions of the spell in looking for the official 3.5 ruling, the designers surely did. Reading the spell though I'd have to say it doesn't reduce hp to less than 1 regardless of saving throw. Originally posted by Dalaeck And I remember specifically asking mr. Collins in that forum about "why did horrid wilting drop to a d6?" and he replied "to fit the damage progression". Wow. All spellcasters can throw away their d8s can't they? Not just Horrid wilting, but delayed blast fireball too. That's ..... ugh. d20 for a cleric and 2d6 for a wizard for 6th level spells. Well if we assume that an agent of a GOD bringing down the displeasure of the divine upon his foes should be less powerful than a bookworm mouthing off words and gestures from he memorized that won't do. I kid about that. But in reality did anyone complain when disentegrate reduced foes to a smoking pile of ashes and harm merely reduced them to 4 hps? So what should they do next: give harm a 2d6 per level limit with a cap on it at 30d6. To make it fit the damage progression. But then it wouldn't be like a reversable heal would it? 2d6 healing per level max 30d6 doesn't fit the numbers for cure spells. But they could punk the healing spells making a cure light wounds heal 1d6+1 per level. Makes me wonder though how much can they punk the spells before the cry goes up that the monsters are too tough, and therefore "broken"? Then they can punk the monsters, and they can cry that the CR system is "broken". Reminds me of the saying about that when driving out personal demons you should beware that you don't drive out the best part of yourself as well.
channel_dunlap 01-13-04, 02:35 AM	Heres how I look at it. if I made this spell in the game i play in, and presented it to my DM as a spell I was going to research, it'd probably be an 8. Granted it'd be arcane, but divine damage spells tend to be higher level than arcane anyway. I'd like to point out, though, that arcane spellcasters CAN accomplish that much damage by using metamagic feats; specifically, a Maximized Disintegrate (admittedly, a 9th-level spell), would do 240 points of non-elemental damage. Clerics can use metamagic feats as well. you could Empower Harm and do 225 damage with an 8.
olothfaern 01-13-04, 02:39 AM	I don't know that the 10 hps/level are a variable numeric effect...
Vanigo 01-13-04, 02:47 AM	Originally posted by halzmar of geoff But in reality did anyone complain when disentegrate reduced foes to a smoking pile of ashes and harm merely reduced them to 4 hps? No, because harm was still way more powerful, because it didn't allow a save at all. Acually, people did complain, because harm was way more powerful, because it didn't allow a save at all.
Sir Pandemonium 01-13-04, 03:30 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck 3.5 harm does 10 damage per caster level up to 150 damage save for half non-elemental damage. That's roughly equivalent to 1d20 per caster level save for half. From a perfectly objective point of view, ignoring the name of the spell and it's previous incarnations be they 1-2 or 3E, exactly how many other people out there think that giving d20 damage to clerical spells is even somewhat rationally fair when the nearest arcane equivalent is disintegrate at 2d6 per level save for a pathetic 5d6 damage? Dalaeck, can you actually claim you are looking at 3.5 Harm "from a perfectly objective point of view?" You have harped on cleric's so called "uberness" ever since the relase of 3.5. Perhaps even before then. All of your arguments have been met with quiet acceptance at best. And when no one falls into your "nerf mob" this time, what then? Will you start to claim that Cure spells are broken because the Bard does not get the mass versions? When will your crusade against clerics end? When they are less than commoner for usefullness? If you have a problem with the 3.5 Harm, so be it. If you are asking how you might better fit it into your game, fine. I might even help. But repeatedly brandishing your "nerf" wand at this dead horse is not reflecting well upon a proclaimed wizard, and alluded scholar.
Sancus 01-13-04, 03:32 AM	Harm is a touch range spell. Disintegrate is a ranged spell. And clerics have better single target death spells at equivalent level anyway.(Slay Living is essentially a touch version of Finger of Death at two spell levels lower). That's probably because they have power over life and death as divine agents, you know. You can be made immune to Harm with a simple deathward - no such luck for Disintegrate. The damage doesn't tell the whole story. Harm isn't overpowered and I'd much rather have a ranged ray attack than a touch attack any day of the week anyhow.
Xeviat-DM 01-13-04, 03:46 AM	The thing about disintegrate and harm is that they are save or die spells, but they are simply testing out the damage style. D&D's always has had instant kill spells, have people complaned about them before? As someone said, slay living is a 5th level spell. It does tons of damage to a single foe. Granted, it's a fort save, and creatures with high fort saves typically have high hp. Mass damage spells are typically reflex saves, and high hp characters have low reflex saves and will usually fail them. Really, I don't like instant kill spells, and I hope there's a suitable varient in Unearthed Arcana, or I'm going to have to stick with the damage dealing varient on the Epic Insites articles.
halzmar of geoff 01-13-04, 03:52 AM	True. Harm had no save in the early printings of the game. It needed a will save for half damage, or better yet: will negates. When I downloaded the errata I was really surprised that they didn't errata it, and several other spells which weren't "broken" just needed to have a sentance of clarification added, or a save to prevent mass abuse. It isn't an unbalancing spell that ruins the game it was just a powerful spell that they should have put a save against in the errata or later printings. If you added the simple two words Will Negates to the 3rd edition spell would it be such a mess now in 3.5? But that's not the gist of the thread. The issue is that it doesn't follow the damage progression of the rest of the system which is d6 for damage. It does more damage than the average disentegrate. Thus even with the nerf it's too powerful for the weak magic crowd. Am I right in assuming this to be the point of contention in this thread? And the "see they didn't really fix anything with the spells" undertone which I can't say I completely disagree. My belief was that yes you may nerf it even more to get it to conform to game mechanics, but that would mean changes to the Heal spell, and if you change that spell you need to change the cures and inflicts to get them to conform to the damage progression. However, all this punking of core keep the PCs alive spells will eventually unbalance the game in the other direction to the point where the entire Monster Manual is "broken" when fights degenerate into four hour long battles of boring attrition in which the 400 hp monster achieves TPK enough times to make everyone go find another DM playing another set of rules. Got to look to the 4th edition will the spells be in a form that works? Will they go back to the original descriptions with PROPER erratta, will they leave them as is with all the new holes, or will they nerf them down till the whole system is broken?
channel_dunlap 01-13-04, 04:02 AM	I don't know that the 10 hps/level are a variable numeric effect... From dictionary.com: Variable: Likely to change or vary; subject to variation; changeable. the amount of damage increases with level, thus changes, thus is a variable. Thats how I'd rule it anyways. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply.
Sir Pandemonium 01-13-04, 04:13 AM	Originally posted by channel_dunlap From dictionary.com: Variable: Likely to change or vary; subject to variation; changeable. the amount of damage increases with level, thus changes, thus is a variable. Thats how I'd rule it anyways. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply. That is not the ruling trend for empower.... But you do have something of a point. But for most cases, that is not the way it is ruled.
Al2902 01-13-04, 05:11 AM	Hmmm...it seems reasonably balanced when compared to Slay Living and Destruction. Slay Living: Touch attack, failed save = die, save = 3d6+level Harm: Touch attack, failed save = 10/level, save = 5/level Destruction: No touch attack, failed save = destruction (worse than death since harder to be raised), save = 10d6. Harm is probably slightly stronger than Slay Living- whilst the consequences of a failed save against Slay Living are significantly worse (i.e. you're dead), a successful save nets significantly less damage (those this damage is still potentially lethal, unlike Harm). Compared to Destruction, the effects of destruction on a failed save are significantly more powerful, on a successful save slightly less damaging, but no touch attack is required. On balance, therefore, it probably slots in nicely at 6th.
Sancus 01-13-04, 07:11 AM	Disintegrate is far more useful than Harm or Slay Living for three simple reasons, really: 1) You can blow holes in objects with it. 2) Nothing is immune to disintegrate, while it's much easier to become immune to Harm or Slay Living, merely have a death ward on(a 4th level spell...) or be undead. No high level character worth his salt walks outside without some sort of death spell/negative energy protection, but Disintegrate isn't a death spell and doesn't use negative energy :) 3) Disintegrate is ranged. Anyone who thinks that Harm is more powerful than Disintegrate is not paying attention, damage isn't everything and trying to make every spell fit the 'damage progression' as if that's the only component in balance is not just ill-advised, it's outright stupid.
Shatteredtower 01-13-04, 08:23 AM	Don't forget that you can't harm your way out of a paper bag, let alone a wall of force. Harm will not destroy your opponent's weapon or armor, while disintegrate will make most foes wish they had gone for something better than a +1 bonus on that holy flaming wounding sword. The heavy mace may become more popular for this reason, because most other weapons don't hold up very well vs. 5d6 hp of damage, even if they're crafted from adamantine. Disintegrate also serves well as a localized Mordenkainen's disjunction -- in ways, it's sometimes even more powerful than the latter spell, since a targetted carpet of flying is doomed even if it saves vs. the spell. The same is true whether the targetted item is a staff of power, an ioun stone, or eyes of petrification. (Okay, so it only gets one lens, but it doesn't need to hit both.) Disintegrate can obliterate a spell component pouch or a backpack -- and all that either of them contains, subject to DM interpretation. Even if the DM rules that the spell only destroys the container, there could be trouble if you were using Heward's handy haversack. This sort of use for disintegrate is going to be unpopular with PCs, who don't like destroying potential sources of loot -- or having NPCs destroy their gear. It will probably be a last resort (or a last straw, if your DM uses this against you all the time). Nevertheless, it is an option that harm does not provide. Harm may do more damage at any given level (and almost certainly will), but it is also more easily countered. I can't use it against the BBEG until I get through his wall of minions, while disintegrate is good for a range of up to at least 210 feet. I can't use it if he's protected by death ward, a 4th level spell. The spell granting immunity to disintegrate is greater spell immunity. The great thing about the latter spell is that by the time you can cast it, you could use it to also make you immune to harm and at least one other spell at the same time. Unlike the user of harm, the disintegrate caster doesn't need to be concerned when the BBEG is suddenly revealed to be some sort of undead. Regeneration is a problem, however, as even your standard troll will survive a Maximized 3.5 disintegrate from a 20th level wizard, since the spell causes only subdual damage to regenerating creatures. (My own recommendation is to house-rule this spell so that regenerating creatures do not treat this spell as subdual damage if the spell would reduce them below -10 hp, but that's not relevant to the issue at hand.) Harm is more effective against the warrior types, though they are more likely to be able to absorb that sort of damage. Wizards, sorcerers, and bards, on the other hand, probably have more to fear from disintegrate (rogues won't like it either). The other classes are likely to dislike harm more for the fact that it does hurt more on the successful saving throw, though a rogue will likely dislike either spell equally, despite the higher damage from harm. The option of death from massive damage isn't going to be appealing either, even if one reads the clause about harm not reducing a target below 1 hp as applying regardless of the success or failure of the spell. Now how much of this weighs against the fact that harm does more damage than disintegrate almost all the time? I'd say that a 210+ ft range vs. touch is worth a lot of damage potential. The difficulty in preparing defenses against disintegrate also affects calculations based on damage, as does the fact that raise dead is only good against one of these two spells, provided that both of them can and do kill the target. I also believe the fact that only one of the two spells is equally (or more) effective against objects and creatures both living and udead is also worth something when examining damage tallies, as is the metamagic potential (not just Extend or Maximize, but also Enlarge -- 26d6 damage at 460 ft. is not to be sneezed at). The counters to all of this are that disintegrate can be counterspelled, while harm cannot, and harm can be retried on the same casting if the attack misses the first time. I'm not sure if this makes up for all of its other shortcomings in comparison, however, not even with the extra damage it can cause. Of course, this is hard to demonstrate, since any number I select for the value of any of these factors is going to be subjective compared to the numbers we can compare for damage itself. If the save fails against both spells, disintegrate does on average only 70% of the damage of harm until 16th level, after which it finally tops out at an average of 93%. If the save is successful against both spells, however, disintegrate's average damage would is only 32% of that caused by harm at 11th level, and only 23% at 15th and higher levels. At best, therefore, harm has a roughly 4 to 1 edge in damage done by disintegrate. I can't prove that a 210+ ft. range difference is worth that kind of spread, but I suspect that I'd rather risk the chance of only doing a quarter of the damage (and possibly up to 70-93%) for the luxury of having some space between myself and my enemy, should it turn out that the spell (either spell) wasn't effective enough. Just one small point I should add, though, in response to Sancus' observation. Golems are immune to disintegrate. Of course, golems (and all constructs) are immune to harm, so that's not really a strike against the spell in this discussion, is it?
beaver1024 01-13-04, 09:16 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck 3.5 harm does 10 damage per caster level up to 150 damage save for half non-elemental damage. That's roughly equivalent to 1d20 per caster level save for half. From a perfectly objective point of view, ignoring the name of the spell and it's previous incarnations be they 1-2 or 3E, exactly how many other people out there think that giving d20 damage to clerical spells is even somewhat rationally fair when the nearest arcane equivalent is disintegrate at 2d6 per level save for a pathetic 5d6 damage? Why not? I mean Harm, a 6th level cleric spells does 75 pts of damage on a successful save at 15th lvl while Polar Ray, an 8th level arcane spell, does a pathetic average of 52.5 points of damage at 15th level on a successful hit. Similary Fire Seeds, a 6th level druid spell does an average of 52.5 points of damage on a successful hit. Fire Seeds also retained its multi-use capability whilst Polar Ray lost it. Similary Finger of Death is clearly inferior to Destruction and Baneful Polymorph is clearly inferior to Slay Living. Not to mention Baneful Polymorph is also a druid spell. At lower levels look at Call Lightning. It now does 3d6 per bolt and if in "stormy" weather does up to 3d10 per bolt in an area. At 5th level in 2 rounds it can do 6d6 points of damage compared to a lightning bolt cast by a 5th level caster at 5d6 in 1 round. However the druid can call 5 bolts for a total of 15d6 points of damage in 5 rounds. That is the same amount of damage as if the 5th level arcane spell caster fired *3* lightning bolts in 3 rounds. So a druid, who has more spells per day, can do in 1 spell what it takes an arcane caster to do in 3 spells. In ideal conditions the druid can do up to 15d10 points of damage at 5th level. I don't even want to go through the difference between Flame Strike and equivalent arcane damage spells at 4th level and 5th level. Clearly if you want flashy spells be a cleric or druid. Ditch the arcane spellcaster.
Seeker95 01-13-04, 10:03 AM	Originally posted by channel_dunlap From dictionary.com: Variable: Likely to change or vary; subject to variation; changeable. the amount of damage increases with level, thus changes, thus is a variable. Thats how I'd rule it anyways. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply. While the definition of variable in the dictionary may be fairly broad, it is not so in the game. A variable effect means that the numeric outcome can change from one casting to the next. 1d4+1 / level is variable. It can produce a range of 2 to 5/ level. 1d10 / level is variable. It can produce a range of 1 to 10 / level 10 / level is not variable. It produces a result of 10 / level. Harm cannot be maximized, empowered, extended, enlarged, heightened or widened. You can still, silent, or quicken it, though.
channel_dunlap 01-13-04, 11:28 AM	So, a spell that effects 1 creature per level wouldn't have that affected by empower either then?
Shatteredtower 01-13-04, 11:34 AM	Originally posted by channel_dunlap So, a spell that effects 1 creature per level wouldn't have that affected by empower either then? That's correct. It only affects, to quote the PHB, "random variables."
DakezDarkenblood 01-13-04, 11:39 AM	edit: Beaten to the submit button
Dalaeck 01-13-04, 12:00 PM	Okay, maybe next time I make a submission of an idea that struck me I make a new account to change names so that some measure of objectivity creep into the discussion. Guys. It's a d20/level save for half damage spell at 6th level with few restrictions. Can anyone reasonable see this being given to clerics? What is the "next" step? A d20/level save for half non-elemental damage against all monsters? And I don't care if "death ward" blocks it, entropic shield which is 1st level will affect disintegrate and not harm likewise with spell turning in which case you really don't want to use disintegrate! Beaver1024 you're 100% right on all counts. And it's sad.
Dalaeck 01-13-04, 12:13 PM	Shattered tower, why disintegrate an item when it uses the same saves as the wearer? Why not disintegrate the wearer?!? If it's unattended, and has so few hitpoints, why don't I just use a targeted evocation? Like lightning bolt? Clearly that functionality is not up to par with the damage discrepancy. Harm may do more damage at any given level (and almost certainly will), but it is also more easily countered. Entropic shield (1st), spell turning (7th) vs. death ward (4th)? What about plain old concealment from either shadows or even lord forbid folliage? And the minions provide cover to the BBEG. Unlike the user of harm, the disintegrate caster doesn't need to be concerned when the BBEG is suddenly revealed to be some sort of undead. So you have harm memorised but you don't have heal? Is this reaasonable? Maybe. Oh yes, I forgot about that, thank you shattered tower each and every harm spell gets a save from massive damage DC15 tagged into it. Brillant!
Shatteredtower 01-13-04, 12:32 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Guys. It's a d20/level save for half damage spell at 6th level with few restrictions. No, it's a 10 hp/level spell. Big difference. More important, how do you change this spell so that it doesn't make heal less effective than it is now -- or twist the balance between heal and harm into non-existence? Can anyone reasonable see this being given to clerics? Obviously they can, Daeleck. What is the "next" step? A d20/level save for half non-elemental damage against all monsters? Well, no, that's as silly as allowing a spell that grants no save to strip away (n - 1d4) hp, where n is any number you could imagine. Oh, wait, we had that spell in 3.0! What was its name again? And I don't care if "death ward" blocks it, entropic shield which is 1st level will affect disintegrate... Sure, 20% of the time. That's something, but it's not on par with having the spell fail entirely. Heck, you're almost better off with obscuring mist in cases like this. ...and not harm likewise with spell turning in which case you really don't want to use disintegrate! True enough. The rest, though, is just grasping at straws. Remember, if it doesn't say, "Clerics rule!" it's not 3.5 -- even when it doesn't actually say that in 3.5.
Naeron 01-13-04, 12:42 PM	While I agree that Harm looks overpowered as a damage dealing spell this is because it is being compared with the wrong spells. Harm is a watered down Save or Die spell, try comparing it with Slay Living and you will see it is entirely reasonable. Both are Touch spells and both only work on living creatures - the only non-living types in the MM are Constructs and Undead, Harm does not specify a living target unlike Slay Living but is necromantic so does not affect constructs, it heals undead so is actually less powerful than slay living in this case. Slay Living kills the target if they fail the save and does 3d6 +1/level damage, which could still kill, if they make the save. At one level higher Harm kills the target if the fail their save AND they have less than 10HP/level. If they make their save they take 5 HP/Level but cannot die. So if the target fails their save Harm is less effective than Slay Living against powerful targets. If the target makes it save harm does more damage but cannot kill. And Harm is a 6th level spell rather than a 5th level spell. Looked at this way Harm is an entirely reasonable spell at 1 level higher than Slay Living. Compare Harm with Destruction, for one level less Harm is Touch rather than Range, may not kill on a failed save and with a successful save does 5 HP/level which cannot kill against 10d6 damage which can kill. Destruction also rules out Raise Dead and Ressurection which can be used with someone killed by Harm. Harm looks less powerful than Destruction so should be lower level.
d_nychus 01-13-04, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by beaver1024 Why not? I mean Harm, a 6th level cleric spells does 75 pts of damage on a successful save at 15th lvl while Polar Ray, an 8th level arcane spell, does a pathetic average of 52.5 points of damage at 15th level on a successful hit. So you've shown polar ray is 'weak?' How original. w00t you. Maybe you should try comparing harm to, say, chain lightning, and disintigrate instead of a spell that is questionably weak. Honestly, either of those sor/wiz spells is much more potent than harm is. Originally posted by beaver1024 Similary Fire Seeds, a 6th level druid spell does an average of 52.5 points of damage on a successful hit. Fire Seeds also retained its multi-use capability whilst Polar Ray lost it. Again with the polar ray. So you can only make a point by comparing the strongest part of one class to the weakest part of another? Again, compare that 6th level spell to OTHER 6th level spells of the wizard class, and you will see fire seed is not all that great. Sure, it's good for damaging one opponent but disintegrate deals twice that damage on a failed save, and chain lightning deals a comperable amount, but can affect MANY more opponents. Originally posted by beaver1024 Similary Finger of Death is clearly inferior to Destruction Yep. Welcome to what vengeful clerics are supposed to do. No big deal, I'll just take prismatc spray instead, and deal out similar effects to multiple creatures. Originally posted by beaver1024 and Baneful Polymorph is clearly inferior to Slay Living. Except for the range factor, and the fact it can change ANY creature into an animal, while slay living is limited to only living beings. Originally posted by beaver1024 Not to mention Baneful Polymorph is also a druid spell. Yay? When Druids start getting wall of force, hold monster, teleport, and telekenesis, it might be too much. But two classes that share a single spell at a certain level that is related to both their concepts is not really a big deal. Originally posted by beaver1024 At lower levels look at Call Lightning. It now does 3d6 per bolt and if in "stormy" weather does up to 3d10 per bolt in an area. At 5th level in 2 rounds it can do 6d6 points of damage compared to a lightning bolt cast by a 5th level caster at 5d6 in 1 round. However the druid can call 5 bolts for a total of 15d6 points of damage in 5 rounds. That is the same amount of damage as if the 5th level arcane spell caster fired *3* lightning bolts in 3 rounds. So a druid, who has more spells per day, can do in 1 spell what it takes an arcane caster to do in 3 spells. In ideal conditions the druid can do up to 15d10 points of damage at 5th level. I don't even want to go through the difference between Flame Strike and equivalent arcane damage spells at 4th level and 5th level. Okay, so you're ignoring the fact that each of those 6d6 incriments has 2 Reflex saves for half damage, are multiple sources, and only affect one ground based character per round, along with lightning bolt's level scaling, multiple hits, and blasting through objects? Nice work on comparing spells there. 1 for 5 by my count. Originally posted by beaver1024 Clearly if you want flashy spells be a cleric or druid. Ditch the arcane spellcaster. Yeah, you're 100% right on this, actually. If you want power spells rather than flash, play a wizard or sorcerer.
Shatteredtower 01-13-04, 12:57 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Shattered tower One word. why disintegrate an item when it uses the same saves as the wearer? Why not disintegrate the wearer?!? Because the wearer might have more hit points than the item? It is a simple matter of deciding whether or not the item is important enough. When the item allows the enemy to survive in a hostile environment, it's really a no-brainer. When it confers a nice edge to the wearer/wielder, then it's a matter of deciding whether removing the item is worth the trouble. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If it's unattended, and has so few hitpoints, why don't I just use a targeted evocation? Like lightning bolt? Because not only do I apply hardness against lightning bolt, in most cases I reduce the damage by 2 before I apply hardness. Hardness is irrelevant against disintegrate, which incidentally does more damage in all cases. In fact, if the object isn't magical, disintegrate doesn't do any damage -- it just destroys the object (or a cube with 10 ft. to a side). Clearly that functionality is not up to par with the damage discrepancy. No, the only thing made clear is that you don't appreciate the opportunities afforded. Entropic shield (1st), spell turning (7th) vs. death ward (4th)? What about plain old concealment from either shadows or even lord forbid folliage? And the minions provide cover to the BBEG. Concealment affects both spells -- I see your entropic shield and raise you an obscuring mist. And cover is very nice, but I would rather that than a wall between me and the BBEG, which is what they provide against harm. Heck, with a 210 ft. range, I couldn't even count on them to provide cover, to be honest. Even a simple levitate spell beats that. So you have harm memorised but you don't have heal? Is this reaasonable? Maybe. So you have both memorized, but you automatically recognize your BBEG's undead status? Maybe. Oh yes, I forgot about that, thank you shattered tower One word. You forgot that too. each and every harm spell gets a save from massive damage DC15 tagged into it. Brilliant! Possibly. I do find it curious that the spell does not mention this fact, though, because it seems the sort of thing that would be mentioned if it was a factor. I'm not saying you're wrong -- after all, you'd have missed this relevant point if I hadn't mentioned it. And yes, it does allow harm to potentially kill any target that is subject to death from massive damage, if you go by the book for both the spell and the rules for massive damage. Of course, the thing is that the spell already requires a saving throw -- why wouldn't it mention the fact that it requires two? Very odd, that.
Myrridin 01-13-04, 01:09 PM	edit: Eh, nevermind.
d_nychus 01-13-04, 01:19 PM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower Possibly. I do find it curious that the spell does not mention this fact, though, because it seems the sort of thing that would be mentioned if it was a factor. I'm not saying you're wrong -- after all, you'd have missed this relevant point if I hadn't mentioned it. And yes, it does allow harm to potentially kill any target that is subject to death from massive damage, if you go by the book for both the spell and the rules for massive damage. Of course, the thing is that the spell already requires a saving throw -- why wouldn't it mention the fact that it requires two? Very odd, that. Sage Advice in Dragon 315 discusses this question, actually. Discusses, because Skip basically says by the rules, you do have to make the save if you take 50 or more points of damage from the spell, and then gives an unofficial rule to ignore the death by massive damage in all cases for the spell, and a "variant" that works exactly the same as the core rules says should be done. Skip also does not bother to correct some very blatant mistakes in the example given, too, which is honestly unlike him. Puzzling.
Dalaeck 01-13-04, 01:29 PM	Originally posted by d_nychus So you've shown polar ray is 'weak?' How original. w00t you. I think the disporportionality is well represented... harm vs. polar ray is most amusing. At least in 3rd edition "polar ray" aka otiluke's freezing sphere is 6th level. Maybe you should try comparing harm to, say, chain lightning, and disintigrate instead of a spell that is questionably weak. Well beaver didn't but I sure did and the comparison is rather dramatic. I don't think chain lightning is as close to harm is as disintegrate. Maybe you want people to compare feather fall to bless? Yep. Welcome to what vengeful clerics are supposed to do. No big deal, I'll just take prismatc spray instead, and deal out similar effects to multiple creatures. No again, the comparison is 100% valid finger of death to destruction. The cleric has the better spell and 3.5 did NOTHING to correct this. Except for the range factor, and the fact it can change ANY creature into an animal, while slay living is limited to only living beings. Except for shapechangers, contructs, undead, oozes, plants and anything with the spell in its repertoire? :bored: Give me break. Yay? When Druids start getting wall of force, hold monster, teleport, and telekenesis, it might be too much. But two classes that share a single spell at a certain level that is related to both their concepts is not really a big deal. Um yeah. Druids should get "polymorph other" because like a werewolf they're natural shapeshifters and those werewolves turn things into frogs regularly. Indeed. Hey maybe we should associate "jump" with druids because you need a grasshoper leg as a material component?! OMG! Hey what about bat guano? That's natural isn't it... :bored: The 3.5 spell system design is even more bias than 3rd edition towards the divine casters. Nothing was done to rectify things like destruction vs. finger of death. Instead the balance was intollerably shifted the other way.
Sir Pandemonium 01-13-04, 01:51 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck The 3.5 spell system design is even more bias than 3rd edition towards the divine casters. Nothing was done to rectify things like destruction vs. finger of death. Instead the balance was intollerably shifted the other way. And this is your "perfectly objective point of view?" So again, we are back to you having a problem on a spell by spell basis. You have a problem with Harm. But instead you throw it into a thread that trys to get others on your "nerf the cleric" wagon. How could you have done it differently you might ask? Thread title = How can I balance Harm better? But if you had done that, the results would have been that Harm is about as balanced as it can be without completely reworking the spell sytem. At the very least, the Heal + Cure spell line. But, of course that is what you are looking for aren't you? To have the developers hit the clerics as hard as you feel they hit your pet class the wizard. If you truely have a problem with some spells, leave the discusion to those spells. And only those spells. And if you insist on comparing arcane and divine damage dealing spells, at least do it fairly. If you want to compare Harm to Polar Ray for example, tell me what the absolute maximum damage Polar Ray can do to all targets (Totaled). Then compare that to Harm's maximum damage to 1 target. After that, compare minimums. After that, compare averages. And after that, factor in the range possibility. Oh, and do not forget to factor in the saving throws. Polar Ray, IIRC, has a reflex save versus Harm's will save. Those are not considered equal. After all that, then you have a comparison. Limiting the analisis to only what benifits your point is not a fair comparison.
d_nychus 01-13-04, 01:58 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I think the disporportionality is well represented... harm vs. polar ray is most amusing. At least in 3rd edition "polar ray" aka otiluke's freezing sphere is 6th level. How about we take a clearly overpowered spell from the wizard's spell list then? Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray, anyone? Please, the example is specifically weighted towards one side, while ignoring the mounds of evidence that says otherwise. You're looking at only one single part of the statistics and coming up with a rule based on one bad example. I can prove that ice cream causes crime waves, too, you know. Originally posted by Dalaeck Well beaver didn't but I sure did and the comparison is rather dramatic. I don't think chain lightning is as close to harm is as disintegrate. Maybe you want people to compare feather fall to bless? Direct damage to a direct damage spell, and a party buff vs. an emergency save spell? Good idea. Any more ridiculously extreme examples? Originally posted by Dalaeck No again, the comparison is 100% valid finger of death to destruction. Err, I agreed with that part. Clerics are better with buff spells at low levels, and one target instadeath spells at high levels. Originally posted by Dalaeck The cleric has the better spell and 3.5 did NOTHING to correct this. This needed correcting? Or rather, you're actually admiting that something needed correcting in 3.0, too? Here I thought it was your utterly perfect flawless iconic etipome of game design. Amazing. Originally posted by Dalaeck Except for shapechangers, Possibly true, if they make their Will save to keep their mental stats. Originally posted by Dalaeck contructs, undead, True. Try slay living on them, too. Originally posted by Dalaeck oozes, plants Okay, you got me on those two, but how often are they encountered? Originally posted by Dalaeck and anything with the spell in its repertoire? :bored: Only if it makes its Will save. Originally posted by Dalaeck Give me break. Sure, I got a Kit Kat here in my room somewhere.. Originally posted by Dalaeck Um yeah. Druids should get "polymorph other" because like a werewolf they're natural shapeshifters and those werewolves turn things into frogs regularly. Indeed. Hey maybe we should associate "jump" with druids because you need a grasshoper leg as a material component?! OMG! Hey what about bat guano? That's natural isn't it... :bored: Ever hear of slippery slope fallacy? One only half decent spell shared does not bat guano make. Again, when druids get wall of force, then I might see your point. Until then, most spells on the spell lists make sense. (Yes, I admit to exceptions, but this ain't one of them, and the exceptions are FAR more pronounced in 3.0) Originally posted by Dalaeck The 3.5 spell system design is even more bias than 3rd edition towards the divine casters. Nothing was done to rectify things like destruction vs. finger of death. Instead the balance was intollerably shifted the other way. Utterly opinion. I see no basis for this in the actual spell lists. Wizards STILL have the best spells at any given level, and are pretty much omnipotent at higher levels (much to my chagrin). Just because you have an intollerable bias against divine casters does not make opinions fact.
d_nychus 01-13-04, 02:05 PM	Originally posted by Sir Pandemonium If you want to compare Harm to Polar Ray for example, tell me what the absolute maximum damage Polar Ray can do to all targets (Totaled). Then compare that to Harm's maximum damage to 1 target. Oh, and do not forget to factor in the saving throws. Polar Ray, IIRC, has a reflex save versus Harm's will save. Those are not considered equal. *coughs* Dude, Polar ray is one of the new 1d6/level, one target, no save spells. I find it highly useful in Epic games, but it is rather weak in the lower 20 levels. But, if you want to check out the maximums: Polar ray: 150, no save. Harm: 150, save for 75 or less. Average: Polar ray: 87.5, no save. Harm: 150, save for 75 or less. However, Polar ray is a Close ranged attack, which is patently better.
IceFractal 01-13-04, 02:33 PM	Look, all this asumption that "harm can kill" is blatantly twisting the spirit of the rules based on the exact phrasing, not that that's inherently wrong, but don't assume that it will stand up in a game, the whole point of harm is that it can't kill the target, it can only reduce them to 1 hp, and that, like disintegrate, the "damage" is not equivalent to normal damage, but rather serves as a device to prevent disintegrating/harming things way above your level.
d_nychus 01-13-04, 02:43 PM	Well, until we see otherwise, the intent is only based off of what is written. I would not be surprised to see an errata based on both this and the massive damage question.
J. Grenemyer 01-13-04, 05:47 PM	I see 3.5 Harm as a much more balanced version of the spell. Touch range, Save, SR and the inability to kill on a successful save all make for a better-than-3.0 version, IMNSHO. I feel that touch range is appropriate for Harm, as Clerics can wear armor and otherwise spell-buff themselves before engaging foes at touch range. As compared to Disintegrate: I believe Disintegrate to be the more powerful (and useful) of the two (which is appropriate for Arcane Spells vs. a Divine Spells of the same level). If nothing else, Harm allows for a Raise Dead to be performed, while Disintegrate does not. Further, Disintegrate can be used to destroy objects and equipment effectively (and at a safe distance to boot). The thread starter used the phrase, “..rationally fair..”. I believe in all fairness that both spells are balanced with regard to each other, and are both placed at the correct spell level. ;)
Sacred Mesa 01-13-04, 07:42 PM	Well I love playing clerics, and when I get to choose from the 6th level spells I usually don't prepare Harm, I don't like it, and would really prefer to have something like disintegrate instead but there is not. I would say that the spell is great and is ok where it is, and letting aside opinions like Daeleck's everyone seem to think the same. By the way, Cleric's are a great class but wizards and sorcerer's get the most agressive and flashy spells, that's the way it have always been and it will always be, so let Harm where it is.
Dalaeck 01-13-04, 09:50 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I see 3.5 Harm as a much more balanced version of the spell. Touch range, Save, SR and the inability to kill on a successful save all make for a better-than-3.0 version, IMNSHO. Um. It was touch range, had SR and didn't kill ever in 3rd Edition. As compared to Disintegrate: I believe Disintegrate to be the more powerful (and useful) of the two (which is appropriate for Arcane Spells vs. a Divine Spells of the same level). I can't honestly beleive that someone can think that. Did you see the damage breakdown, how harm outclasses disintegrate on a regular basis? The fact that harm will ALWAYS make you perform a fort save DC:15 or die? The fact that disintegrate does not always disintegrate you in 3.5? Only if you have zero hp?
Khirak Vil 01-13-04, 11:12 PM	I had no problems as a DM or as a player with 3.0, nor 3.5. If you dont like 3.5 play 3.0 if you can find enough players or a DM stupid enough to be staisfied with a completly broken spell system instead of just a few problem spells. D&D is the Magic CCG of the RPG world. There will be versions after versions after versions till the old farts choose the version they like and stick with it and the young turks buy every book printed for version 6.5+ Do us all a favor and forget 3.5 exists. Your insight into the mechanics are far from insightful anways. Thank you, and have a NICE day
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-14-04, 12:14 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Um. It was touch range, had SR and didn't kill ever in 3rd Edition. So what if it didn't kill?! I mean honestly who cares. 1 hit point was dead anyway. You're screwed you're just sitting there till some guy picks you off with a delayed or readied action, then you die. Unless you happened to be lucky enough to act next and have a heal prepared you're completely out of luck. If I'm taking a cleric I'd take 3.0 harm over 3.5 harm in the blink of an eye. 3.5 harm is a possibly overpowered damage spell, 3.0 harm breaks games, it shapes the very essence of high level combat to force all high level creatures to avoid melee at all costs because of it. It can drop GODS! I don't even see how you can compare the two and reach the conclusion that 3.5 harm is more broken. The only thing I think you're getting caught up on is the numbers game. Just because the number looks huge, you're freaking out... it certainly happened with true strike when 3.0 was first released. "Wow, a +20 bonus, omg omg... that can't be balanced." 3.0 harm does WAY more damage than 75/150. You got no save, you were just hosed when you got hit by 3.0 harm, and there was no good counter to it besides just staying out of melee. Take an average great red wyrm, now cast a 3.0 harm on it and cast a 3.5 harm on it... then tell me which is better. The 3.5 version of harm is a nerf, not the weird buff you claim it to be.
badger3k 01-14-04, 12:22 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I can't honestly beleive that someone can think that. Did you see the damage breakdown, how harm outclasses disintegrate on a regular basis? The fact that harm will ALWAYS make you perform a fort save DC:15 or die? The fact that disintegrate does not always disintegrate you in 3.5? Only if you have zero hp? Disintegrate, level 6 Sor/Wiz spell Starts at caster level 11. Damage at that level is 24d6, 5d6 on a partial save. Equipment on a creature is not affected by the spell, I believe ("A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected" suggests that unattended equipment/items can be targeted, but held/worn stuff can't be). Average damage of 3.5/die is 84 points, 17.5 (17) points with a save. Harm has 110/55 for that same level. Harm maxes at 150 points, 75 on a save. Disintegrate maxes 40d6/5d6. Average damage of 140. Max damage of 240. Minimum of 40. Same as above for a save. How much damage can be done to the caster while he is moving the 210' to the target? Both spells can give you the DC15 save, although harm gives it after you save as well. Fortitude save and SR apply to Disintegrate. Harm has Will half, SR applies. That's a toss up. Most creatures have high fortitude saves but high HP too. Let's see, use a 20th level caster from the DMG. 20th level cleric has a Wis of 26 after items (+8 bonus). Wizard has 26 Int, (+8 as well). Spell DCs are : 24 for each. 20th level wizard has a +14 to hit, Cleric has a +17. Not too different, since they both use touch spells. If the cleric hits the wizard with the spell, he has to roll an 11 to avoid 150 points, then has to roll an 8 or more to avoid the massive damage. He has 72 hit points, so if he fails the save, he may or may not die, depending on how you read the spell. If he fails, he won't die from that, and he has a 65% chance of making his save (assuming he has no Con/Fort boosting items). He has a 50% chance of making his save. If the wizard hits the cleric, the cleric needs a 10 or more to avoid 40-240 points of damage. If he saves, he's clear. If he doesn't, he needs a 1 to avoid massive damage. The cleric has 133 hp. He has a 55% chance of avoiding death (50%+ chance of the roll being average or higher). Of course, as was pointed out, the cleric needs to get to him first. So how much damage can be done in that time? If the wizard lets the cleric get that close to him, then he probably deserves to die. It looks close in my opinion. As to clerics having a damage spell, so what. The fact that it has a 10 point per level progression, again, so what. The d20 bit is a bit extreme, since it implies a possilbility of 300 points, when it clearly doesn't do that. I think a bit of paranoia can be healthy, but I see no reason to think some of the "what ifs" you present. Don't forget the nice little scarab of protection, that also protects against death and negative energy effects. The SR 20 works for both spells too.
wdarkk 01-14-04, 02:21 AM	Don't forget Disintigrate uses variable numeric effects, so a now-core Maximize Metamagic Rod will work wonders...
J. Grenemyer 01-14-04, 03:36 AM	This shifts the conversation away from whether or not 3.5 Harm is balanced vs. other 3.5 spells, but I’m game if you are. Originally posted by Dalaeck Um. It was touch range, had SR and didn't kill ever in 3rd Edition. Touch Range and SR did not serve to balance the exceptionally broken effect of 3.0 Harm. While that effect could not technically “kill” a foe, it all but assured a foe’s death on the next PC’s action. The problem with 3.0 Harm was that it conferred the ability to strip a foe of all but 1d4 HP, regardless of a foe’s original HP total, as soon as you were sufficient level to cast the spell. 3.0 Harm had no method of scaling its effect by caster level. Gaining caster levels didn’t even effect the save DC for the spell, because (as we all know) their was no save to begin with. However, with 3.5 Harm the spell was re-written so that damage is scaled according to caster level and a save was included. I think these two revisions are most important because they make Harm work like all the other damaging spells in the game. Now it’s entirely possible that 3.5 Harm might be a more efficient killer than its 3.0 cousin (which is fine by me). Note that I interpret the spell text for 3.5 harm to mean that a failed save vs. the spell allows for Harm to (potentially) kill its target. Originally posted by Dalaeck Did you see the damage breakdown, Why yes I did. Thanks for posting it! Originally posted by Dalaeck …how harm outclasses disintegrate on a regular basis? If by “outclasses:” you mean “deals more damage than Disintegrate”, then yes, I saw that too. If by “outclasses” you mean “Is in all ways better than Disintegrate’, then no, I don’t agree, because Disintegrate effects objects, certain spell effects and can be cast at range; all of which Harm cannot. Further, Harm can be easily thwarted by Deathward. Simply put: Damage is not the only factor that determines a spell's level placement or whether or not it is balanced. Originally posted by Dalaeck The fact that harm will ALWAYS make you perform a fort save DC:15 or die? I’m sorry, that isn’t a fact. Harm does not automatically kill a foe if they fail their save, it just deals damage. Also, see my note about Deathward above Originally posted by Dalaeck The fact that disintegrate does not always disintegrate you in 3.5? Only if you have zero hp? The first sentence is true, but I don’t see the relevance since Harm does not always kill its target either. Note that (unlike Harm) there is no save-and-escape clause written into Disintegrate. If your HP are dropped to 0 hp or less by Disintegrate you are disintegrated, regardless of whether you saved or not. Thus, I stand by my statement(s) that I see 3.5 Harm as: A much more balanced version of the spell. Less powerful than Disintegrate. Correctly placed as a level 6 spell. ;) [Edit: spelling]
wdarkk 01-14-04, 04:29 AM	I'd have to agree with J. Grenemyer's post. Plus, Disintigrate can also be crit-ed with, and as I said before is eligable for metamagic rod fun. With the mid-level maximize rod, Disintigrate _always_ does 30 damage unless you miss.
Seeker95 01-14-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck I can't honestly beleive that someone can think that. Dalaeck -- there's also no Santa Claus. Some things you may not believe, until you experience them for yourself. Originally posted by Dalaeck Did you see the damage breakdown, how harm outclasses disintegrate on a regular basis? The fact that harm will ALWAYS make you perform a fort save DC:15 or die? The fact that disintegrate does not always disintegrate you in 3.5? Only if you have zero hp? Dalaeck and his penchant for ignoring the obvious as long as it improves his denail of 3.5. Disintegrate has many more uses besides attacking a single living opponent. It can remove doors and boulders form your path. It can remove the drawbridge or rope bridge behind you, preventing your pursuers from following. It can take out the capstone in the grand archway, collapsing the entrance to the Caves of Despair. For the sole purpose of taking out a single opponent, Harm and Disintegrate have fairly even trade offs. Harm *can* cause lots more total damage. Disintegrate *can kill*. Disintegrate has the better final outcome *and* more uses. But mentioning those other uses might undermine Dalaeck's steady assault on 3.5 -- a game he does not even play.
Gothic_Demon 01-14-04, 08:29 AM	Can we just clear up the save or die thing? From the 3.5 SRD: If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. Under proper English grammatical rules, the it in the sentence above applies only to the previous noun, that noun being the name of the spell harm. This is because harm is the subject of the sentence. I believe the correct interpretation (and the precedent set by all other previous versions of the harm spell) is this: Harm cannot kill its victim. Or to re-write the above: If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1. All in all, Harm cannot kill; it does not help against undead; it has no usefulness outside of combat. I would say that balances the spell well against disintegrate.
wdarkk 01-14-04, 08:57 AM	Sheesh. Do I have to post 3 times on metamagic rods before someone responds? ;) A Rod of Maximize is: 1. Very useful. Anyone willing to debate this? 2. Core under 3.5 3. Usable with Disintegrate but not Harm. A Disintegrate cast by a Wizard at minimum level with a Rod of Maximize deals: Max Damage of 132 Minimum Damage of 30 A Harm cast by a Cleric at minimum level deals: Max Damage of 110 Minimum Damage of 55- Several creature types have poor fortitude saves: Abberation Construct Elementals (Air and Fire) Fey Humanoid (although they usually have classes) Monstrous Humanoid Ooze Undead Many of those (Abberation, Fey, Monstrous Humanoid, Undead) have good Will saves. Some creatures (Dragons, Outsiders) have Will saves that are as good as their Fortitude saves (Outsiders also often have very high Wis). So Disintigrate isn't as combat-ineffective as Dalaeck would have us believe.
Unda Harvum 01-14-04, 09:27 AM	Originally posted by Gothic_Demon Under proper English grammatical rules, the it in the sentence above applies only to the previous noun, that noun being the name of the spell harm.Of course "it" refers to "Harm". But that does not change the preceding precondition - you must make your save for the rest of the sentence to apply at all. I certainly believe the wording of the Harm spells means it can kill on failed saving throws. But the wording is bad, however you look at it. It should either be: "If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, and it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1." or "If the subject successfully saves, harm deals half this amount. [preferably new paragraph] Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1."
Gothic_Demon 01-14-04, 09:51 AM	Unda Harvum: I agree it is badly worded. However, I believe that the correct interpretation is based on swapping it for the noun intended: "If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but harm(it) cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1." Though I agree that the intention should be made more clear in the wording. Having read many of the spells there is a certain lack of clarity on the part of the writers with regards to wording of spells and feats, and it is through these errors of judgment and editing that a lot of these types of threads get started. I also stated precedent: No other version of Harm has been able to kill in and of itself, so I have no idea why this would be any different. (Although it could be...) wdarkk: I'm not sure anyone believes that Disintegrate is combat ineffective. Dalaeck seems to work in averages, which can't be applied to fixed damage spells. A rolled damage die can do far more than the average of that die, and also far less. I've seen 10d6 roll 10 as often as I've seen them roll 50. 10/level is just that, no variable values at all. While maximise is perfectly sensible and a useful power to apply to any variable damage spell, it's not really relevant to the argument that Harm is better than/worse than/balanced with Disintegrate and other 6th level Wizard spells, because Harm cannot be maximised. Dalaeck: I have to say I don't agree with you, although I think they unnecessarily nerfed Disintegrate and the new mechanics are not very good. Harm had always been a ridiculous killer until 3.5 ("What Mr. Super Dragon? You have 2,500hp? *touch* Make that 3. Now Mr. Stabby Stabby Fighter guy!") but this has toned it down without preventing the spell being completely useless. The reason harm is not a 1d20/level damage spell is that it cannot under any circumstances, do 20/level damage. Ever. It does a flat 10/level damage. They are not even comparable (see note to wdarkk above). Harm may do, on average, more damage, but it also means the caster has to be next to the opponent that they have just touched, which means a successful save against the harm is far more dangerous to the caster than a successful save against disintegrate. Also, disintegrate has non-combat uses, which Harm does not. This makes disintegrate a more useful spell in general. And finally, I still stand by my interpretation that Harm cannot kill its target, so it's never a save or die spell (though it is close enough, so are any spells that do damage and reduce a creature to low hit points). In the end, is harm any better than the wizard damaging spells at 6th level? No, it's downsides weigh pretty well against its bonuses.
Dalaeck 01-14-04, 01:48 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer Touch Range and SR did not serve to balance the exceptionally broken effect of 3.0 Harm. While that effect could not technically “kill” a foe, it all but assured a foe’s death on the next PC’s action. Unless said action involves, I don't know, an attack roll, a save or a lord forbid a contingency spell activating? As it stands 3.5 harm is death in one round for many many many monsters and classes. Gaining caster levels didn’t even effect the save DC for the spell, because (as we all know) their was no save to begin with. Pardon me, how is this relevant to either spell? doing 55 minimum to 75 minimum and two fort saves? I think these two revisions are most important because they make Harm work like all the other damaging spells in the game. Except for doing way more damage than equivalent level evocations? And even more damage than higher level ones like polar ray at 8th? Now it’s entirely possible that 3.5 Harm might be a more efficient killer than its 3.0 cousin (which is fine by me). Great fix then! (?!?) If by “outclasses” you mean “Is in all ways better than Disintegrate’, then no, I don’t agree, because Disintegrate effects objects, certain spell effects and can be cast at range; all of which Harm cannot. Further, Harm can be easily thwarted by Deathward. And disintegrate by spell turning, concealment, cover and you name it. A forest in the way will make you miss 50% of the time with disintegrate. Even low level spells like entropic shield will make you miss a fair fraction of the time. Simply put: Damage is not the only factor that determines a spell's level placement or whether or not it is balanced. For sure but the additional functionality of disintegrate does not shore up half-effectivness. Note that (unlike Harm) there is no save-and-escape clause written into Disintegrate. If your HP are dropped to 0 hp or less by Disintegrate you are disintegrated, regardless of whether you saved or not. I think you need to decide on whether or not having 1hp is significant. Either it is, and harm 3rd edition has a marked advantage or it isn't, at which point it's insignificant. Thus, I stand by my statement(s) that I see 3.5 Harm as:[list] A much more balanced version of the spell. Less powerful than Disintegrate. Correctly placed as a level 6 spell. Fine then I'm sure you'll have no problem with me following the damage progression for clerical spells and making a 7th level version that does 200 flat un-elemental damage save for half. Fair's fair after all, fit's right into the damage progression tables...
wdarkk 01-14-04, 02:11 PM	Wow. Way to use the slippery slope fallacy. Maybe an Arcane 9th level spell that does 50d6 while we're at it. There are an equal number of ways to make Harm significantly less effective too - try the Fly spell, or just flying monsters with flyby attack. The bottom liner is that any amount of damage is less than death. We could re-write Finger of Death to do 1000d1000 per caster level if you fail the save. It doesn't actually change what occurs. And saying that going to 1 HP isn't an insta-kill is outright lying. The only way around it is to either have a teleport contingency (the players win anyway and get the XP since they made it run off) or a contingent heal (you have to be hideously multiclassed, using Wish or Miracle, or a Dragon to do this).
J. Grenemyer 01-14-04, 04:03 PM	Hello Dalaeck, Persistence is good. Stubbornness is bad. ;) Originally posted by Dalaeck Unless said action involves, I don't know, an attack roll, a save or a lord forbid a contingency spell activating? That is not a good argument that a foe could survive on 4 HP or less. Is their an attack roll or save required for magic missile? No. Do successful saving throws always negate all the damage from an effect? No. Can Arcane Spellcasters prepare hundreds of Contingency spells to cover every possible combat situation? No. Do NPC’s of all other classes, as well as all monsters, have access to Contingency? No. If you drop to 4 HP or less, your either (A) going to fall prey to the standard tactic of one PC casting Harm while one or more of the other PC’s ready actions to attack you and cast spells against you after you are hit or (B) going to high-tale it out of their ASAP –which essentially wins the encounter for the party anyway. Thus: Touch Range and SR do not serve to balance the exceptionally broken effect of 3.0 Harm. Originally posted by Dalaeck As it stands 3.5 harm is death in one round for many many many monsters and classes. Harm deals lots of damage, so I suppose it is true to say 3.5 Harm it is more likely to kill a foe on the round it is cast than 3.0 Harm is. Is 3.5 Harm more effective at causing the ultimate death of a foe than 3.0 Harm? No, I don’t think so. Originally posted by Dalaeck Pardon me, how is this relevant to either spell? doing 55 minimum to 75 minimum and two fort saves? :rolleyes: It’s entirely relevant. Not allowing for a save against a spell that resets your current hp count to 1d4 made Clerics the bane of any creature without SR. This resulted in a broken 6th level spell. (Literally: I touch you, you are toast.) I’m not sure where your second Fort Save is coming from, or what point it is trying to support. :confused: Originally posted by Dalaeck Except for doing way more damage than equivalent level evocations? And even more damage than higher level ones like polar ray at 8th? The revisions bring the mechanics for Harm inline with other spells, which is a step in the right direction. That 3.5 Harm does more damage than Arcane spells of the same level does not support an argument that the revision was unnecessary or that it failed. You contend that the revision is still unbalanced. I disagree. Originally posted by Dalaeck And disintegrate by spell turning, concealment, cover and you name it. A forest in the way will make you miss 50% of the time with disintegrate. Even low level spells like entropic shield will make you miss a fair fraction of the time. Spell Turning –unlike Death Ward– is not guaranteed to thwart a Disintegrate. Concealment and cover -unlike Death Ward– do not thwart Disintegrate, unless they provide full cover or concealment, at which point they are just as effective at blocking Harm. Heck, you can use Disintegrate to literally remove your opponent’s cover. No such luck with Harm. Entropic Shield –unlike Death Ward– has a range of personal, and so is of no help to Non-Arcane Spell casting types (read: all the other NPC’s and Monsters). Whereas Death Ward can be used on any living creature touched. It is easier to negate Harm than Disintegrate, while Harm can do (at certain levels) more damage than Disintegrate. These serve to counter-balance each other. Neither spell outclasses the other, though I believe Disintegrate to be the more useful (and thus more powerful) of the two. Originally posted by Dalaeck For sure but the additional functionality of disintegrate does not shore up half-effectiveness. As stated before, Disintegrate is a versatile spell because it can effect objects, remove obstacles, etc.. all from a safe distance. Harm can’t do that. While Disintegrate’s damage potential does not equal that of Harm, it’s still a lot of damage coupled with the added threat of denying you a Raise Dead. There is no “half-effectiveness”. Originally posted by Dalaeck I think you need to decide on whether or not having 1hp is significant. Either it is, and harm 3rd edition has a marked advantage or it isn't, at which point it's insignificant. I’ll weigh and measure the game elements as I see fit. I don’t need you to tell me what I should and shouldn’t be considering, thanks. Now then, disintegrate does do significantly less damage on a failed save. Targets with all or most of their HP intact are not going to worry about 5d6. However, foes with low HP are in danger because Disintegrate can still annihilate them even if they save. Harm, OTOH, can’t kill you on a failed save, but will still deal quite a bit of damage. Again, if your HP are in good shape, this isn’t an issue. If they are not, then you’ve got something to worry about. This last is what I think you are getting at (which is to say that, in a sense, 3.5 Harm kept the “drop your foe to 1 hp” effect”). The important thing to note is that this effect is checked by the addition of a saving throw to the spell as well as having its effect deal damage that scales by level (instead of allowing for near-infinite HP loss). Originally posted by Dalaeck Fair's fair after all, fit's right into the damage progression tables... I don’t understand why you feel the need to post in a childish manner, or why you feel it necessary to post in such a sarcastic and arrogant tone towards people who disagree with you. Why is this necessary? :confused:
Seeker95 01-14-04, 04:49 PM	Originally posted by J. Grenemyer I don’t understand why you feel the need to post in a childish manner, or why you feel it necessary to post in such a sarcastic and arrogant tone towards people who disagree with you. Why is this necessary? :confused: He does not like 3.5, and does not play 3.5. That he spends so much time on 3.5 threads would be amusing if it weren't also so sad. Of his last 50 posts, 49 have been anti-3.5 in content, even if the subject didn't seem like it had anything to do with 3.5. I will say this much though. If I were an avid protestor of anything, I would want him marching with me. Dalaeck does not let anything stop him when he gets on a roll.
ManTimeForgot 01-14-04, 04:57 PM	I will take 3.5 (admittedly 3.0 was also worth considering) disintegrate 6 days a week and twice on sunday over 3.5 harm. Your cleric can reach up and touch two people (assuming a rod of quickening) with harm. As a wizard I can using two disintegrates bury a group of people in a 20 ft hole in the ground. I can do this while flying since my spell works from a range. Once the group is buried in a hole, then I can proceed to bomb them with all kinds of nastiness. And with nowhere to go but up, there is very little they can do to keep me from dropping whatever it is I feel like in on them. This is even more useful against smaller enemies. If I can't disintegrate an enemy mage because he is displaced (if he isn't flying, then he is going to have to cast fly) I will just disintegrate the ground underneath him and let open season commense on drop area affect spells and items down in the pit. Against opponents with a high will save, 3.5 harm is going to do 75 damage and cannot kill. Against a high fort save opponent like a titan, I am likely still able to disintegrate the ground in front of him as a readied action and trip him up. Which do I think is more appealing: getting hit for AoO as I run up to the titan or tripping him up for a round giving the rest of the party a shot at stripping hps? Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
J. Grenemyer 01-14-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Because the number of people that disagree with him is so large that rational discourse would get him nowhere. Hold on a 'sec! I wasn't asking everyone else as a means of inviting jibes against Dalaeck. There's no need to perform character assassination after all. I was talking directly to Dalaeck. But since the question is way off topic, never mind. :sad:
Al2902 01-15-04, 04:31 AM	Dalaeck (and all other '3.5 Harm is broken')- One simple question: what level should Harm be, and why? 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or Epic?
Kem 01-15-04, 04:40 AM	Spell turning has no effect on Disintegrate. Ever.
Shatteredtower 01-15-04, 07:27 AM	Originally posted by Kem Spell turning has no effect on Disintegrate. Ever. Begging your pardon, Kern, but I don't see how you reach this conclusion. Spell turning has no effect against touch range spells, but that's not the same as a spell that grants a ranged touch.
Kem 01-15-04, 08:33 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower Begging your pardon, Kern, but I don't see how you reach this conclusion. Spell turning has no effect against touch range spells, but that's not the same as a spell that grants a ranged touch. Spell turning only affects spells that have you as a Target. Disintegrate does not target you. Disintegrate creates a Ray that the caster aims at you that has an effect. Spell Turning Specifically does not affect spells that have an area or effect as such. Spell Turning has no effect against Energy Drain or Enervation either.
Dalaeck 01-15-04, 12:15 PM	There are, I'm sorry, way too many people here to reply to, so I'm just going to do it point form and not direct this at anyone. The point of this thread, was the simple statement of fact: Harm, following the standard clerical progression of a max of 15 dice of damage does 10 damage per level. The average damage dice that corresponds to is roughly a d20. Whether you like this fact or not, whether you liked the previous spell or not, is irrelevant. It is a precedent. Do you care? Maybe not. Do I care? No. I don't play 3.5. But this spell has been bugging me for awhile and I only realized recently exactly why, it's effectively a d20 damage spell. "The revisions bring the mechanics for Harm inline with other spells, which is a step in the right direction. " Is wrong. It is not inline. It's very far out in left field and just as broken if not more for the standard game. Disintegrate, the nearest neighbor in the 3.5 arcane (aka crap) arena that does "un-resistable damage" is woefully inadequate. Even with metamagic applied. It has virtually nothing going for it. While affecting objects, constructs and affecting undead (for which there is heal) it has nothing in the damage arena. The save is fort-based, so large hitpoint creatures will take virtually nothing. The save for harm is will-based and will invariably do better damage against a large creature as it's target. Tripping up a titan using disintegrate? This is totally and utterly laughable. Beleive it or not, a 10 foot deep pit is not a real challenge for 11+ characters and monsters. Even a 20 foot deep pit is laughably a CR1 trap, assuming it's disguised. I don't think the 20th level sorceror/cleric that a Titan is will be very worried. In fact he'll likely be extremely puzzled and may keep your skull afterwards to ask it a few questions from "speak with dead". The ability to take 10 foot blocks of matter out is positional and circumstancial at very best, and at worst utterly and totally useless at the levels of play that the game is. A cleric can animate that amount or more of material and make it attack to boot. Despite the obvious jabs I regularly receive from what has become my "retinue" of 3.5 converts, I don't even post anywhere near the rates of certain of these people, and never insert comments into threads labeled "3.5 question". Indeed I stick very much to the 3.0 threads. Any thread you join labeled 3.0 will however have a high likelyhood of having one of these people jump in and announce their conversion with religious zeal. If my comments strike a cord, too bad. The discussion of the version of harm has invariably crept into here, with many accusations of "how broken is reducing to a flat 1d4 hp" with no save. Accompanied with "spell resistance and touch attack does not make the spell balanced". From a previous thread to this one I compiled the following list of monsters with more than 150 HP from the MM: Solar, Tryceratops, Tyrannosaurus, 7 black dragons, 8 blue dragons, 8 green dragons, 9 red dragons, 7 white dragons, 8 brass dragons, 8 bronze dragons, 8 copper dragons, 10 gold dragons, 9 silver dragons, 10 elementals, formian queen, kraken, Cloud giant, Storm giant, Roc, purple worm, Tarrasque, Titan, 3 very big vermin. Non-dragon: 24 Dragon: 63 Likewise those with more than 300 HP: Tarrasque. 1 very big vermin. 48 dragons. These are from the 3rd Edition MM, not the 3.5 so some numbers change a little but are largely representative. 3rd edition harm is then aptly put "a dragon killer", were it not for the massive magical abilities of these creatures and SR, I would buy this argument. As it stands, harm 3rd edition is no worse than 3.5, and indeed 3.5 is worse because it's flat damage at level seen only in arcane 9th level spells (if that). (I have again, no pity for the epic people, only an idiot would design a book that works of of core rules and not adjust them in proportion for his supplementary rules. ) Kem is right, and it's my bad, disintegrate is no blocked by spellturning (and I should know that...). On the other hand the mundane fixes (foliage, steam, even obscuring mist or 3.5 darkness), cover, can severely reduce the chance of disintegrate working. Even simply raising your saves makes disintegrate invariably worse. Protection from spells turns your maximized empowered disintegrate (from meta-rod) into a puppy dog spell while the 6th level harm plows through time and time again with 150-300 damage (from meta-rod). Save versus half does not equate to save vs. 5d6. I'm sorry if people don't like the analogy of the 200 damage 7th level spell, but that's the title of the thread. The "new standard". Hey you could have a 9th level arcane disintegrate-like spell that does 50d6 on a failed save and 5d6 if you succeed. I'll take the clerical version that does 250 damage outright on a failed will save and 125 if you fail. If you're lucky you could do 175 damage. If you use a rod of maximize you could do 300, on a failed fort save. We could even throw in range, and maybe some flavor like yours works on undead and (some) constructs with an additional clause that you can if you use the spell up for that purpose, blow a 10 foot hole into normal mater. Deal?
wdarkk 01-15-04, 01:03 PM	Wow. You continue to not see the points. 1) There is a _massive_ difference between 10 damage and d20 damage. It's called maximize spell. There's another one called empower spell. Stop saying they're the same, because it's wrong. 2) Disintegrate is much more useful than you think, because the save isn't as likely to be made as you think. Further, it has many non-combat uses and Harm has none. 3) Death is automatically greater than _any_ amount of damage. 4) 1d4 HP is death. If you actually believe the opposite, then you don't actually play 3.0 with an intelligent group.
Gothic_Demon 01-16-04, 05:37 AM	3) Death is automatically greater than _any_ amount of damage. 4) 1d4 HP is death. If you actually believe the opposite, then you don't actually play 3.0 with an intelligent group.Just a thought here: Death is definitely greater than any amount of damage. 1d4HP is not death. It's a death sentence. Initiative numbers can keep the creature alive, allies can keep the creature alive, contingency can keep the creature alive. They are likely to die, but they are not dead. As for the clerics second attack or quickened spell, they can miss. 1d4hp is not death, at all. e.g. Cleric uses harm, then attempts to touch mage and kill him. Rolls a 1. Mage who (luckily) has the next initiative casts wail of the banshee. Mage uses disintegrate, and second mage never casts wail of the banshee. Big difference.
d_nychus 01-16-04, 06:09 AM	The point is under 3.0, you will ALWAYS deal enough damage to reduce them to 1d4, while in 3.5, you might not. In fact, once you are facing rationally balanced CR +15 creatures, 150 points of damage will most likely still leave a fair portion of hp left. A 3.5 Titan will certainly NOTICE a harm spell, but barring a critical and a failed save (unlikely), he's still going to be around for a few more rounds afterwards. Under 3.0, The titan will be dead the next round. And, as noted in the other current harm spell, 3.0 harm should have had the death by massive damage roll as well, it's just very few people played that way because of the utter brokeness. There is no difference between 'losing' hp and 'decreasing' hp in 3e. [Edit: never change methods of delivery in the middle of a sentence. It are confused :p]
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-16-04, 08:08 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck The discussion of the version of harm has invariably crept into here, with many accusations of "how broken is reducing to a flat 1d4 hp" with no save. Accompanied with "spell resistance and touch attack does not make the spell balanced". From a previous thread to this one I compiled the following list of monsters with more than 150 HP from the MM: Solar, Tryceratops, Tyrannosaurus, 7 black dragons, 8 blue dragons, 8 green dragons, 9 red dragons, 7 white dragons, 8 brass dragons, 8 bronze dragons, 8 copper dragons, 10 gold dragons, 9 silver dragons, 10 elementals, formian queen, kraken, Cloud giant, Storm giant, Roc, purple worm, Tarrasque, Titan, 3 very big vermin. Non-dragon: 24 Dragon: 63 Likewise those with more than 300 HP: Tarrasque. 1 very big vermin. 48 dragons. These are from the 3rd Edition MM, not the 3.5 so some numbers change a little but are largely representative. 3rd edition harm is then aptly put "a dragon killer", were it not for the massive magical abilities of these creatures and SR, I would buy this argument. As it stands, harm 3rd edition is no worse than 3.5, and indeed 3.5 is worse because it's flat damage at level seen only in arcane 9th level spells (if that). (I have again, no pity for the epic people, only an idiot would design a book that works of of core rules and not adjust them in proportion for his supplementary rules. ) Eh, lets not forget about advanced creatures either. You can advance half the creatures on that list past 150 hp, not to mention NPC fighters, barbarians or even clerics. With 22 con, it's very easy for a 15th level NPC to have over 150 hit points. And remember you're talking average hit points too I assume, not max hp. Not every creature is going to have the average hit points, meaning a great deal of creatures that are above average are likely to survive 3.5 harm. And you haven't even gone to the MM2 or FF where creatures tend to have more hit points. And of course the ELH and epic NPCs which you absolutely have to ignore cause it's totally devastating to your case. Core rules are designed to be expanded. A spell that does not deal well with expansions is a bad spell. You can call one monster in an expansion book poorly designed, you can call certain elements of supplements broken, but to outright say that allowing any supplements whatsoever makes harm broken... that just shows how poorly designed the spell is in the first place. If a spell precludes the use of powerful creatures because it scales too much based on the target's strength, then that's a broken spell right there. Consider that most creatures you'll be fighting at level 15 and up, probably have more than 150 hit points, or at the very least have better chances to come out of the harm in better shape than they would be if hit with 3.0 harm. Remember they could very well make the save and take only 75 damage, it's not an instant 150, so maybe you should calculate how many CR 15 creatures exist wtih less than 75 hit points. I'm guessing almost none, especially given the 3.5 creature upgrades. Undead and constructs may fit in there, but then they are not affected by harm anyway. Sure most of the creatures in the monster manual don't have over 150 hit points, but characters capable of doing 150 damage with harm are fighting CR 15s and up... so lets not try to be statistics wizards and dress up percentages and stats to create illusions. If you want to talk about 15th level characters and up, then look at those monsters... don't look at 1st level goblins and try to prove a point, because they don't even matter. You drastically underrate 3.0 harm. It blows away 3.5 harm. Unless your DM throws weenie hordes at you almost exclusively... any time you get into any kind of battle against one big tough monster, 3.0 harm owns it, even if it's many times higher in CR.
Gothic_Demon 01-16-04, 08:22 AM	You drastically underrate 3.0 harm. It blows away 3.5 harm. Archtyrant Terevoth: That was the point. 3.0 Harm owns everything 100hp? 1000hp? Infinite hp? Not any more, now you have 1d4 hit points and you didn't get a save. 3.0 harm has been quoted in reference to 3.5 harm, which this thread is about. The issue is that 3.5 harm breaks all the conventions of damage dealing for spells, and it is suggested that 3.5 harm is also wildly superior to arcane damage spells of the same level, such as disintegrate. The 3.0 reference is that a spell which is save or die is approximately equivalent to a spell which has no save but reduces you to 1d4 hit points. Nobody underrates 3.0 harm, in fact that is hardly possible. 3.0 harm was possibly the most powerful spell in existence, certainly as far as damage dealing potential went. Even save or die spells paled in the presence of a spell that, with no save, could do infinity - 1d4 damage, because creatures of that magnitude of power have huge saves and would not likely fail saves against the spell.
Dalaeck 01-16-04, 10:54 AM	Originally posted by wdarkk 1) There is a _massive_ difference between 10 damage and d20 damage. It's called maximize spell. There's another one called empower spell. Stop saying they're the same, because it's wrong. Whatever you have in the metamagic arena harm has in item creation. In my game people actually carry around scrolls and stuff. 75 guaranteed damage from a scroll is pretty nice. Even a maximized empowered magic missile (level 6) does significantly less guaranteed damage. Heck even a maximized lightning bolt is only guaranteed 30 damage for the same level. Really the metamagic falls into the arena of a "cute trick". A maximized disintegrate (rod or otherwise) is roughly approaching the average damage of harm on a 50/50 chance to save. That's rather sad you know? It's a d20 damage spell that can't be used with the metamagic feats. Prefer that? I think you wouldn't even flip out if it had an actually labeled d20 damage... 3) Death is automatically greater than _any_ amount of damage. Yup, 3rd edition harm doesn't ever kill. Ever. 3.5 does, and judging from hit points of creatures, likely regularly. 4) 1d4 HP is death. If you actually believe the opposite, then you don't actually play 3.0 with an intelligent group. 3.5 harm deals death, 3rd edition harm doesn't. Aside from regeneration (like a pit-fiend), immunities (like a learnean hydra) and spells (like a titan using anti-magic field for instance, or the oft mentioned contingency) and etc... I've played with some pretty damn good players, never did they "wait for the harm to go off". They'de get slaughtered if the cleric rolls a poor initiative, and they know it. Harm was very usefull against many things. Not a game breaker. I don't see 3.5 harm any differently, only that it's more powerful rather than less as was originally intended (I presume!) for the standard game. Again, I don't care about 1000+ hp things from poorly designed expansion books. The people who wrote those should have known the game better rather then just writting.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-16-04, 10:58 AM	3.5 harm cannot kill anyone. From the SRD: Harm Necromancy Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: Will half; see text Spell Resistance: Yes 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. If used on an undead creature, harm acts like heal. Italics added by myself to point out the exact line.
Dalaeck 01-16-04, 11:22 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth Eh, lets not forget about advanced creatures either. You can advance half the creatures on that list past 150 hp, not to mention NPC fighters, barbarians or even clerics. Just scanning through my list of 15th level NPCs in the DMG I find the following: wizard 59 sorceror 59 rogue 70 ranger 102 paladin 102 monk 86 fighter 117 druid 86 cleric 101 bard 70 barbarian 132 Now I'll freely admit these guys are not extremely well built characters, but the assumption that NPC's with NPC wealth will have 150 hp+ is not very reasonable. Some may, with racial mods and such, but it's not very reasonable that everyone will, even fighters. With 22 con, it's very easy for a 15th level NPC to have over 150 hit points. Pardon?! From what?! a +6 item? that's 36 000 GP! He only has 59 000 to work with! Putting all his best score into con and improving it every level?! You know he starts with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 as scores. I don't think that's reasonable. You may have been playing too many power-games or something. 150 hitpoints is something you have to work for as an NPC. The PC will granted, very likely have it, not the NPC. You could certainly tailor one to have it (dwarf, minotaur whatever) but there are the elves you know... And remember you're talking average hit points too I assume, not max hp. Not every creature is going to have the average hit points, meaning a great deal of creatures that are above average are likely to survive 3.5 harm. The statistical spread in width on 15+ dice is very small. I'm amazed at how small it is sometimes. Havn't you ever rolled up a collosal scorpion? I remember both times I hit the average bang on and was most amused. And you haven't even gone to the MM2 or FF where creatures tend to have more hit points. And of course the ELH and epic NPCs which you absolutely have to ignore cause it's totally devastating to your case. None of which I'm concerned with either. Listen, if I have an expansion book designed in a desert like setting, where water is as precious as coin, then the first thing I hit is the 0th level create water spell and say "this doesn't work, in fact it's to be replaced by..." If I make an expansion book with 1000+ hp monstrosities then I had better damn well know that one 6th level spell can reduce them to piles of XP for the players. That's not the core rules fault, harm is fine in the core rules. That's the epic level handbook designer's fault, with exceedingly poor insight into the game. Consider that most creatures you'll be fighting at level 15 and up, probably have more than 150 hit points, or at the very least have better chances to come out of the harm in better shape than they would be if hit with 3.0 harm. CR 15: Glabrezu - 85 hp. Learnean hydra - immune. Good point. CR 14: Nightwing - immune. Trumpet arcon - 66 hp. 2 learnean hydra - all immune. Hezrou - 67 hp. Astral deva - 102. CR 16: Planetar - 133. Nalfeshnee - 93. Pit fiend - 123. Nightwalker - immune. So yeah... not a single bloody one. A 3.5 harm in a 3rd edition world would be definitely overpowered. Way overpowered. I don't own 3.5 (and never will) maybe you can post the list for comparison. You drastically underrate 3.0 harm. It blows away 3.5 harm. In a 3rd edition world, no, it's very fair, 3.5 harm would be worse, very much worse.
Dalaeck 01-16-04, 11:26 AM	Arioch, here's the actual emphasis: If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. Ergo, if it doesn't save, then the stipulation of not reducing the target's hitpoints to less than 1 does not apply. Please guys, even D agrees with me on this one.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-16-04, 11:30 AM	I'm not entirely sure about that intepretation, and I have no idea who this "D" person is. But I will look into that, if you are correct about your interpretation, then you are correct about it being overpowered. But I also think that 3.0 harm was overpowered.
Seeker95 01-16-04, 11:42 AM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th But I will look into that, if you are correct about your interpretation, then you are correct about it being overpowered. His interpretation is not correct. It simply furthers his agenda. He is the first person I have ever met that interprets the sentence the way he has described. His claim of others agreeing with him is misleading. Others have agreed with him that technically the dangling modifier is affected by the introductory condition under English grammar rules. Howver, harm, through three and a half editions of the game, has *never* been able to reduce its target below 1 hit point, and in this case, Dalaeck is trying to substitute grammar rules for history, consistency, and common understanding.
Unda Harvum 01-16-04, 11:49 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 His interpretation is not correct. It simply furthers his agenda. He is the first person I have ever met that interprets the sentence the way he has described. His claim of others agreeing with him is misleading. Others have agreed with him that technically the dangling modifier is affected by the introductory condition under English grammar rules. Howver, harm, through three and a half editions of the game, has *never* been able to reduce its target below 1 hit point, and in this case, Dalaeck is trying to substitute grammar rules for history, consistency, and common understanding. Seeker95, as I've said before on this thread I agree with Dalaeck on his interpretation of this one. Whether by intent or not, that's how the rule is written. Saying a spell does not work the way it's written, because it didn't work that way in earlier editions, is really not an argument. Especially not for someone as pro-3.5 as you. Dalaeck may be the first you have seen read the text this way; I've seen many others, and I actually thought it was agreed upon. Anyway, as I said in an earlier posting: the wording about the saving throw and not killing is terrible, no matter how you choose to interpret it.
Sir Pandemonium 01-16-04, 12:03 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 His interpretation is not correct. It simply furthers his agenda. He is the first person I have ever met that interprets the sentence the way he has described. His claim of others agreeing with him is misleading. Others have agreed with him that technically the dangling modifier is affected by the introductory condition under English grammar rules. Howver, harm, through three and a half editions of the game, has *never* been able to reduce its target below 1 hit point, and in this case, Dalaeck is trying to substitute grammar rules for history, consistency, and common understanding. Ehhhh..... That is not a very good definition to go by for the DnD hobby as a whole. It is fine to use precident in your own games, and groups. But for the whole, it is wise to use the letter of the "law." I mean, Disintegrate used to uterly destroy on a failed save for 2 edditions at least. (I am not certain about 1st.) Now it only does damage. (Enough to likely kill.... But not for certain.) 3.5 changed the intent of enough spells, that until otherwise corrected by WoTC themselves, it is wise to say that 3.5 Harm can kill on a failed save. At least for general discusions about the game. Feel free to alter that in your own game.
Shatteredtower 01-16-04, 12:17 PM	Originally posted by Kem Spell turning only affects spells that have you as a Target. Good point. Thank you.
Al2902 01-16-04, 01:38 PM	Sorry to post the same point twice, but rather than complaining about Harm, could its detractors (esp. Dalaeck) suggest what level 3.5 Harm ought to be. If it's supposedly too powerful, then should it be at 7th? 8th?
Dalaeck 01-16-04, 01:38 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Howver, harm, through three and a half editions of the game, has *never* been able to reduce its target below 1 hit point, and in this case, Dalaeck is trying to substitute grammar rules for history, consistency, and common understanding. Seeker, throughout 3 versions of the game druids never were able to turn other things into frogs but in 3.5 they can. Whether you like it or not, that's the way the spell is written. I would personally feel significantly warmer to 3.5 if it was closer to the previous versions of the game incidentally. But particularly in terms of spells, it's not. I won't comment on the "wisdom" of previous generations and the lack thereof of the current "designed game".
Count Arioch the 28th 01-16-04, 01:54 PM	You know, Dal, every time I start to like you, you bring that up again. 3.5 is far more like 3.0 then 3.0 was to 2.0. I don't think history has anything to do with it. Seeker: Regardless if it helps Daleack's Agenda, his interpreation could possibly correct. Whether it was due ot a legitimate change, or simply a poor wording, there is reasonable doubt, to the point that I have briefly considered his point of view, and have decided to look into his ruling. It may very well be correct. Now, if he's correct, I'm going to make it so it can't kill things, regardless of save. I don't care one whit about his, or anyone else's agenda, but I am willing to listen to legitimate rules debates regardless.
Zherog 01-16-04, 02:07 PM	I believe Dalaeck's interpretation of 3.5 Harm (as it is currently written) is correct. As others have said, whether or not that was the intent does not matter right now. Personally, I think it was intentional. It's a trade off. No longer can you do Infinity - 1d4 hit points of damage, but now you can cause something to die. If this is true, Harm changes from an opening round spell to one you have to use more tactically. You now have to withhold Harm until you think the amount of damage you will cause will drop the creature.
Raven Dark 01-16-04, 02:16 PM	Don't you need to target something with Disentigrate before you can blast it with a ray (I say this because of the "target" line in the spell's text) and doesn't this affect the Spell Turning spell?
J. Grenemyer 01-16-04, 02:47 PM	Hi everyone, Originally posted by Dalaeck So yeah... not a single bloody one. A 3.5 harm in a 3rd edition world would be definitely overpowered. Way overpowered. I don't own 3.5 (and never will) maybe you can post the list for comparison. Here are the same creatures listed in Dalaeck’s Hit Point comparison earlier in the thread, but with their adjusted 3.5 CR and 3.5 hit point totals: CR 13: Glabrezu 174 CR 14: Nightwing 144 CR 15: TRUMPET ARCHON 126 CR 11: Hezrou 138 CR 14: Astral Diva 102 (and SR 30) CR 16: Planetar 133 (and SR 30) CR 14: NALFESHNEE 174 CR 20: Pit Fiend 225 Below you’ll find the original list: Originally posted by Dalaeck CR 15: Glabrezu - 85 hp. Learnean hydra - immune. Good point. CR 14: Nightwing - immune. Trumpet arcon - 66 hp. 2 learnean hydra - all immune. Hezrou - 67 hp. Astral deva - 102. CR 16: Planetar - 133. Nalfeshnee - 93. Pit fiend - 123. Nightwalker - immune. From my POV it looks like that same list of creatures has much higher hit point totals. Digging a little deeper, we see that (for the most part) the 3.5 versions all have better saves as well. This, coupled with Spell Resistance and High HP totals makes for decent (if not good) survivability vs. 3.5 Harm. ;)
J. Grenemyer 01-16-04, 02:53 PM	Hello Raven Dark, Originally posted by Raven Dark Don't you need to target something with Disentigrate before you can blast it with a ray (I say this because of the "target" line in the spell's text) and doesn't this affect the Spell Turning spell? This tripped me up too. But, after reading Kem's earlier post, I see where I made my mistake. According to Spell Turning, it will not turn spells with "Effect" in their description. (The spell description includes this text: Effect and area spells are not affected.) In the description for Disintegrate, we find the following: Effect: Ray. Ergo, Spell Turning won’t stop Disintegrate. Personally, I find this to be counterintuitive. If someone Zaps you with a Ray spell, Spell Turning ought to send it back at them. But whether or not houseruling the spell to work this way breaks game balance is the subject of another thread. :)
Gothic_Demon 01-16-04, 02:53 PM	Raven Dark: I argued something about ray spells and split ray on this or another board, and argued over the Target: line, and CustServ basically said anything that requires only one target and isn't an area effect is a targetted spell, ie all rays are targetted spells. The major issue with spells is the poor semantics on most of them, as you can see here with harm and killing your opponent, or disintegrate and spell turning. EDIT: I don't know if it matters to anyone, but the text for spell turning hasn't changed from the 3.0 to the 3.5 editions, but the effect of many spells (turning them into Effect: Ray) spells has. This might explain the difference (and another thing that slipped past editting).
Seeker95 01-16-04, 03:42 PM	Originally posted by Zherog I believe Dalaeck's interpretation of 3.5 Harm (as it is currently written) is correct. As others have said, whether or not that was the intent does not matter right now. Intent matters completely. It is the intent that determines whether his interpretation is correct or not. We all agree that the grammatical wording would lead one to technically reach the same conclusion Dalaeck has reached. We also know that the designers have used poor wording throughout third edition (3.0 and 3.5 alike). Therefore, it is solely the intent of the designers that determines whether Dalaeck's interpretation of the wording is correct. Until the designers speak up and clarify, Dalaeck's game has harm potentially resulting in negative hit points on a failed save (not that he plays 3.5) and my game has harm never resulting in less than 1 hit point. The designer's intent determines which of us has the correct interpretation.
Sheer_FALACY 01-16-04, 04:21 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck The old wizard's advice is good only for actual D&D 3rd Edition. Why is everyone arguing with Dalaeck? I mean, since he probably means 3.0 despite 3.5 now being actual 3rd edition, he has essentially claimed that he is wrong, right in his sig.
Unda Harvum 01-16-04, 04:51 PM	Or rather: Until the designers show their actual intent by putting out some kind of errata, what is written in the core book stands. Anything else is a houserule - whatever you believe their intent was. And actually I agree with Zherog - I'm pretty sure the change was intentional. They didn't want Harm in it's 3.0 form, because it was a game breaker at high levels, and especially in Epic games. So they stopped this - but made it more powerful at lower levels. I think it's even possible Ed Stark said something to this effect in one of his 3.5 Revision articles in Dragon. I can't find that issue now, of course, but I think it would be somewhere about #307 or #308.
badger3k 01-16-04, 05:38 PM	Dragon 307, p61
J. Grenemyer 01-16-04, 05:52 PM	Hello Unda, Originally posted by Unda Harvum Until the designers show their actual intent by putting out some kind of errata, what is written in the core book stands. Of course, since what is written in the core books with regard to Harm is unclear to (seemingly) several people, I don't see how Harm can be said to "stand as written". Originally posted by Unda Harvum Anything else is a houserule - whatever you believe their intent was. With all due respect to you, Unda, I find your statement to be exceptionally insulting. It’s sad to see this attitude become so prevalent on message boards. After all, it implies that all rules are to be absolutely interpreted one -and only one- way, and that the concept of interpretation in general is no longer the caveat of the DM, particularly in instances such as Harm where the wording of a given rule is unclear. To state that any DM interpretation of a given rule is a houserule if said interpretation runs counter to the commonly held interpretation (within the Boards Community, for example) of that rule is to make a categorically false statement. For example: Within the context of my game, my interpretation as DM of any given rule is the final say on how a rule works, no matter the statements made by WotC, the Sage or any number of boards-frequenting armchair rules lawyers. For the record, I think Harm can kill you if you fail your save. But I won’t overstep myself and disrespect others by going so far as to tell everyone else their interpretation is wrong just because I happen to be part of the (presumably) more numerous group that thinks differently. Which is to say: Consensus does not confer authority. Sorry to rant! :)
Unda Harvum 01-16-04, 06:06 PM	Since Seeker95 himself agrees that the rules technically says one thing, but decides to rule otherwise, because he is sure of the actual intent - then I consider that houseruling. I'm not saying the spell is clearly written - actually I've said the opposite several times. So go ahead, and interpret it as you wish - and I won't even say you houseruled it. But if you actually say the rules say one thing, but decides to do differently - then that must be an act of houseruling. Not that there is anything wrong with houseruling - quite the opposite. The only problem occurs when you present your own houserule as being the gospel truth.
J. Grenemyer 01-16-04, 06:26 PM	Hi Unda, Originally posted by Unda Harvum But if you actually say the rules say one thing, but decides to do differently - then that must be an act of houseruling. Ah, I see now that I misenterpreted the context of your previous statement. I apologize for reacting so harshly. :sad: :D
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-16-04, 06:29 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck Now I'll freely admit these guys are not extremely well built characters, but the assumption that NPC's with NPC wealth will have 150 hp+ is not very reasonable. Some may, with racial mods and such, but it's not very reasonable that everyone will, even fighters. Yeah, and no DM is going to pull one of those NPCs out in an actual game. If he wants a good NPC he's going to have to build him. It's very possible for a 15th level NPC to hit 150 hit points, and almost guaranteed for a 20th level to do so. Consider that a 20th level with +5 to con is getting 100 hit points from con alone. Even a wizard is going to come close to that. You know he starts with 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 as scores. I don't think that's reasonable. You may have been playing too many power-games or something. 150 hitpoints is something you have to work for as an NPC. The PC will granted, very likely have it, not the NPC. This is a high level NPC and he can have any ability scores you as the DM want within the range of 3-18 modified by racial modifiers. DMs don't have to use the default array for NPCs, it's their option. They can use whatever stat creation method they want, and further if you throw on a template or make them a creature with a con bonus, you're pretty much guaranteed to break the 150 barrier. Very few NPCs should have so crappy stats. If you've lasted until level 15+, you're very good at what you do. You aren't as talented as the average NPC, you're extroadinary. Find me a major named NPC in any book that uses the default array... I think you'll find every famous NPC has huge stats. It isn't cheating to assign major NPCs big stats. There is after all no average 20th level archmagi or 20th level fighters. And hey, if you go by the wealth limitations for every NPC, then apparently no NPCs in your world own castles, or keeps, or probably even houses. Pretty harsh I'd say. The statistical spread in width on 15+ dice is very small. I'm amazed at how small it is sometimes. Havn't you ever rolled up a collosal scorpion? I remember both times I hit the average bang on and was most amused. Again, the DM could always just assign it more hit points, or make it advanced, giving it more hit dice. There are so many ways to make something have more than 150 hit points. None of which I'm concerned with either. Listen, if I have an expansion book designed in a desert like setting, where water is as precious as coin, then the first thing I hit is the 0th level create water spell and say "this doesn't work, in fact it's to be replaced by..." If I make an expansion book with 1000+ hp monstrosities then I had better damn well know that one 6th level spell can reduce them to piles of XP for the players. That's not the core rules fault, harm is fine in the core rules. That's the epic level handbook designer's fault, with exceedingly poor insight into the game. ANd what would you prefer them to do to compensate for 3.0 harm? Honestly, should every creature have an "immune to harm" tag on it? Doesn't that alone say that it's a terribly designed spell? You blame the makers of the ELH and the MM2 and all sorts of other expansions, but honestly what did you expect them to do? I suppose every monster supplement that made creatures with 300+ hit points for 3E was apparently broken. Oh wait, there's creatures like that in the regular MM too. Those have to be unbalanced too I guess. Come on look at what you're saying. I don't own 3.5 (and never will) maybe you can post the list for comparison. Already posted (thanks btw J. Grenemyer) so I won't bother rebutting that point. In a 3rd edition world, no, it's very fair, 3.5 harm would be worse, very much worse. And you still keep leaving off the point that you get a save for half against 3.5 harm. 3.0 denied you a save entirely, and gave you a death sentance no matter how good you were. You also keep glossing over the point that 3.0 harm annihilates dragons... it completely destroys them, and you're justifying it with the fact that dragons can somehow beat it... I'd be real curious as to what this foolproof defense entails. Remember that any defense the dragon throws up such as mirror image or displacement can easily be dispelled, and with 3.0 haste you can actually make a follow up attack to the harm personally. It's very hard for even a dragon to remain out of melee of high level characters, since very often the battle will be taking place in its cavernous lair. And if the cleric can teleport, things become a hell of a lot worse. Teleport + a harm (from haste) would get a dragon no matter how elusive it may be.
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-16-04, 06:36 PM	Originally posted by Gothic_Demon Nobody underrates 3.0 harm, in fact that is hardly possible. 3.0 harm was possibly the most powerful spell in existence, certainly as far as damage dealing potential went. Even save or die spells paled in the presence of a spell that, with no save, could do infinity - 1d4 damage, because creatures of that magnitude of power have huge saves and would not likely fail saves against the spell. Unless I'm completely misreading his points, Daeleck thinks that 3.5 harm is better than 3.0 harm. From what I see, apparently Daeleck's solution to the overpowered 3.5 harm spell is to replace it with the 3.0 spell which was even worse.
lanilifar 01-16-04, 07:54 PM	ANd what would you prefer them to do to compensate for 3.0 harm? I would be sure that Epic creatures have a decent Dex, and some form of deflection bonus. I would use cover. I would have Epic illusions that were not able to be penetrated by True Seeing. I might consider putting a cap on harm and heal of 500 hps. I might add a will save, allowing the creature to be placed at 2 hp/HD, or their current total, whichever is lower. There are a lot of things I could do if I was designing a book which went beyond the normal scope of the core rules. I haven't read my ELH in a long time (because I am not really fond of playing that high or of the book itself), but I am pretty sure it contained suggestions on certain spells like disntegrate in Epic play. They might even have a suggestion for Harm in it, but I don't know the book real well.
Seeker95 01-16-04, 09:01 PM	Originally posted by badger3k Dragon 307, p61 I just re-read the commentary occuring before the spell entry. It turns out the designers' intent was somewhere between what Dalaeck and I were interpretting. Harm causes a really decent amount of damage. In fact, as a 6th level spell, it does a minimum of 11th level caster points of damage (base). It grants a will save for half damage. If you fail this save, you are automatically taking *massive damage*. Harm doesn't let the massive damage kill you unless the actual damage would. It does massive damage, but does not kick in the actual massive damage rules directly. Dalaeck's interpretation is correct. My interpretation is incorrect. Harm can kill. Has anyone seen my hat? However, beginning at CR 11, there are a total of four creatures in the 3.5 MM with fewer hit points than an equal level cleric can deal with harm, and at least one of them is immune to magic. Even so, Dalaeck's interpretation is still right.
Veton 01-16-04, 10:17 PM	Dalaeck- One of your arugements about how 3.5 Harm is "broken" is that it forces a DC 15 Fortitude save against death from massive damage. You do realize that the 3.0 version, if you had 54 or more hit points, also forced a save?
Sheer_FALACY 01-16-04, 10:41 PM	Originally posted by Veton Dalaeck- One of your arugements about how 3.5 Harm is "broken" is that it forces a DC 15 Fortitude save against death from massive damage. You do realize that the 3.0 version, if you had 54 or more hit points, also forced a save? Actually, he doesn't realize it, because he doesn't think that hit point "loss" is the same as hit point "damage." Which of course means that damage from harm can't be healed, ever, since all healing only heals "damage."
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-16-04, 11:23 PM	Hit point loss is the same as damage in 3.0 Cure light wounds can restore hit points lost to harm, and guess what, cure light wounds repairs damage. It's right there in the spell descirption. So unless you want to go by the interpretation that harm "hit point loss" cannot be healed, then you have to concede that it deals damage. And hey if you want to say it's unhealable... then by all means do so... but that makes the 3.0 version even more broken.
Kem 01-17-04, 05:01 AM	Originally posted by Gothic_Demon [B]Raven Dark: I argued something about ray spells and split ray on this or another board, and argued over the Target: line, and CustServ basically said anything that requires only one target and isn't an area effect is a targetted spell, ie all rays are targetted spells. The major issue with spells is the poor semantics on most of them, as you can see here with harm and killing your opponent, or disintegrate and spell turning. Spell Turning Says "Effect and area spells", and in 3.5 it then goes on to say no ranged touch spells either. This completely discounts any possibility of allowing rays to be spell turned. Not only are they all Effect spells, but they are also all ranged touch spells. Basically, Cust Serv is wrong :) And usually the semantics aren't bad when they keep it simple, its when they try something fancy that they get all hot and bothered. Disintegrate and Spell Turning doesn't have an issue. Many other spells do.
Kem 01-17-04, 05:05 AM	EDIT: I don't know if it matters to anyone, but the text for spell turning hasn't changed from the 3.0 to the 3.5 editions, but the effect of many spells (turning them into Effect: Ray) spells has. This might explain the difference (and another thing that slipped past editting). Disintegrate and energy drain/eneveration have never been subject to spell turning in 3.0 or 3.5. Other rays may have changed into rays but those didn't.
WizO_Catoblepas 01-17-04, 09:35 AM	Ok everyone, let remember to keep the posts with respect to the subject matter of the thread, and not other guests on the boards. Thanks.
Dalaeck 01-19-04, 03:46 PM	Thank you J. Grenemyer, I don't have the list but I do have the SRD. Let's take a standard level 15 cleric vs. a 3.5 CR 14 monster, a Nalfeshnee demon. I’ve taken this monster by reason of it’s >150 hp, low SR and high saves. This is monster 3rd edition harm should excel at blowing away and 3.5 harm shouldn’t be so great at. Anyone interested can re-do all the calculations simply by plugging in different numbers and can draw their own comparison. Standard 4d6 drop 1 scores: 15,14,13,12,10,8. Let's likewise assume he has spell penetration, spell focus (conjurations), greater spell focus, craft rods and craft wondrous items, quicken spell. (still room for more feats like crafting arms and armor) 200 000 GP to work with, let's assume some pretty standard gear for 3.5: +6 periapt of wisdom (which he can likely craft) 18 000 GP. 2 orange ioun stones (likewise he can craft) 30 000 GP. Rod of quicken spell (normal) (likewise) 37 750 GP. A tome of clear thought +2 (55 000 GP) (plenty of GP for other things). Wisdom score is then: 15 + 3 (levels) + 6 (item) + 2 (inherent) = 26 Save DC: 10 + 6 spell level + 2 focus + 8 = 26 Against the 3.5 nalfeshnee, CR 14, SR 22, Will +15, 175 hp. Even his base to hit is +11 so he misses only 5% of the time, 95% success Caster level is 15+2+2= 19. He breaks SR then on a roll of a 3 or more, 85% of the time. Save is at +15 versus DC +26. Fails on a roll of 8 or less or 40% of the time. 1 spell against mr. (ms. ?) nalfeshnee deals the following damage: 0.85x(0.90x(0.4x150 +0.6x75) +0.05x0.95x(0.4x300 + 0.6x150)) = 88.8 average damage. 3rd edition harm: All things the same (including the monster!) but drop the orange ioun stones (don't exist) so drop the spell resistance 10% and use 3rd edition boots of speed instead of quicken rod . 1 spell against mr. nalfeshnee deals the following average damage: 0.75x0.95x171 = 121.8 average damage. So 3rd edition harm on average will deal more average damage to the critter per application (30% more). (everyone happy?) Now let’s look at the application of the spell in a breakdown: We need to break it up into the condition of the monster into many independent steps: Attack roll success/failure – spell resistance success/failure – fort save success/failure – will save success/failure There are 4 steps, 2 possible paths each 16 different combinations. Not quite 16 because some combinations override others, fort save failure means the thing is dead so no one cares if the will save is failed or successful. Spell resistance failure means the thing is unharmed, likewise the attack roll. We end up with merely 5 situations. Here goes: 3.5 harm: 5% attack roll failure - creature alive no damage 14.25% attack roll success, spell resistance not beaten (0.95x0.15) – creature alive no damage 4.0375% attack roll success, spell resistance beaten, fort save failed (0.95x0.85x0.05) – creature dead 46.0275% attack roll success, spell resistance beaten, fort save success, will save half (0.95x0.85x0.95x0.6) - creature alive with 100 hp. 30.685% attack roll success spell resistance beaten, fort save success, will save failed (0.95x0.85x0.95x0.4) – creature alive with 25 hp. Total is 100% and so I’ve done the math right. 3rd edition harm is as follows: 5% attack roll failure - creature alive no damage 14.25% attack roll success, spell resistance not beaten (0.95x0.15) – creature alive no damage 80.75% attack roll success, spell resistance beaten – creature at 1 hp. Now let’s look at it applied twice. 1st attack roll success – 1st spell resistance success – 1st fort save success – 1st will save success - 2nd attack roll success – 2nd spell resistance success – 2nd fort save success – 2nd will save success. That’s 8 different steps, 256 possible combinations. It’s of course not that many, because of the many overrides. Starting from “creature alive no damage”, at 19.25% you then get the same distribution as the first pass, 19.25% of it being unharmed, 4.0375% chance of it dying outright, etc… The total probability then is 3.7% (0.1925x0.1925) - creature alive no damage 0.77% (0.1925x0.040375) – creature dead 8.86% (0.1925x0.460275) – creature alive with 100 hp 5.9% (0.1925x0.30685) – creature alive with 25 hp 4.037 % “creature dead” from previous application Starting from “creature alive with 100 hp” at 46.0275% you get the same distribution but if the will save fails then the creature dies. 8.8% (0.46027x0.1925) - creature alive at 100 hp 1.85% (0.46027x0.040375) – creature dead 21.1% (0.46027x0.460275) – creature alive with 25 hp 14.2% (0.46027x0.30685) – creature dead Starting from “creature alive with 25 hp” at 30.685 % you get the following: 5.9% (0.30685x0.1925) - creature alive at 25 hp 1.23% (0.30685x0.040375) – creature dead 14.1% (0.30685x0.460275) – creature alive with 1 hp 9.4% (0.30685x0.30685) – creature dead Adding them all up we get the following condition summary after 2 applications of 3.5 harm: 3.7% Creature alive no damage 17.76% Creature alive at 100 hp 33% Creature alive at 25 hp 14.1% Creature alive at 1 hp 31.4% Creature dead (Total is 99.8% reasonable within rounding errors) Let’s assume that you use 3rd edition harm now, in quick succession with a touch attack spell that deals minimum 14 damage (I don’t know any clerical spell that fits the bill but sure, let’s just assume). If the 1st harm fails you try harm again of course. If it succeeds you go for the attack. 3rd edition harm applied twice leads to a reapplication of the previous piece: 3.7% (0.1925x0.1925) Creature alive no damage. 15.74% (0.1925x0.8075) Creature alive at 1 hp 5% Creature alive at 1 hp (touch attack killing spell attack roll failed) 14.25% (0.95x0.15) Creature alive at 1hp (touch attack killing spell doesn’t beat SR) 61.31% Creature dead Is this a “huge difference”? Well yes, in 3rd edition harm coupled with some damage was almost twice as good as killing it with 3.5 harm alone. For something with more than 225 hp 3.5 harm drops in effectiveness rather sharply while 3rd edition harm stays the same. Now here’s the critical piece: For any monster, either through injury or from just not having more than 150 hp 3.5 harm is murder compared to 3rd edition harm. In the case of this Nalfeshnee’s saves and SR that would be 34.7% of the time in the first spell. If the nalfeshnee takes a single good sword or spell hit, dropping him to less than 150, after two applications of 3.5 harm his chances are 0.57% of dying (1- 0.347x0.347 = 0.57), roughly the same as two applications of 3rd edition harm. (And there weren’t any orange ioun stones back then…) It is more deadly on first application, and equally as deadly upon second. This spell really hasn’t been “nerfed” at all, certainly not in the inhuman fashion disintegrate was. It’s no longer a dragon killer, doesn’t drop silly “epic” monsters in but a touch and a hit, but it’s still extremely deadly for the standard game. The purported “nerf” doesn’t really exist. In many many cases, it’s even better than 3rd edition harm.
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-19-04, 08:59 PM	OK, I'm going to say this one more time... 3.0 harm was absolutely stupid. There was no point damaging the thing in 3.0 until you harmed it, and then it was a 1 shot kill. 3.0 harm was only balanced if you selectively reduced your target set to something that made it balanced... which is bad design for an RPG. You couldn't use big hp creatures... you just couldn't, or 3.0 harm would be unbalanced. So 3.0 harm is totally unnacceptable. If you want to say 3.5 harm is too powerful, then fine... but present a more balanced alternative than 3.0 harm, because 3.0 harm was lame. Worst spell design ever. What if you simply house ruled 3.5 harm so it can't kill. The most it could reduce something to is 1 hit point... you'd say that's balanced wouldn't you, Delaeck? It's certainly a much better solution than bringing back the god awful incarnation of epic stupidity that 3.0 harm is.
Zherog 01-19-04, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by Daleack Let’s assume that you use 3rd edition harm now, in quick succession with a touch attack spell that deals minimum 14 damage (I don’t know any clerical spell that fits the bill but sure, let’s just assume). One of the Inflict spells would certainly fit the bill. Inflict Critical I suppose, would be the most likely.
Dalaeck 01-19-04, 10:13 PM	The simplest solution is to return the mechanic to what it was in 2E: not a touch attack, an attack versus the total AC of the creature. Coupled with SR that would solve all the world's worries rather than jumping about with all sorts of "sorta fixes that arn't really".
Sir Pandemonium 01-19-04, 10:47 PM	Hmmm...... Dalaeck, you are finally sounding reasonable. :P Make Harm (and I assume only Harm) a non-touch attack spell.... Without attempting to tear appart your thought, how do you justify that in the game system? Only one spell that is a touch range spell, that is not a touch attack spell? Or are you suggesting changing all touch attack spells to non-touch attack? (This would include rays BTW.) If you are talking about only Harm, then I cry foul. If you are suggesting across the board, then I will have to think on it. But on the surface it sounds reasonable.
Veton 01-19-04, 10:48 PM	Originally posted by Dalaeck The simplest solution is to return the mechanic to what it was in 2E: not a touch attack, an attack versus the total AC of the creature. Coupled with SR that would solve all the world's worries rather than jumping about with all sorts of "sorta fixes that arn't really". Wait, wait...you're arguing that the spell is NOT broken as it's written. Yet you need to houserule something to balance it? As for the calculations, it doesn't really matter. Hit Points meant squat with 3.0 Harm. Like so many people have said, it didn't matter if you had 10, 100, 1000, or even 10,938,598,327,598,317,418 HP. You always got brought down to the same amount. At least now, with 3.5 Harm, it actually matters how many hit points you have. Although I do agree with you on the Harm being able to kill issue. I seriously hope that's an error.
Dalaeck 01-19-04, 11:44 PM	People don't want this spell to kill their 9000 hp monstrosities. It doesn't matter that they come from alternate sources which could have had better writters (or a specific better writter...). People don't want it. Likewise some people don't like dragons having a weakness spell. 3rd edition harm could tear one up really good if you ever got it off on them. The simple solution is, yes, to make "harm" different than other spells. Make the cleric imbue his weapon with the negative energy. To trigger the spell he needs to score a hit with the weapon. This allows a cleric with preparation and smarts to have a good chance of hurting something with high natural armor: he needs to cast a pile of spells like divine power, divine favor, righteous might, buff spells... but he can hit that dragon if he tries hard enough. I don't have a problem with harm in 3rd edition, I use it as written. The only thing it really threatens in my game is the purple worm - one of my favorite monsters - but they hit at level 12 and are solitary as it stands. The cleric may have harm prepped, he may not. (With so few 6th level spells at that level). I've never had a dragon die or be significantly injured by harm. I've had a simalcrum dragon at half hp be ruined by it, but not the real thing. I use dragons quite often. I havn't tailored my dragons in any real way to avoid it. They try to avoid physical damage through feats like expertise and simple spells like shield that grant cover as well as fighting in fog, smoke, brimstone, swamps, etc... Your best bet against a dragon run by me is either: A- run B- massive repeated reflex save evocations
Archtyrant Terevoth 01-20-04, 12:38 AM	I've never had a dragon die or be significantly injured by harm. I've had a simalcrum dragon at half hp be ruined by it, but not the real thing. I use dragons quite often. I havn't tailored my dragons in any real way to avoid it. So what do your barbarians do then? Nobody ever melees a dragon? That's gotta be pretty disappointing for everyone except wizards and archers. And I don't doubt dragons are tough to beat when you take away harm, because with 3.0 heal (another broken spell), they're basically impossible to beat. The only chance is to get a lucky ranged save or die.
Kem 01-20-04, 03:28 AM	Originally posted by Dalaeck The simplest solution is to return the mechanic to what it was in 2E: not a touch attack, an attack versus the total AC of the creature. Coupled with SR that would solve all the world's worries rather than jumping about with all sorts of "sorta fixes that arn't really". Which is funny because in 1e/2e we had houseruled that it was a touch attack and not against the total AC of the armor. If that wasn't the normal rule, I'll have to thank my father for playing it that way lol :)
J. Grenemyer 01-26-04, 01:15 AM	Hello Everyone, Re: Dragon Magazine #315 (in stores now). This just in from the Sage: Save or no save, Harm cannot take you below 1 hit point. The Massive Damage Rules apply to Harm. Noted that creatures with 51 or more HP are susceptible to Massive Damage Rule, while characters with less than 51 HP are "immune". Gave optional rules to handle this situation. Please feel free to discuss, but let's keep attacks against the Sage out of the thread. After what happened to the Novel Boards (they were closed) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=170112&perpage=30&pagenumber=1), we don't need the same thing happening here because of Designer Bashing. :D