Harm

[noparlpf]

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.
Does anybody think that this is a little OP? At level 15, it deals 150 damage, enough to kill most characters with a d10 or smaller HD and Con below 18. This allows a save to deal only 75 damage, which will nearly kill the average character with a d6 or smaller HD and Con below 16 (though it can't reduce hit points below 0 if you pass the save). Likewise, Heal will do the same to undead. Isn't that a little bit much damage for a spell with a constant effect (ie, no dice rolling)?

(Oh, and along the same topic--who thinks that Heal is OP for curing all negative effects short of negative levels and permanent ability drain?

It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned.

[SleepyBadger]

It's a touch attack spell with a saving throw and subject to spell resistance. It has its limitations.

[Delcor]

Well there are a few factors to consider:

1. Harm is a touch attack, you still have to hit something before they make the saving throw.

2. Thats a player you're comparing the damage too, a lot of mobs at 11-12th level (when you get heal) will have high touch ACs, SR, make the save, or simply not fall over from the damage.

3. Slay living is a 5th level spell, (I think, I'm not feeling particularly nerdy right now, but I think Slay living is level 5) either way its a lower level spell than harm, and its also a touch attack, but save or die. That is a little more scary than touch attack save take damage.

[Xefas]

Yeah, but it's a touch spell, and Clerics, holy men and full spellcasters that they are, and so definitively more vulnerable in melee combat than most other classes, that they're putting themselves at significant risk to cast it.

Wait, Cleric? Oh, right.

[Zaq]

Welcome to the world of 6th level spells. They're kinda like that.

[Keld Denar]

Its also blocked by Death Ward.

Its a REALLY good spell, don't get me wrong. Its REALLY good, but broken? Contrast it with how bad Dominate Person will wreck you, and DP is a level lower and targets the same save.

[Ashram]

Let's take a look at the "upgraded" Harms, shall we?

From Heroes of Horror:

Harm, Greater
Necromancy
Level: Cleric 7, dread necromancer 7
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft. / 2 levels)
As harm, except as noted above and in that this spell deals 1d12 points of damage per caster level, to a maximum of 20d12 at 20th level.

Harm, Mass
Necromancy
Level: Dread necromancer 9 (Easily researchable)
Range: 20 ft.
Area: 20 ft. burst centered on caster
Targets: All creatures except the caster in the area
As greater harm, except noted above.

[noparlpf]

Let's take the classic dragon, for example. Not just the dragon, but lots of those very large, powerful monsters. Touch attacks are great against them (though I admit dragons will usually make their saves).
And maybe most people play clerics as nothing but healbots, but in my group clerics can get pretty militant and do a good amount of damage in melee, either with weapons or spells.

[ericgrau]

^ The average dragon has a boatload of HP, decent saves and SR. It's not really the greatest option.

It's a (1) melee touch attack requiring a (2) DC 21 concentration check (auto-pass at level 15, but not earlier, and oh there goes half your skill points), allows a (3) will save for half that even a fighter of that level has a 45% chance of making and it has (4) SR. The average CR 13 monster (4 of them equals EL 17, or a difficult fight for 4 level 15 characters), has 167 HP and a 50% chance of passing the save. And by 15 a lot of foes have SR. At level 7 we have finger of death which is similar except it kills the foe instead of dealing damage. Well unless they're immune to death effects.

Nah it's not really OP.

[Keld Denar]

Minor nitpick...it is a touch spell, so you COULD cast + move + touch, avoiding the messy defensive casting concentration check MOST of the time.

Yea, it is a decent spell. Good? Yes. Overpowered? No. Situationally AMAZING? Certainly.

And Heal is the only healing spell actually WORTH its action cost to use in combat most of the time, since it actually can heal enough damage to keep up with the kind of damage output one would expect from a foe you fight at level 11-15.

[Seffbasilisk]

Something also to note? Harm can't drop someone below 1hp.

It's not a killing spell.

Followed up by a quickened magic missile, or even an Acid Splash could do that, but by itself? Yeah, boatloads of damage, or boatloads of healing, but it's not going to kill someone by itself, nor will it destroy an undead in one shot.

[ericgrau]

Minor nitpick...it is a touch spell, so you COULD cast + move + touch, avoiding the messy defensive casting concentration check MOST of the time.
I'd rather do 2 things in 2 turns instead of 1 thing in 2 turns and be twice as effective. Even if that means a check that I'll probably pass, as long as it's not a 50:50 shot, which it isn't. So no one's forcing me to do it this way, I could do something worse instead! Greeeeeat.

Something also to note? Harm can't drop someone below 1hp.
I thought that's only if they save. No?



And Heal is the only healing spell actually WORTH its action cost to use in combat most of the time, since it actually can heal enough damage to keep up with the kind of damage output one would expect from a foe you fight at level 11-15.
The mass cure spells are also rather efficient, though it's situational/party-specific. They'd combine great with ways of distributing the damage like shield other. Whereas if only 1 or 2 allies are really hurt, or one is seriously hurt and it's not enough to save him even tho you piled on healing on everyone else too, then it's not so hot.

[noparlpf]

Who doesn't take lots of ranks in Concentration as a caster anyway? Defensive casting has saved my ass more times than I can count.

I guess there are other spells that are even crazier. I forgot about most of those.

Does anybody have any thoughts about the aspects of heal that don't affect hit points?

[ericgrau]

Well it's the only core method of fixing nauseated. Good to have ready for that, besides the dozen other things that could keep someone from acting. It's missing paralysis, petrified and fear effects though, not that you wouldn't have scrolls ready for that. It even covers the other flavors of paralysis like stunned.

[Urpriest]

Who doesn't take lots of ranks in Concentration as a caster anyway? Defensive casting has saved my ass more times than I can count.

I guess there are other spells that are even crazier. I forgot about most of those.

Does anybody have any thoughts about the aspects of heal that don't affect hit points?

They're what it's for. Heal, unlike say, Planar Binding, does exactly what it was envisioned to do: sets a level at which you can get cured of a big pile of ailments. It's not overpowered, it's where the power bar is set. Overpowered things are things that are more powerful than the designers envisioned, like Wizards.

[Divide by Zero]

Note that harm is also only a spell level below when the wizard gets finger of death, which is better and works at range. And single-target Save or Lose is hardly the caster's best tactic, anyway.

[Keld Denar]

I'd rather do 2 things in 2 turns instead of 1 thing in 2 turns and be twice as effective. Even if that means a check that I'll probably pass, as long as it's not a 50:50 shot, which it isn't. So no one's forcing me to do it this way, I could do something worse instead! Greeeeeat.

You misunderstand. You cast the spell, move, and then touch your foe all in the same turn.


Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell)

[Private-Prinny]

Harm was even more fun in 3.0. One touch attack, and if you can penetrate any spell resistance, they're brought down to 1d4 HP remaining. No save.

[ericgrau]

You misunderstand. You cast the spell, move, and then touch your foe all in the same turn.
Citation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardCastaSpell)
I always read that rule as casting and touch as part of the same action and so did this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040831a

You can cast, move and then touch but you're using a standard, move and a standard. I'd think a free action to touch as long as you cast the spell a couple seconds ago is a bit wonky of an interpretation and would have to be called out explicitly. Or really should be anyway.

[NecroRick]

Harm was even more fun in 3.0. One touch attack, and if you can penetrate any spell resistance, they're brought down to 1d4 HP remaining. No save.

Exactly. Compared to what it used to be, the current Harm is kind of harmless [sic].

Harm + Magic Missile (or any other attack from another player that actually hits) = dead dragon. Oops.

[Hunter Killer]

Harm was even more fun in 3.0. One touch attack, and if you can penetrate any spell resistance, they're brought down to 1d4 HP remaining. No save.

Yeah. I was going to say this. Harm in 3.0 was bah-roken, even if you houseruled it to a 9th level spell. The new Harm is infinitely less so.

It's still good, mind you, but by the time the Cleric gets this there's a lot of ways to do similar amounts of damage.

[NecroRick]

I always read that rule as casting and touch as part of the same action and so did this: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040831a

You can cast, move and then touch but you're using a standard, move and a standard. I'd think a free action to touch as long as you cast the spell a couple seconds ago is a bit wonky of an interpretation and would have to be called out explicitly.

As far as your points about the action economy around touch spells being weird, you're completely right. Logically one of either the spellcasting or the actual touching would have to be a free action. And the action weirdenss goes even deeper once you start factoring in touch attacks being delivered as a punch (ie against normal AC and doing melee damage as well as the touch effect). Unfortunately, as far as the actual rules go...

RAW disagrees:



Touch Spells in Combat
Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

[ericgrau]

Ya, I already responded to that specifically. That's nice, you can do that, but not in a single round, single round is referring to touching as you cast the spell. Touching itself is almost never a free action, and the only way you get around that normally is by touching as part of the action of casting the spell. So neither is a free action, it's just that they are nearly simultaneous or part of the same action.

Some mystical time/speed magic transforming the action of touching into a free action is something I expect to be called out specifically in the rule, not through some liberal interpretation of implications of the wording. That I lump together with drowning to heal yourself. Even if you cast nothing at all and touch it's normally a standard.

[Keld Denar]

When you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch attack. There is no disagreement with this, right?

That rule states that you can move when you cast a touch spell. There is no disagreement here, right?

The rule states that that touch attack, the FREE touch attack you get for casting a touch spell, can be at any point during the turn. You can make it immediately when you cast the spell, OR, as the quoted rule states, AFTER you move.

The only time 2 standard actions come into play are if you forgo the free attack that you normally get when you cast a touch spell, and then attempt to make that attack on a subsequent turn (as dictated by the section "holding the charge" in the magic overview).

If you don't like it, thats fine. This is one area of the rules, however, that is actually straight forward.

[ericgrau]

When you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch attack. There is no disagreement with this, right?
There's been a strong disagreement on that specific point about 3 times now. A non-action or an action that is part of another action is not a free action. When you say hiding is not an action because it's done part of a move, do you say "Oh cool, so hiding is a free action!" No... you must hide as you move.

[TroubleBrewing]

There's been a strong disagreement on that specific point about 3 times now. A non-action or an action that is part of another action is not a free action. When you say hiding is not an action because it's done part of a move, do you say "Oh cool, so hiding is a free action!" No... you must hide as you move.

SRD disagrees, again. (Unless I'm misreading your post.)



Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: For clarification: Basically, it's saying that when you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch during that same round. It also states that the game doesn't care when you take your move action that turn; before, after, or between casting and touching.

[Ravens_cry]

3.0 Harm, now that was broken. No matter your total it left you with 1d4 hit points. And there was no saving throw, though spell resistance applied. Combine with 3.0 Haste and an almost completely unoptimized cleric could probably one shot just about anything if they could get past the spell resistance.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, the passage that Mr McBannert quoted is pretty unambiguous. In the SAME ROUND, you also touch. As part of the action of casting a touch spell, you may attempt to touch your target.

Where is the confusion? Its probably just about the most clearly spelled out rule in the game, unlike, say...what happens if a monk tries to make an offhand attack with his UAS.

Specifically, what IS your argument in stating that casting and delivering a touch spell are two seperate actions? The only time this occures is when you forgo (or are unable to make, or miss with) your initial touch attack. Then the rules change from "cast a touch spell" to "holding a charge", at which point each further attempt to touch your foe requires a standard action. But that is a different ruleset that governs a different condition. When you cast a spell, the rule cited clearly indicates that as part of that action you get to make a touch attack, and that when you do, you may opt to take your move action before casting, after casting but before touching, or after touching. I'm curious as to what your actual argument here is.

[ericgrau]

The SRD quotation are skipping over "or any time later" after "in the same round". They then go on to say you can touch as you cast, or cast, move then touch. Nothing in the slightest provides a way to do the 2nd option in 1 round. If anything it's implying that this falls under "any time later".

All the quotation is proving is that it can take 1 round or it can take more than 1 round, which doesn't mean anything in terms of how long it takes. I could with equal reason be bolding "any time later" to try to prove that it happens in 2 rounds even if you move, cast and then touch. It wouldn't be right, but it'd make about as much sense.

You could try to argue that the 4th sentence is referring only to the 3rd sentence and not to the 2nd sentence as well, but this is at best ambiguous and an example of unclear and poor wording if it were really the intent.

Here's the rule from the magic section of the SRD, which is a more specific source than the combat section:


Touch
You must touch a creature or object to affect it. A touch spell that deals damage can score a critical hit just as a weapon can. A touch spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit. Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

This supports the interpretation that touching is part of casting, in that it outright says so. There is nothing else in the surrounding text; no special option listed for separating the casting and the touch with a move during the same round. Much later there is this option however:


Touch Spells and Holding the Charge
In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


I'd find it odd that the more specific rules would not include a 3rd special option but the more general rules in another section would include such an option. More likely it falls under "or any time later" and is not a new option that tells all the wizards who only looked it up in the magic section and didn't read the combat section too to suck it.

EDIT: This supposed special 3rd option isn't on the wizards.com website explaining how to use touch spells in great detail either: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040831a . It still seems more like players playing with the wording to try to do more.

[Feytalist]

The SRD quotation are skipping over "or any time later" after "in the same round". They then go on to say you can touch as you cast, or cast, move then touch. Nothing in the slightest provides a way to do the 2nd option in 1 round. If anything it's implying that this falls under "any time later".

It is entirely possible that you are the only person in the world who reads the wording in this way.

I also read it as a special case where you can cast, move and touch all in the same round.

[Kumori]

My interpretation is this: If you make the touch attack in the same round as you cast the spell, the touch attack is a part of the casting action. You can move before casting, after attempting the touch, or in between the two. The touch is a part of the same standard action as casting the spell, even though the two parts of the action are separated by a move action.

I compare it to Spring Attack, where the standard action of attacking is taken in the middle of the move action.

[Big Fau]

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.
Does anybody think that this is a little OP? At level 15, it deals 150 damage, enough to kill most characters with a d10 or smaller HD and Con below 18. This allows a save to deal only 75 damage, which will nearly kill the average character with a d6 or smaller HD and Con below 16 (though it can't reduce hit points below 0 if you pass the save). Likewise, Heal will do the same to undead. Isn't that a little bit much damage for a spell with a constant effect (ie, no dice rolling)?

(Oh, and along the same topic--who thinks that Heal is OP for curing all negative effects short of negative levels and permanent ability drain?

It immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned.

At level 15, a character is expected to have his ability scores boosted by stuff like a Belt of Giant's Strength +6. His Con score is going to be a minimum of 20 if he is melee-oriented (the classes who usually get 1d10HD). Probably higher because Con is more important to them than virtually everyone else.

Likewise, a Wizard with 32PB and a starting Con of 14 will have at least a 20, because an Amulet of Health +6 is one of his two priority items.

Then add in the Touch attack (the former can't really do much to protect himself from it, but the Wizard is going to have an easier time), the saving throw (again, the melee character may have a hard time unless he spared some GP/Feats to bolster his Will save, something most melee characters do), and the fact that it's negative energy (a spell can block it). Harm isn't capable of "killing" unless bad luck is involved or if the target isn't up to par for a 15th level character.

Finally, you are comparing the spell in a PvP environment. It was not designed with that in mind. Compare it to the CR15 encounters. IIRC, most of them can make the Will save fairly easily, and a lot of them have SR and a huge melee reach (making touch spells a very bad idea).



As for Heal: It's the only Core Healing spell that's actually worth casting during combat. The rest can't keep up with the challenge ratings they are expected to face.

[Acanous]

If the mechanics of Touch spells are really messing with you that bad, consider the free touch attack to be a benefit of the spell, like a micro-haste that's built in to every "Touch" spell.

You magically get to touch attack something in the same round you cast your touch spell because it is a magic spell and thus is allowed to mess with action economy.

[noparlpf]

If the mechanics of Touch spells are really messing with you that bad, consider the free touch attack to be a benefit of the spell, like a micro-haste that's built in to every "Touch" spell.

You magically get to touch attack something in the same round you cast your touch spell because it is a magic spell and thus is allowed to mess with action economy.

The way a friend of mine explained it to someone was that part of the somatic component is when you reach out and make a touch attack. I guess that's probably just his mental image of the fluff, but hey, it works for me.