I'm trying to figure out how to understand the way harm works, and I'm confused about how to determine how much damage the spell does w/ respect to damage with and without a successful save. Imagine, for instance, that an 11th level caster casts the spell against a creature with 50 hp. How should the damage be calculated?
Interpretation 1: The amount of damage the caster threatens to do does not take the target's hp total into account. In this case, the 11th level caster threatens 110 points of damage if the creature fails its save, and 55 points if the creature saves successfully. Either way, the spell ends up doing 49 damage to the creature, leaving it with 1 hp.
This makes the save effectively pointless for creatures significantly weaker than the caster.
Interpretation 2: The amount of damage the caster threatens to do does take the target's hp total into account. In this case, the 11th level caster threatens 49 points of damage if the creature fails its save, and 24 points if the creature saves successfully.
In this case, the save matters, even for the weakest possible targets.
I don't see anything in the text of the spell that decides between the two interpretations. I suspect that the 2nd interpretation is intended, but I can't rule the first one out by RAW. Your thoughts?
It's Interpretation 1.
If the spell mentioned the bit about 1 HP before it explained the effects of a successful save, I could see an argument for Interpretation 2. As written, though, I think it's pretty clear.
Also, note that there's a significant difference between capping damage at one less that the target's current HP and not being able to reduce the target below 1 HP. In the latter case (which is how the spell is worded), the Harm can still do 110 damage, but some of it is just ineffective if the target has less HP than that. In the former case, the spell actually does less damage. This would make a pretty important difference if a target had negative energy resistance.
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. Harm cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.
The spell is pretty clear actually (Interpretation 1).
Save against the full damage and then apply the damage. Application of the damage cannot reduce the creature to below 1 hp.
Interesting. I ask because I was looking over a Sage Advice column in an old issue of Dragon, and the rules-guru there clearly was employing Interpretation 2. And it's not a 3.5 vs. PF thing; the spells works the same in both versions of the game. I guess they got that one wrong.
Link or quote?
I don't have it in front of me right now, but I'll type up a quote tomorrow when I'm in the same room with the issue again. (It's Dragon 315, though.)
I checked my copy of Dragon 315 it is discussing an entirely different issue regarding Harm...Death from Massive Damage.
...What if I have 110 hit points and an 11th level caster casts harm on me. I'll take 109 points of damage from the spell if I fail my save, or 55 points if I make my save, right? In either case, I'll have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save to avoid death from massive damage, right? If my hired lackey, who has 49 hit points receives the same spell, he'll take either 48 points of damage or 24 points. In either case he's not subject to death from massive damage. Is this correct?
The example is in error and it is not the main subject and when errors are not the main subject they are less likely to be caught.
The second example should have been 110 on a failed save which is then reduced to 48 or 55 on a successful save which is then reduced to 48.
In any case, the spell's wording clearly states that it deals 10 per level, then if the target saves you deal only half, but then it states you cannot reduce the target's hp to less than 1 so the order is total->save->reduce to minimum.
I agree that the article was discussing a different issue, but what made me ask my original question was the way it was interpreting the application of damage from the spell. Do we agree that, given the way their illustration worked, if asked my original question they would have responded with Interpretation 2?
No, I don't agree that they would have responded that way. We have no idea how they would have responded.
The fact is that when people are answering a rules question the details of that answer may violate other rules until corrected. It is human nature to focus on the problem and not other extraneous things.
Put another way, the example in Sage Advice violated the rules although the point it was making regarding Death from Massive Damage was still valid.
Back to the rules:
A level 11 spellcaster does 110 damage with Harm, save for half (55 damage). When applying the damage it cannot reduce the hitpoints below 1 hitpoint.
The application of the damage occurs after the save, not before. The only way "Interpretation 2" would work is if damage is applied before the save. Nothing in the game works like that.
Fwiw, I'm not pushing for Interpretation 2, whereas my own inclination was always to prefer Interpretation 1, which seems to be the consensus here anyway. I was just thrown by the discussion I saw in that Dragon article, which may or may not reflect the author's considered view of the question, didn't see anything on the messageboards that addresses the issue, and thought I'd check and see what other people thought. So thanks for your responses!