"Harmful spell" - what does it imply? [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Harmful spell" - what does it imply? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
zstinger
12-08-06, 12:15 AM http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm

I had this debate with my DM over the connotation of the word "harmful spell" in the spell description for 3rd Level Cleric spell: Glyph of warding.

Spell Glyph

You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know.

My DM insists that a harmful spell has to be damaging (ie. HP loss and possibly also ability point damage) or something that will disrupt invisibility. He does not think that debuffs such as silence (was also thinking of darkness) qualifies as a harmful spell.

Hence I thought I should post here and find out the what's the consensus within the community on the connotations of "harmful" as a descriptor. Any comments please?
Neutronium_Dragon
12-08-06, 12:20 AM Any spell which a reasonable individual probably would not wish to be subjected to is likely a harmful spell.

A harmful spell does not need to inflict damage to be harmful. A spell which hinders a target is considered to be harmful too, at least assuming that the effect encompasses them in some direct or immediate fashion. (Putting a Wall of Stone in front of someone isn't harmful, but casting Rock to Mud on the ground they're standing on is.)
Newpaintbrush
12-08-06, 12:32 AM I agree with your DM, but there is a lot of latitude for abuse with this spell. Frankly, I do not feel that there is an ABSOLUTELY definitive answer. But I think that in cases in which there is no definitive answer, the players are obliged to follow the ruling of the DM. Remember the DM doesn't have to be "right"; the DM is the DM, and can pretty much run things however he/she wants; that's the prerogative of the DM (since the DM takes the time to set up adventures instead of playing).

Technically -

You can store a "Cure Light Wounds" spell on the spell glyph, and set it to go off on undead. It is harmful.

You can store a "Summon Monster II" spell on the spell glyph (which is not normally damaging), but the Glyph of Warding makes the monsters attack.

I personally, as a DM, would rule AGAINST Glyph of Warding being able to pull a "Darkness" or another spell out, because there are FAR too many ways to abuse the spell. You could make the argument that any number of buff spells were indirectly harmful, then you could have your fighter carry around a little box with a Spell Glyph with "Silence" on it; whenever you ran into a spellcaster, the fighter could open the box and POOF, Silence.

That is to say, if you use Glyph of Warding for anything but directly damaging spells, it's something like giving clerics a Contingency spell (a SIXTH level Wizard spell) that they can pass around to other players (even Contingency is limited to the wizard him/herself). Limited to third level and costs 200 GP, but that's chump change considering the utility of a third level clerical spell that has no limitations or increased price based on caster level.

So since there is tremendous potential for abuse, I would not allow Glyphs of Warding to even cast "Cure" spells unless the undead type was specified during the creation of the glyph.

(edit) - there is SOME latitude because the term "harmful" is vague, but I believe that the utility that can be gained from casting non-direct-damaging spells based on a simple condition (similar, but in many ways better to, the 6th level wizard "Contingency" spell) makes the spell FAR too abusable for a 3rd level spell. Thus, I would rule AGAINST it, even though I applaud a good exploitative thinking. (/edit)
zstinger
12-08-06, 02:44 AM Newpaintbrush,

I appreciate your concerns about game balance. However according to the text on srd,

Spell Glyph

You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph. If the spell has a target, it targets the intruder. If the spell has an area or an amorphous effect the area or effect is centered on the intruder. If the spell summons creatures, they appear as close as possible to the intruder and attack. Saving throws and spell resistance operate as normal, except that the DC is based on the level of the spell stored in the glyph.

creature summoning spells are already explicitly allowed. Another version of the spell "Blast Glyph" already gives the option to have the ward deal direct damage in most energy forms: fire, acid, cold, electricity and even sonic (less negative/positive energy). Why then, make another version of the glyph that, if interpreted in your way, does the same thing as blasting glyph (now you can do positive/negative dmg and not just the 5 types mentioned before) I feel that the spell glyph was written to give an alternative to the direct dmg of the blasting glyph. You are right that "harmful" is vague, but fact is that "damaging" is very specific and the text could have adopted that wording if it was the intent of the spell.

In addition, I feel that your comparison to the contingency spell to be rather unfair. The glyph restricts the spell to be 3rd lvl or below. However contingency grants a spell of a lvl as high as lvl 6. Imbue with spell ability, a mere lvl 4 spell, grants spellcasting (as many as 3 low lvl spells) to a target. Where then, is the imbalance in say having your fighter carry around a little box with a Spell Glyph with "Silence" on it? He gains an edge in combat against a wizards, but it's not something your team cleric can't help with in the first place (by casting silence on the fighter's weapon). The only difference is that the fighter can execute it without the help of the cleric like a charge from a wand.

Silence is a lvl 2 spell. A scroll of silence is 150 gp and a potion/oil, if it exists, would be 300gp. It does not have to be silence, it is just an example of a low lvl "debuff". The spell text imo has effectively restricted potential "abuse" of the spell by setting a 200gp cost and a spell lvl cap.
Nom
12-08-06, 05:39 AM Harmful spell = anything that doesn't have the "harmless" descriptor?
risner
12-08-06, 11:12 AM Hence I thought I should post here and find out the what's the consensus within the community on the connotations of "harmful" as a descriptor. Any comments please?

I think the RAW meaning is the spell doesn't have "Harmless" in the SR and/or Save boxes.

Void of the words "Harmless", makes the spell harmful.

In any event, your DM is right (in his world) if he wishes to rule it the way he did.
Vegepygmy
12-09-06, 02:07 AM In any event, your DM is right (in his world) if he wishes to rule it the way he did.Nah, he's still wrong. He's just wrong with the power to enforce his will. :)
zstinger
12-09-06, 10:28 AM I really intended this to be a rules interpretation discussion rather than a debate about DM rights. There really shouldn't be a problem with the player trying to engage his DM in healthy debate. I'd appreciate that you guys do not take sides immediately and simply consider the spell's intended effect. I'd have posted in "What's a player to do" section if I wanted to complain about my DM.

"Harmless" in the SR and/or Save boxes. The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question.
risner
12-09-06, 01:24 PM The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question.

We shall agree to disagree.
Vegepygmy
12-09-06, 06:05 PM The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question.You don't think a spell's designation as "harmless" (or not) is relevant to the question of whether a spell is considered "harmful"?

:confused: Are you kidding?
zstinger
12-09-06, 09:26 PM Sorry risner/vegepygmy,

Went to look at it a bit closer, I think I was wrong in my claim.
redraven
12-09-06, 09:53 PM That is to say, if you use Glyph of Warding for anything but directly damaging spells, it's something like giving clerics a Contingency spell (a SIXTH level Wizard spell) that they can pass around to other players (even Contingency is limited to the wizard him/herself). Limited to third level and costs 200 GP, but that's chump change considering the utility of a third level clerical spell that has no limitations or increased price based on caster level.
I find the analogy to Contingency lacking.

Even if the Cleric gives a box sealed with Glyph of Warding tagged with Silence to the Fighter, the Fighter still has to (A) retrieve the box when faced with a wizard (a move-action at best), and (B) open the box to activate the spell targeting himself (another move-action). A potion of Silence is probably 300 gp, and can be crafted for less while the Glyph is always 200 gp. Meanwhile, a Contingency does not take any actions at all to come into effect, in addition to including another three spell levels' worth of power. That seems like a perfectly reasonable difference in power between a 3rd and 6th level spell.

As to what is "harmful," I would rule that all spells are harmful unless they include the "harmless" tag on their saving throw/SR lines as others have pointed out. The reasoning being that unless the RAW term "harmful" is a defined mechanic, the text becomes meaningless. After all, who is to say that Silence is "harmful" to a Fighter compared to a Wizard? What if a spell would normally be harmful (say, Fireball), but then an Iron Golem triggers the Glyph? Does it trigger normally? What if you cast a Glyph keyed to Fireball for the express purpose of healing an Iron Golem? Would that work?

In any case, either the line "harmful spells" refers to spells that are not expressly defined as being Harmless, or you enter a nebulous field of subjective clauses and definitions while simultaneously leaving RAW at the door.
AegisShade
12-09-06, 10:25 PM Easiest solution I could find was the Vow of Nonviolence feat from page 47 of Book of Exalted Deeds:
Special: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes. You may not deal real or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, pain effects, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death, suffering, or great harm.So working inversely, any of those effects are alright by the Glyph of Warding spell.

I would have to disagree that a purge invisibility spell can be labeled as "harmful." It may lead to a harmful situation (such as monsters being able to see the intruder), but it in itself isn't that bad.

To say that it is harmful is to liken a mage hand spell to being harmful. Made up scenario: you could use it to flick a sleeping dragon while a rogue is trying to sneak past it. Circumstance would deem it a very malicious use of the spell, but it causes no direct harm to anyone.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
zstinger 12-08-06, 12:15 AM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm I had this debate with my DM over the connotation of the word "harmful spell" in the spell description for 3rd Level Cleric spell: Glyph of warding. Spell Glyph You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. My DM insists that a harmful spell has to be damaging (ie. HP loss and possibly also ability point damage) or something that will disrupt invisibility. He does not think that debuffs such as silence (was also thinking of darkness) qualifies as a harmful spell. Hence I thought I should post here and find out the what's the consensus within the community on the connotations of "harmful" as a descriptor. Any comments please?
Neutronium_Dragon 12-08-06, 12:20 AM	Any spell which a reasonable individual probably would not wish to be subjected to is likely a harmful spell. A harmful spell does not need to inflict damage to be harmful. A spell which hinders a target is considered to be harmful too, at least assuming that the effect encompasses them in some direct or immediate fashion. (Putting a Wall of Stone in front of someone isn't harmful, but casting Rock to Mud on the ground they're standing on is.)
Newpaintbrush 12-08-06, 12:32 AM	I agree with your DM, but there is a lot of latitude for abuse with this spell. Frankly, I do not feel that there is an ABSOLUTELY definitive answer. But I think that in cases in which there is no definitive answer, the players are obliged to follow the ruling of the DM. Remember the DM doesn't have to be "right"; the DM is the DM, and can pretty much run things however he/she wants; that's the prerogative of the DM (since the DM takes the time to set up adventures instead of playing). Technically - You can store a "Cure Light Wounds" spell on the spell glyph, and set it to go off on undead. It is harmful. You can store a "Summon Monster II" spell on the spell glyph (which is not normally damaging), but the Glyph of Warding makes the monsters attack. I personally, as a DM, would rule AGAINST Glyph of Warding being able to pull a "Darkness" or another spell out, because there are FAR too many ways to abuse the spell. You could make the argument that any number of buff spells were indirectly harmful, then you could have your fighter carry around a little box with a Spell Glyph with "Silence" on it; whenever you ran into a spellcaster, the fighter could open the box and POOF, Silence. That is to say, if you use Glyph of Warding for anything but directly damaging spells, it's something like giving clerics a Contingency spell (a SIXTH level Wizard spell) that they can pass around to other players (even Contingency is limited to the wizard him/herself). Limited to third level and costs 200 GP, but that's chump change considering the utility of a third level clerical spell that has no limitations or increased price based on caster level. So since there is tremendous potential for abuse, I would not allow Glyphs of Warding to even cast "Cure" spells unless the undead type was specified during the creation of the glyph. (edit) - there is SOME latitude because the term "harmful" is vague, but I believe that the utility that can be gained from casting non-direct-damaging spells based on a simple condition (similar, but in many ways better to, the 6th level wizard "Contingency" spell) makes the spell FAR too abusable for a 3rd level spell. Thus, I would rule AGAINST it, even though I applaud a good exploitative thinking. (/edit)
zstinger 12-08-06, 02:44 AM	Newpaintbrush, I appreciate your concerns about game balance. However according to the text on srd, Spell Glyph You can store any harmful spell of 3rd level or lower that you know. All level-dependent features of the spell are based on your caster level at the time of casting the glyph. If the spell has a target, it targets the intruder. If the spell has an area or an amorphous effect the area or effect is centered on the intruder. If the spell summons creatures, they appear as close as possible to the intruder and attack. Saving throws and spell resistance operate as normal, except that the DC is based on the level of the spell stored in the glyph. creature summoning spells are already explicitly allowed. Another version of the spell "Blast Glyph" already gives the option to have the ward deal direct damage in most energy forms: fire, acid, cold, electricity and even sonic (less negative/positive energy). Why then, make another version of the glyph that, if interpreted in your way, does the same thing as blasting glyph (now you can do positive/negative dmg and not just the 5 types mentioned before) I feel that the spell glyph was written to give an alternative to the direct dmg of the blasting glyph. You are right that "harmful" is vague, but fact is that "damaging" is very specific and the text could have adopted that wording if it was the intent of the spell. In addition, I feel that your comparison to the contingency spell to be rather unfair. The glyph restricts the spell to be 3rd lvl or below. However contingency grants a spell of a lvl as high as lvl 6. Imbue with spell ability, a mere lvl 4 spell, grants spellcasting (as many as 3 low lvl spells) to a target. Where then, is the imbalance in say having your fighter carry around a little box with a Spell Glyph with "Silence" on it? He gains an edge in combat against a wizards, but it's not something your team cleric can't help with in the first place (by casting silence on the fighter's weapon). The only difference is that the fighter can execute it without the help of the cleric like a charge from a wand. Silence is a lvl 2 spell. A scroll of silence is 150 gp and a potion/oil, if it exists, would be 300gp. It does not have to be silence, it is just an example of a low lvl "debuff". The spell text imo has effectively restricted potential "abuse" of the spell by setting a 200gp cost and a spell lvl cap.
Nom 12-08-06, 05:39 AM	Harmful spell = anything that doesn't have the "harmless" descriptor?
risner 12-08-06, 11:12 AM	Hence I thought I should post here and find out the what's the consensus within the community on the connotations of "harmful" as a descriptor. Any comments please? I think the RAW meaning is the spell doesn't have "Harmless" in the SR and/or Save boxes. Void of the words "Harmless", makes the spell harmful. In any event, your DM is right (in his world) if he wishes to rule it the way he did.
Vegepygmy 12-09-06, 02:07 AM	In any event, your DM is right (in his world) if he wishes to rule it the way he did.Nah, he's still wrong. He's just wrong with the power to enforce his will. :)
zstinger 12-09-06, 10:28 AM	I really intended this to be a rules interpretation discussion rather than a debate about DM rights. There really shouldn't be a problem with the player trying to engage his DM in healthy debate. I'd appreciate that you guys do not take sides immediately and simply consider the spell's intended effect. I'd have posted in "What's a player to do" section if I wanted to complain about my DM. "Harmless" in the SR and/or Save boxes. The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question.
risner 12-09-06, 01:24 PM	The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question. We shall agree to disagree.
Vegepygmy 12-09-06, 06:05 PM	The "harmless" refers to the voided effects on the target if it saves or resists the spell. I do not think this is really relevant to the question.You don't think a spell's designation as "harmless" (or not) is relevant to the question of whether a spell is considered "harmful"? :confused: Are you kidding?
zstinger 12-09-06, 09:26 PM	Sorry risner/vegepygmy, Went to look at it a bit closer, I think I was wrong in my claim.
redraven 12-09-06, 09:53 PM	That is to say, if you use Glyph of Warding for anything but directly damaging spells, it's something like giving clerics a Contingency spell (a SIXTH level Wizard spell) that they can pass around to other players (even Contingency is limited to the wizard him/herself). Limited to third level and costs 200 GP, but that's chump change considering the utility of a third level clerical spell that has no limitations or increased price based on caster level. I find the analogy to Contingency lacking. Even if the Cleric gives a box sealed with Glyph of Warding tagged with Silence to the Fighter, the Fighter still has to (A) retrieve the box when faced with a wizard (a move-action at best), and (B) open the box to activate the spell targeting himself (another move-action). A potion of Silence is probably 300 gp, and can be crafted for less while the Glyph is always 200 gp. Meanwhile, a Contingency does not take any actions at all to come into effect, in addition to including another three spell levels' worth of power. That seems like a perfectly reasonable difference in power between a 3rd and 6th level spell. As to what is "harmful," I would rule that all spells are harmful unless they include the "harmless" tag on their saving throw/SR lines as others have pointed out. The reasoning being that unless the RAW term "harmful" is a defined mechanic, the text becomes meaningless. After all, who is to say that Silence is "harmful" to a Fighter compared to a Wizard? What if a spell would normally be harmful (say, Fireball), but then an Iron Golem triggers the Glyph? Does it trigger normally? What if you cast a Glyph keyed to Fireball for the express purpose of healing an Iron Golem? Would that work? In any case, either the line "harmful spells" refers to spells that are not expressly defined as being Harmless, or you enter a nebulous field of subjective clauses and definitions while simultaneously leaving RAW at the door.
AegisShade 12-09-06, 10:25 PM	Easiest solution I could find was the Vow of Nonviolence feat from page 47 of Book of Exalted Deeds: Special: To fulfill your vow, you must not cause harm or suffering to humanoid or monstrous humanoid foes. You may not deal real or ability damage to such foes through spells or weapons, though you may deal nonlethal damage. You may not target them with death effects, disintegrate, pain effects, or other spells that have the immediate potential to cause death, suffering, or great harm.So working inversely, any of those effects are alright by the Glyph of Warding spell. I would have to disagree that a purge invisibility spell can be labeled as "harmful." It may lead to a harmful situation (such as monsters being able to see the intruder), but it in itself isn't that bad. To say that it is harmful is to liken a mage hand spell to being harmful. Made up scenario: you could use it to flick a sleeping dragon while a rogue is trying to sneak past it. Circumstance would deem it a very malicious use of the spell, but it causes no direct harm to anyone.