If you fail your save against harm, can you be dropped below 1 hp?
I can see how it's not as well written as it could be, but you cannot be reduced to below 1 hit point regardless of whether you fail or make your save. Strange considering that someone could kill you with inflict light wounds.
No, the spell specifically says that the spell cannot drop you below 1hp. But with that amount, you're pretty screwed enough anyway.
Harm can't kill someone outright... but with clever tactics it can be a pretty solid kill-spell. Say, the party tank readies an action to attack immediately after the cleric casts his spell or, better yet, the Wizard readies a Magic Missile (or the rogue readies such a wand) to strike immediately after the cleric delivers Harm.
Of course, it's rendered completely harmless by Death Ward, which is a must have spell when you're facing clerics or high level undead.
Actually, technically, harm can kill. If you have 51 or more hit points, a casting of harm triggers death from massive damage. It's not in the spirit of the spell, but nothing in the text specifies otherwise.
|
Actually, technically, harm can kill. If you have 51 or more hit points, a casting of harm triggers death from massive damage. It's not in the spirit of the spell, but nothing in the text specifies otherwise.
Massive damage is a variant rule in the DMG, not the RAW rules. It is a glorified houserule and as such must first be ruled as a used rule in your game. I don't play with Massive Damage because it makes life exponentially harder for players than monsters.
FH
Massive damage is a variant rule in the DMG, not the RAW rules. It is a glorified houserule and as such must first be ruled as a used rule in your game. I don't play with Massive Damage because it makes life exponentially harder for players than monsters.FH
I agree - though I still use massive damage for 'environmental' effects. Fall 700' or get pushed into molten lava - that sort of thing. But i'd not use it for spells or being punded on by the monster and such as it does get kind of crazy at leter levels.
Massive damage is a variant rule in the DMG, not the RAW rules.
That is incorrect. The massive damage rules appear in the PHB (page 145) and are part of the standard rules, not a variant.
That said, I don't use them, either, as they are totally inconsistent with the hit point model.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Massive damage is a variant rule in the DMG, not the RAW rules. It is a glorified houserule and as such must first be ruled as a used rule in your game. I don't play with Massive Damage because it makes life exponentially harder for players than monsters.
FH
Massive damage is core rules, not a variant. See PHB pg. 145. There are variants of the massive damage rules in the DMG (based on size and such), but the DC 15 Fort save or die is pure core rules. It may be frequently disregarded (and with good cause), but it's not technically optional.
the DC 15 Fort save or die is pure core rules. It may be frequently disregarded (and with good cause), but it's not technically optional.
It's frequently disregarded because, by the time anyone can deal 50+ damage, NOBODY can POSSIBLY fail a DC 15 Fort save except on a "1." I mean, why even include a DC? Just make it a straight 5% chance.
Kirth is right. If you have as many as fifty hit points and tend to fight opponents who can deal that much in one hit, a DC 15 Fortitude save is merely a formality. Player characters rarely deal as much damage in one hit until they have high level insta-kill spells anyway, making this something the monsters benefit from more often than the players. At best, it's one more thing that can kill a high level character from an unlucky natural 1, so it's frequently ignored.
It's frequently disregarded because, by the time anyone can deal 50+ damage, NOBODY can POSSIBLY fail a DC 15 Fort save except on a "1." I mean, why even include a DC? Just make it a straight 5% chance.
At 10th level, a wizard can dish out spells that easily deal more than 50 points of damage. However, at that level a Wizard's base Fortitude save is +3... and they probably have at most a 12-14 Constitution. So they might be able to make a DC 15 on a ten, but it's no certainty.
I personally don't use death from massive damage... it just screws over sorcerers and wizards (and rogues) that much more.
At 10th level, a wizard can dish out spells that easily deal more than 50 points of damage. However, at that level a Wizard's base Fortitude save is +3... and they probably have at most a 12-14 Constitution. So they might be able to make a DC 15 on a ten, but it's no certainty.
I personally don't use death from massive damage... it just screws over sorcerers and wizards (and rogues) that much more.
Good observation. Although the 10th level wizard has likely got resistance bonuses to saves by then, the massive damage rule then has no purpose other than to better balance the fighter and wizard at those levels. Think of it as a Fighter class feature: Avoid Death by Massive Damage (Ex). Nice!
|
At the risk of swimming against the current on this one, I would postulate that Harm can kill someone.
HarmNecromancy
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: YesHarm 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.
Based on how this is written, on a failed save Harm can cause death. The operative words from the spell description are "If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" (emphasis mine).
The clause "but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" depends on the subordinate clause "if the creature successfully saves". Thus, the limitation on damage dealt applies only in times of a successful saving throw. Compare it to this sentence with the same structure:
If Mark goes fishing, he rarely catches the limit, but he always returns with a few fish.
Obviously, Mark does not "always return with a few fish" if he does not go fishing. The only way the clause "but he always returns with a few fish" applies is in the case of "If Mark goes fishing". In the same way, the only time the "cannot drop below 1HP" portion of the text applies is if the target makes a saving throw.
We should keep in mind that Harm is a 6th level Necromantic spell. It is a level above Slay Living (Cleric 5) and is of the same level as Circle of Death (Wizard/Sorc 6). A failed save will deal the indicated damage listed, and if the subject is reduced to -10HP he perishes.
The text of this spell might have been eratta'd or dealt with in Sage Advice, but as written, it clearly means a failure can lead to death while a successful save cannot cause death regardless of damage dealt.
I know I am bumping my own post, sorry for that, but I really expected that one of the previous posters would comment on what I posted yesterday.
Does anyone want to review my reasoning or pass on a rules update I have missed?
A little late to the party here...but I totally agree with your reasoning Lich-Loved. The "If the creature successfully saves" stipulation in the last sentence is the clincher.
To answer Peruhain's original question, I would rule that Harm can drop a target below 1 HP on a failed saved. But on a successful save, Harm cannot drop the target below 1 HP regardless of whether the target started with 1 HP or 100 HP.
In all previous editions, it just straight reduced you to your last 1d4 hp, and had no save. So either 3.5-edition (a) changed the spell entirely, or (b) added a save and a damage cap. I'm inclined to go with the second possibility, so I have to disagree with Lich-Loved as to the spell effects (although his English is quite correct). No doubt Sebastian will weigh in in Lich-Loved's favor now, simply so that he has the pleasure of telling me that break enchantment will not restore the lost hp (which I already knew, because harm is neither an enchantment, nor a transmutation, nor a curse, nor is it of 5th level or lower).
Sorry, Sebastian, I couldn't resist :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
As written, it is excruciatingly clear that the "cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" restriction only applies to the case where the target made the save. Feel free to house-rule otherwise, of course.
It's not a "house rule" when you choose to not sacrifice the spirit to the letter. Feel free to ask WotC how they run it. This is as dumb as applying the HD limit to the effects of a prismatic ray spell (from SpC), instead of just to the blinding portion.
Contributor
|
Harm can't reduce you below 1 hp even if you make the save. Frankly, trying to make it work that way is being pedantic to the disservice of the rules - every one knows how the spell is supposed to work, even if the wording is a bit sloppy.
I disagree. Everyone knows how the spell used to work. They made a clear and deliberate change to the spell with the 3.5 revision, and for good reason. But most players don't read the new description carefully if they palyed previous editions.
Under 3.0 My party took out the end boss of Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil in one round because a Harm spell brought a creature who had hundreds of hp and DR out the wazoo down to 1 hp. His sidekick, who was supposed to be a distraction gave us way more trouble.
It was a ridiculous spell when it could do more damage to a dragon than it could to a goblin warrior 1. Harm should be able to (and now can) kill weak creatures outright, if they fail their save.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
It was a ridiculous spell when it could do more damage to a dragon than it could to a goblin warrior 1. Harm should be able to (and now can) kill weak creatures outright, if they fail their save.
Multiple emails to customer service have confirmed that Harm cannot reduce you below 1 hp, whether nor not you make your save. So I'm comfortable that I'm using the spell correctly - thanks!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Multiple emails to customer service have confirmed that Harm cannot reduce you below 1 hp, whether nor not you make your save. So I'm comfortable that I'm using the spell correctly - thanks!
It was a ridiculous spell when it could do more damage to a dragon than it could to a goblin warrior 1. Harm should be able to (and now can) kill weak creatures outright, if they fail their save.
If you deliver it with an unarmed strike, however, would the harm damage happen first and then the strike damage could drop you below 0? Or would you resolve the strike first and then the spell, potentially making the strike completely pointless?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
By the way, checked the D&D FAQ. The example for harm in the FAQ, while not explicitly addressing the issue, shows damage for failed save that matches the 1 hp restriction, and throughout it talks about not being able to die from a harm spell except from massive damage. It also suggests that not allowing massive damage to kill you from a harm spell may be more in keeping with the intent of the spell.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If you deliver it with an unarmed strike, however, would the harm damage happen first and then the strike damage could drop you below 0? Or would you resolve the strike first and then the spell, potentially making the strike completely pointless?
The blow delivers the spell, so I'd resolve the blow first, then the spell. Similar to a spell-storing weapon.
As written, it is excruciatingly clear that the "cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" restriction only applies to the case where the target made the save. Feel free to house-rule otherwise, of course.
What's excuciatingly clear is that the people who wrote the spell descriptions are neither English majors nor lawyers (that's a jab at the writing of the spell descriptions, not at you). Ignoring the obvious intent of spells in order to force meaning into the exact wording is laudable if you're a devil (or, like Sebastian, aspire to be one :)), but for natives of the Prime Material Plane like Russ and I... well, I just can't bring myself to do it. As DM, of course, you can do as you see fit.
If you deliver it with an unarmed strike, however, would the harm damage happen first and then the strike damage could drop you below 0? Or would you resolve the strike first and then the spell, potentially making the strike completely pointless?
If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges.
Based on that, I'd say after.
Yes, you are correct. It would be pointless, besides the way that I pointed out. You get a significant attack advantage with a Touch Attack as it goes against the Touch AC (as opposed to a Melee Attack). You're batting a +8 (plus STR) against their full AC. I'd take the Touch any day : )
|
What's excuciatingly clear is that the people who wrote the spell descriptions are neither English majors nor lawyers (that's a jab at the writing of the spell descriptions, not at you).
No, they are technical writers. WotC understands this, by the way, and is very careful about how its designers write. Errors are, of course, inevitable in any large technical document, and WotC has a mechanism to address them. Can you point me to something in the errata that changes the wording of the spell?
Ignoring the obvious intent of spells in order to force meaning into the exact wording is laudable if you're a devil (or, like Sebastian, aspire to be one :)), but for natives of the Prime Material Plane like Russ and I... well, I just can't bring myself to do it. As DM, of course, you can do as you see fit.
I have no way to discern the intent of the designers other than by reading the rules. The rule here is:
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.
The restriction on maximum damage clearly depends on the qualification at the beginning of the second sentence.
There are many ways to fix this; WotC has done none of them. I must take the rules as written, then, to be the rules as intended.
I'm afraid that I can't find any other "obvious intent"; where are you finding it? (BTW, since the spell was quite obviously changed dramatically from previous versions, finding intent in previous versions won't convince me; I can't speak for others.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'm afraid that I can't find any other "obvious intent"; where are you finding it? (BTW, since the spell was quite obviously changed dramatically from previous versions, finding intent in previous versions won't convince me; I can't speak for others.)
The "obvious intent" would be in the D&D FAQ, in an entry written by one of the members of the 3.5E redesign team (Skip Williams), and left unchanged by the person who did the PH redesign and now maintains the FAQ (Andy Collins). This confirms that harm cannot kill except by a failed massive damage save.
BTW, since the spell was quite obviously changed dramatically from previous versions, finding intent in previous versions won't convince me; I can't speak for others.
That's the point; we can't speak for others. Like with break enchantment, we all have to call it as we read it, and just make sure our players are on board, too. What I don't understand the need to tell everyone that your way is the "only correct way," and that they're all abusing the system with needless "house-rules" unless they agree with your interpretation.
(Sigh.) It wasn't my intent to be argumentative; your interpretation may well be correct, despite Russ' claims to the contrary (now, if he had posted links...). But ours might be, too. If it makes you feel better, I'll state here and now that every single rule I follow, without exception, even ones with no ambiguity, are "house rules." OK?
|
|
Please understand that I don't use "house rules" as a pejorative. I use a number of them myself. (Alignment, I'm looking at you.) Wizards of the Coast has many very bright people working in design; I don't always agree with them, either in general or with specific regard to the effect of some rule on my campaign.
I'll grant that I overstated the case by conflating game design and technical writing. OTOH, presenting your game design as rules is decidedly technical writing. In some companies, these functions are split; in others not. My understanding of WotC is that they separate Design and Development, and trust to Development to do the technical writing.
My point, though, is that I don't care who does design and who does development for this purpose; it's all WotC. The rules presented by WotC are the rules (and technical writing). Errata changes rules. If you want to play by the rules as written, those are the places to look. FAQ and Customer Service only clarify (or occasionally obfuscate 8-) rules; this rule is in no way unclear.
It might need changing, either in general or in your campaign; if you think it does, change it. I do that whenever I think it's necessary or desirable.
|
Contributor
|
By the way, checked the D&D FAQ. The example for harm in the FAQ, while not explicitly addressing the issue, shows damage for failed save that matches the 1 hp restriction, and throughout it talks about not being able to die from a harm spell except from massive damage. It also suggests that not allowing massive damage to kill you from a harm spell may be more in keeping with the intent of the spell.
He accepts many parts of the question as factual that are not clearly so in this instance. Unfortunately I don't have much value for the sage's answers in general and this case in particular. He occasionally gets answers wrong, contradicting the rules, or confusing the current rules with older editions.
I agree that the answer he gives supports your belief. I just think he got it wrong.
Oddly, I agree that the massive damage rules were not considered in the design of this spell, and it probably should have been an exception.
Personally, the intent I read in the updated version of this spell is this; we are taking away from this spell by capping the damage and allowing a save. We are balancing this by removing the 1-4 hp limit, but only on a failed save.
|
Contributor
|
So how do you explain the custserv answers, which have been that you keep at least 1 hp even on a failed save?
I agree that the answer he gives supports your belief. I just think he got it wrong.
I've never dealt with WotC customer service. A freind of mine has gotten different answers to the same question from them in the past. It's a similar issue to the sage's answers.
If it is their intent that the spell works this way, I still think it isn't a case that 'everyone knows' or that interpreting it the way I do is perverting the rules. The spell description looks pretty clear. There is no erratta on the spell. Not everyone calls customer service; I certainly wouldn't over this, since the description seems clear. If I called custserv and said "does invisibility spell make my character invisible?" and they said "no," would it suddenly be abundantly clear to the world that the intent of the invisibility spell is to not make characters invisible? Why the hell would I call and ask that? And why would I do it multiple times?
That said, like Doug, I have no problem with you playing it differently. I make houserules all the time. Hell, I would even accept a DM ruling your interpretation in a game I played. But it isn't the way the spell is written, and there's no reason to assume that the description means anything other than what it says.
EDIT: Sorry, I din't directly answer your question. I explain the answer customer service gives as confusion based on older editions of the game. The same reason there is ever confusion on this issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know I am bumping my own post, sorry for that, but I really expected that one of the previous posters would comment on what I posted yesterday.
Does anyone want to review my reasoning or pass on a rules update I have missed?
Wow...When I replied the other day I was just validating Lich-Loved's interpretation of the rules, which it seemed he wanted some input on. I didn't know I was going to resurrect...
THE HARM WAR !!!!!!!
In my belief, regardless of vague english, errata, or the 'spirit of the rules', it really doesn't matter which way you judge the spell. At one HP, unless you have some good tactics, you're pretty much toast in the next round (or in the current round!).
To begin with, I was in the 'can't drop you lower than one HP under any circumstances' camp. But after I read Lich-Loved interpretation, I changed my mind. I 'switched sides' :P at first by the verbatim description of the spell. Then I researched comparable Wiz/Sor spells and found Disintegrate.
Both Harm and Disintegrate are 6th level and allow spell resistance & saves. Disintegrate even surpasses Harm with a ranged attack, 40d6 damage cap, 5d6 on a failed save, and death/disintegration at 0 hp versus -10. So in my game and interpretation of the rules, I'm going to throw my cleric a bone and let him kick a little butt with a devastating Harm spell once in a while. Clerics can't be all 'buff this' and 'cure that' all the time :)
I find it interesting how just one missed, misunderstood, or improperly worded word or phrase can totally change the interpretation of the rules. When I first read the phrase '...undead cower in fear..' in the Turn Undead section of the PH I thought it was just descriptive fluff text. Only later did I discover that cowered was an actual game condition.