Can Harm kill? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can Harm kill? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Derren S.
11-30-03, 04:46 AM Multiple times I have heard that "Harm can kill with a passed save".
Is this really official, or , which I think is more likely, the interpreation of some ruleslawyer who have great fun in twisting rules?

I just can't imagine that a spell would be better when it is aved against than when not.
ManTimeForgot
11-30-03, 04:58 AM Uh... No you have heard 100% incorrectly. No one, at least that I know of, has ever stated that harm can kill on a successful save. The language of 3.5 harm explicitly forbids killing on a successful save. However, 3.5 harm does allow for the possibility that it kills on a failed save. I am inclined to believe it does, but some continue to argue that it does not, despite of the rules of english syntax.

Thank You all and have a nice day.
Signed,
The Man Time Forgot
murte
11-30-03, 08:23 AM Harm can never take the target to below 1 hp if living and never over max hp if undead. Even if the Save is made and the target only has 10 hp left, they will only take 9 hp damage regardless of amount actually inflicted.
Nagol
11-30-03, 10:04 AM From the SRD 3.5
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.

Note that the limit of 1 hit point minimum applies to the successful saving throw only.

Harm can kill if the save is failed.
ender
12-11-03, 06:58 PM While I agree that the specific verbiage implies that harm can kill on a failed save, this seems to be a case of misleading sentence structure.

Harm was originally, in its 1st ed. incarnation, the reverse of heal, which repaired all damage except 1-4 hp. Therefore harm drained all hp except for 1-4. But it could not possibly kill anyone outright.

Since there is a great deal of continuity between the intent of 3.5 and its earlier incarnations (even if the actual form has changed drastically), I would argue that harm cannot kill on a failed save: it will only drain the target down to 1 hp.
Edymnion
12-11-03, 07:08 PM Originally posted by murte
Harm can never take the target to below 1 hp if living and never over max hp if undead. Even if the Save is made and the target only has 10 hp left, they will only take 9 hp damage regardless of amount actually inflicted. Intent aside, that simply isn't what the spell says. It cleary says it does 10 points of damage per caster level, max 150. Period. It then starts a new sentance which stays that on a successful save, damage is halved, and cannot go below 1. Those are two seperate sentances, and the 1hp rule clearly applies only to the sentance it is included in.

Effects of the spell are give, 10 points of damage per level.
Then, if they pass their save, half damage, can't drop below 1hp.

3.5 Harm can indeed kill an opponent if they fail their saves. The intentions of the writers are irrelavent when it comes to pure rules. In an RPGA tournament game, they must go by the exact letter of the rules, and thats the way the spell is written, that is the legal use of the spell. Just don't fail your save ;)
Tehril
12-11-03, 07:59 PM It's not the intent of the spell (not being able to kill).

That was the 3.0 intent. The 3.5 intent is extremely clear.

Harm has been extensively re-tooled. In 3.0, Harm has no save and reduced you to 1-4 hit points in the blink of an eye... but it couldn't kill.

In 3.5, it has a save and does a set amount of damage. This is HUGELY weaker than it used to be... but with one redeeming point. Harm can now kill. Other 5th level spells can cause death... what is so unreasonable with Harm causing death? It's little more than a high powered Cause X Wounds spell...just as Heal is a high powered Cure X Wounds spells.

If you don't like the 3.5 version, then use the 3.0
Sir Pandemonium
12-12-03, 04:52 AM I would like to reiterate Derren S.'s initial question.

Is this "official?"

I understand the interpretations of the spell. Both sides actually. All I want to know is if it is official.

Can someone link, or at least point, to a FAQ, or Sage Advice, or anything that makes it official? (For non-RPGA events that is.)
Nagol
12-12-03, 10:08 AM Therefore the "official" line must be follow what the spell description says.

Deal 10 x level damage

Save reduces damage to half with a floor of 1 hit point.
ruleslawyer
12-12-03, 02:09 PM Interestingly enough, death ward now explicitly wards against harm, so maybe it's not so unbalanced as a save-or-die.
raistlin_devreault
12-12-03, 02:39 PM HArm can kill! not the spell itself but the spell effect.

Ex: Last game, we were fighting a Demon in City of Spider Queen.. That demon had an aura of magic or something, 3d6 damage i think.

She cast Harm on fighter, fail save, reduce to 3hp.. beginning of round, take damage from aura, drop to -13...

That's how HARM can kill
Joe Gold
12-12-03, 07:27 PM I believe one of the designers, back on the 3.5 board, confirmed that Harm can now kill on a failed save.
Sir Ferdinand
12-13-03, 01:41 PM I also thought that you can't kill with Harm, but people showed me the right way. Harm can kill if the save is failed.
da chicken
12-13-03, 01:58 PM "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."

My reading is that the spell will never reduce a creature below 1 hp, regardless of whether or not a save is made. However, Edymnion's argument that the 1 hp clause only applies if you save is another valid interpretation. The word "but" is what adds all the interpretive nonsense. If it were "and" it would clearly only apply to successful saves, and if it were a different sentence it would clearly apply to the whole spell.

In any case, harm almost always triggers a death-from-massive-damage save (minimum of 55 damage on a successful save), so it can indeed kill.
Edymnion
12-13-03, 02:08 PM Originally posted by Joe Gold
I believe one of the designers, back on the 3.5 board, confirmed that Harm can now kill on a failed save. Yeah, they did. And the official ruling is always the exact letter of the rules as written, unless there is an errata, which overrides the printed version, and is still treated to the letter.

For it to work regardless of save, the 1hp clause would either need to be "in either case..." or to have it's own sentance. By the way it is worded now, Harm is a Save or Die spell, and potentially a Die Even If You Save spell.

Don't worry though, when compared to what they did to Vorpal, it isn't that bad.
da chicken
12-13-03, 02:18 PM Hm. The more I read it, the more I tend to agree it's supposed to be interpreted that it can kill on a failed save. Seems fair to me. I mean, it's a touch spell with capped damage and a save. The effect better be darn good.

And spells like disintegrate can kill on a successful save. Shoot, disintegrate can disintegrate ona successful save.
Vaalingrade Ashland
12-13-03, 05:01 PM Why call it harm anymore? Just call it 'Kill'. A lot of spells don't make sense for thier names anymore :(
Bifford
12-13-03, 06:30 PM Like the cure wounds spells? Wounds are healed, not "cured."
Vaalingrade Ashland
12-13-03, 06:46 PM I was being more spiteful than analytical, but yeah, now that you mention it..
anshar
12-13-03, 07:39 PM Interpreted literally, Edymnion is correct; the spell can kill if the save is failed.

This is an example of why one of my house rules is "The letter of the rule cannot be used to circumvent the spirit of the rule."
IMC, Harm cannot kill.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate. ;)
ender
12-13-03, 07:54 PM Intent aside, that simply isn't what the spell says. It cleary says it does 10 points of damage per caster level, max 150. Period. It then starts a new sentance which stays that on a successful save, damage is halved, and cannot go below 1. Those are two seperate sentances, and the 1hp rule clearly applies only to the sentance it is included in.

Point taken, Edymnion. I agree completely that as strict interpretation of the rules, Harm can kill.

Interpreted literally, Edymnion is correct; the spell can kill if the save is failed.

I also completely agree with anshar. IMO the spirit of the rules is important to the life of any game, which is why I brought up the point about 1e in my original post. I use a similar house rule.
Edymnion
12-13-03, 11:22 PM But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells).

If it were 3.0, I would totally agree with you that the spirit of the rules would be for a save regardless of what happened. But since 3.5 changed so much just to be changing it, and fundamentally altering the way many spells work, I for one simply can't tell where they honestly made a mistake and where they nerfed/changed a spell just because they could.

I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. Now its been reduced essentially to a combat only spell, it is no longer within the original spirit of the rules, so I simply don't know.
Sir Pandemonium
12-14-03, 12:31 AM Originally posted by Edymnion
But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells).

If it were 3.0, I would totally agree with you that the spirit of the rules would be for a save regardless of what happened. But since 3.5 changed so much just to be changing it, and fundamentally altering the way many spells work, I for one simply can't tell where they honestly made a mistake and where they nerfed/changed a spell just because they could.

I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. Now its been reduced essentially to a combat only spell, it is no longer within the original spirit of the rules, so I simply don't know.

I have to whole heartedly agree with the confusion Edymnion expresses.

I am having difficulty in deciphering if the spell Harm, as written, is intentional. Or is it an error that is not high enough on the priority list, or not even noticed yet?

I am leary of reading it as a "never kill" spell. Even though that is the tradition of the spell.

While I admit the 3.0 Harm needed to be nerfed, I am not sure this incarnation is the correct way to do it.

I mean, on top of reducing the damage potential (a good change BTW), they threw in a save, AND kept it a touch spell.

I feel that having the potential to kill balances out the reductions.

But I may just be biased.

Which is why I am trying to find out the intent of the spell.
q'afuu
12-14-03, 08:18 AM Originally posted by Edymnion
I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. You still can. You just can't take all day to do that stuff anymore. I see more use of Invisibility outside combat than during. The duration means you can't cast it beforehand, unless you're at liberty to initiate the encounter, and once combat is engaged a) there are spells that will give a lot more benefit and b) since you were seen vanishing into thin air, steps will probably be taken to counter the spell (iow, you'll have to carefully plan and possibly change your init to get good use out of it).
anshar
12-14-03, 09:42 AM Originally posted by Edymnion
But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells).

I agree. It is hard to know what the designer's intent was with many 3.5 spells. That's why I hold to the traditions of earlier editions to guide my views of the spirit of many spells.

The combat-heavy focus of 3.5 (and to a lesser exent 3.0) while disturbing to me, does not make my games in particular combat-heavy. To this end, along with the house rule I posted above, I have an extensive list of spells that I have partialy un-nerfed for my campaign.

The buff spells are my favorite example because they're easy to reference. In 3.0 they lasted 1 hour per level and in 3.5 they're 1 minute per level. Did the designers need to nerf the 3.0 versions? Yes; no question about it. But reducing the durations to 1 minute per level was too much IMO, so on my house rules sheet, their durations have been changed to 10 minutes per level.

Hmm... longer post than I had intended; I'll stop now. :)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Derren S. 11-30-03, 04:46 AM	Multiple times I have heard that "Harm can kill with a passed save". Is this really official, or , which I think is more likely, the interpreation of some ruleslawyer who have great fun in twisting rules? I just can't imagine that a spell would be better when it is aved against than when not.
ManTimeForgot 11-30-03, 04:58 AM	Uh... No you have heard 100% incorrectly. No one, at least that I know of, has ever stated that harm can kill on a successful save. The language of 3.5 harm explicitly forbids killing on a successful save. However, 3.5 harm does allow for the possibility that it kills on a failed save. I am inclined to believe it does, but some continue to argue that it does not, despite of the rules of english syntax. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot
murte 11-30-03, 08:23 AM	Harm can never take the target to below 1 hp if living and never over max hp if undead. Even if the Save is made and the target only has 10 hp left, they will only take 9 hp damage regardless of amount actually inflicted.
Nagol 11-30-03, 10:04 AM	From the SRD 3.5 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. Note that the limit of 1 hit point minimum applies to the successful saving throw only. Harm can kill if the save is failed.
ender 12-11-03, 06:58 PM	While I agree that the specific verbiage implies that harm can kill on a failed save, this seems to be a case of misleading sentence structure. Harm was originally, in its 1st ed. incarnation, the reverse of heal, which repaired all damage except 1-4 hp. Therefore harm drained all hp except for 1-4. But it could not possibly kill anyone outright. Since there is a great deal of continuity between the intent of 3.5 and its earlier incarnations (even if the actual form has changed drastically), I would argue that harm cannot kill on a failed save: it will only drain the target down to 1 hp.
Edymnion 12-11-03, 07:08 PM	Originally posted by murte Harm can never take the target to below 1 hp if living and never over max hp if undead. Even if the Save is made and the target only has 10 hp left, they will only take 9 hp damage regardless of amount actually inflicted. Intent aside, that simply isn't what the spell says. It cleary says it does 10 points of damage per caster level, max 150. Period. It then starts a new sentance which stays that on a successful save, damage is halved, and cannot go below 1. Those are two seperate sentances, and the 1hp rule clearly applies only to the sentance it is included in. Effects of the spell are give, 10 points of damage per level. Then, if they pass their save, half damage, can't drop below 1hp. 3.5 Harm can indeed kill an opponent if they fail their saves. The intentions of the writers are irrelavent when it comes to pure rules. In an RPGA tournament game, they must go by the exact letter of the rules, and thats the way the spell is written, that is the legal use of the spell. Just don't fail your save ;)
Tehril 12-11-03, 07:59 PM	It's not the intent of the spell (not being able to kill). That was the 3.0 intent. The 3.5 intent is extremely clear. Harm has been extensively re-tooled. In 3.0, Harm has no save and reduced you to 1-4 hit points in the blink of an eye... but it couldn't kill. In 3.5, it has a save and does a set amount of damage. This is HUGELY weaker than it used to be... but with one redeeming point. Harm can now kill. Other 5th level spells can cause death... what is so unreasonable with Harm causing death? It's little more than a high powered Cause X Wounds spell...just as Heal is a high powered Cure X Wounds spells. If you don't like the 3.5 version, then use the 3.0
Sir Pandemonium 12-12-03, 04:52 AM	I would like to reiterate Derren S.'s initial question. Is this "official?" I understand the interpretations of the spell. Both sides actually. All I want to know is if it is official. Can someone link, or at least point, to a FAQ, or Sage Advice, or anything that makes it official? (For non-RPGA events that is.)
Nagol 12-12-03, 10:08 AM	Therefore the "official" line must be follow what the spell description says. Deal 10 x level damage Save reduces damage to half with a floor of 1 hit point.
ruleslawyer 12-12-03, 02:09 PM	Interestingly enough, death ward now explicitly wards against harm, so maybe it's not so unbalanced as a save-or-die.
raistlin_devreault 12-12-03, 02:39 PM	HArm can kill! not the spell itself but the spell effect. Ex: Last game, we were fighting a Demon in City of Spider Queen.. That demon had an aura of magic or something, 3d6 damage i think. She cast Harm on fighter, fail save, reduce to 3hp.. beginning of round, take damage from aura, drop to -13... That's how HARM can kill
Joe Gold 12-12-03, 07:27 PM	I believe one of the designers, back on the 3.5 board, confirmed that Harm can now kill on a failed save.
Sir Ferdinand 12-13-03, 01:41 PM	I also thought that you can't kill with Harm, but people showed me the right way. Harm can kill if the save is failed.
da chicken 12-13-03, 01:58 PM	"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." My reading is that the spell will never reduce a creature below 1 hp, regardless of whether or not a save is made. However, Edymnion's argument that the 1 hp clause only applies if you save is another valid interpretation. The word "but" is what adds all the interpretive nonsense. If it were "and" it would clearly only apply to successful saves, and if it were a different sentence it would clearly apply to the whole spell. In any case, harm almost always triggers a death-from-massive-damage save (minimum of 55 damage on a successful save), so it can indeed kill.
Edymnion 12-13-03, 02:08 PM	Originally posted by Joe Gold I believe one of the designers, back on the 3.5 board, confirmed that Harm can now kill on a failed save. Yeah, they did. And the official ruling is always the exact letter of the rules as written, unless there is an errata, which overrides the printed version, and is still treated to the letter. For it to work regardless of save, the 1hp clause would either need to be "in either case..." or to have it's own sentance. By the way it is worded now, Harm is a Save or Die spell, and potentially a Die Even If You Save spell. Don't worry though, when compared to what they did to Vorpal, it isn't that bad.
da chicken 12-13-03, 02:18 PM	Hm. The more I read it, the more I tend to agree it's supposed to be interpreted that it can kill on a failed save. Seems fair to me. I mean, it's a touch spell with capped damage and a save. The effect better be darn good. And spells like disintegrate can kill on a successful save. Shoot, disintegrate can disintegrate ona successful save.
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-13-03, 05:01 PM	Why call it harm anymore? Just call it 'Kill'. A lot of spells don't make sense for thier names anymore :(
Bifford 12-13-03, 06:30 PM	Like the cure wounds spells? Wounds are healed, not "cured."
Vaalingrade Ashland 12-13-03, 06:46 PM	I was being more spiteful than analytical, but yeah, now that you mention it..
anshar 12-13-03, 07:39 PM	Interpreted literally, Edymnion is correct; the spell can kill if the save is failed. This is an example of why one of my house rules is "The letter of the rule cannot be used to circumvent the spirit of the rule." IMC, Harm cannot kill. Now back to your regularly scheduled debate. ;)
ender 12-13-03, 07:54 PM	Intent aside, that simply isn't what the spell says. It cleary says it does 10 points of damage per caster level, max 150. Period. It then starts a new sentance which stays that on a successful save, damage is halved, and cannot go below 1. Those are two seperate sentances, and the 1hp rule clearly applies only to the sentance it is included in. Point taken, Edymnion. I agree completely that as strict interpretation of the rules, Harm can kill. Interpreted literally, Edymnion is correct; the spell can kill if the save is failed. I also completely agree with anshar. IMO the spirit of the rules is important to the life of any game, which is why I brought up the point about 1e in my original post. I use a similar house rule.
Edymnion 12-13-03, 11:22 PM	But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells). If it were 3.0, I would totally agree with you that the spirit of the rules would be for a save regardless of what happened. But since 3.5 changed so much just to be changing it, and fundamentally altering the way many spells work, I for one simply can't tell where they honestly made a mistake and where they nerfed/changed a spell just because they could. I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. Now its been reduced essentially to a combat only spell, it is no longer within the original spirit of the rules, so I simply don't know.
Sir Pandemonium 12-14-03, 12:31 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells). If it were 3.0, I would totally agree with you that the spirit of the rules would be for a save regardless of what happened. But since 3.5 changed so much just to be changing it, and fundamentally altering the way many spells work, I for one simply can't tell where they honestly made a mistake and where they nerfed/changed a spell just because they could. I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. Now its been reduced essentially to a combat only spell, it is no longer within the original spirit of the rules, so I simply don't know. I have to whole heartedly agree with the confusion Edymnion expresses. I am having difficulty in deciphering if the spell Harm, as written, is intentional. Or is it an error that is not high enough on the priority list, or not even noticed yet? I am leary of reading it as a "never kill" spell. Even though that is the tradition of the spell. While I admit the 3.0 Harm needed to be nerfed, I am not sure this incarnation is the correct way to do it. I mean, on top of reducing the damage potential (a good change BTW), they threw in a save, AND kept it a touch spell. I feel that having the potential to kill balances out the reductions. But I may just be biased. Which is why I am trying to find out the intent of the spell.
q'afuu 12-14-03, 08:18 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion I mean, I always thought the spirit of Invisbility was to let you sneak around and be invisible while you did stuff. You still can. You just can't take all day to do that stuff anymore. I see more use of Invisibility outside combat than during. The duration means you can't cast it beforehand, unless you're at liberty to initiate the encounter, and once combat is engaged a) there are spells that will give a lot more benefit and b) since you were seen vanishing into thin air, steps will probably be taken to counter the spell (iow, you'll have to carefully plan and possibly change your init to get good use out of it).
anshar 12-14-03, 09:42 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion But, thanks to 3.5, its very hard to tell what the spirit of the spell is anymore. So many got arbitrarily changed for "balance" that they are no longer with the spirit of the rules. Spells that were originally ment for multiple uses got nerfed down to combat only spells with little to no use outside of combat (Fly and Invisibility come to mind, now to do anything non-combat you have to do it with much higher level spells). I agree. It is hard to know what the designer's intent was with many 3.5 spells. That's why I hold to the traditions of earlier editions to guide my views of the spirit of many spells. The combat-heavy focus of 3.5 (and to a lesser exent 3.0) while disturbing to me, does not make my games in particular combat-heavy. To this end, along with the house rule I posted above, I have an extensive list of spells that I have partialy un-nerfed for my campaign. The buff spells are my favorite example because they're easy to reference. In 3.0 they lasted 1 hour per level and in 3.5 they're 1 minute per level. Did the designers need to nerf the 3.0 versions? Yes; no question about it. But reducing the durations to 1 minute per level was too much IMO, so on my house rules sheet, their durations have been changed to 10 minutes per level. Hmm... longer post than I had intended; I'll stop now. :)