Mass Harm 3.5?

[moritheil]

There does not seem to be a Mass Harm in 3.5 outside of the Heroes of Horror version (which is weird, and unlike the other mass inflict spells: 20d12 damage, affects all within range rather than specific targets.)

I understand that historically Harm removed all but 1d4 hit points, so Mass Harm + some kind of quickened area damage (Sound Burst?) would have been a no-save TPK combo. However in 3.5 Heal and Harm just do 10hp/level of positive or negative energy, and clerics/druids already get Mass Heal, so what's the harm in allowing Mass Harm?

Is there anything it would break?

[PersonMan]

Apart from "my CL is absurd" shenanigans, I don't see any problems that immediately come to mind.

[olelia]

I don't believe anything is inherently wrong with it...other than it gives clerics just a little more offensive power, which some would believe they don't need.

[moritheil]

Apart from "my CL is absurd" shenanigans, I don't see any problems that immediately come to mind.

Heal and Harm are capped at a max of 150 hps. Mass Heal notes that it's just like Heal, except applied to all targets you choose within 30' of each other, so apparently it doesn't raise that cap. The Mass Harm I'm proposing would mirror Mass Heal.

I agree Cleric CL shenanigans are already present with Core spells, in the form of Blasphemy or its uncapped sister spells (everything -10 to your caster level dies with no save unless it shares your alignment, and things -5 levels are "merely" paralyzed and dazed), but putting in a Mass Harm mirror of Mass Heal doesn't add to the problem.

[moritheil]

I don't believe anything is inherently wrong with it...other than it gives clerics just a little more offensive power, which some would believe they don't need.

Well, to be frank, I'm thinking about how PCs can mass heal, but villainous undead clerics can't mass harm and have to resort to Miracle or something instead. It's kind of weird.

[Yukitsu]

Try comparing it off to other spells of that level in terms of damage. It does a rather severe amount of damage for the spell level it would wind up at compared to non-meta'd core spells. I suspect it wouldn't break anything, as it doesn't mesh well with a lot of metamagic shenanigans, but it is basically a damage spell dealing automatically maximized d10s on several targets.

Healing rather needs it in my view, since healing tends to be mostly useless in combat. An option or two of really high quality in combat heals is all that really saves the concept from the trash bin completely.

I'd definitely allow it personally, but I'd keep an eye on what the other casters are doing. If I have got a party of unoptimized blasters in my party, the 250 save for half is a bit much compared to say, meteor swarm at the same level. (mass heal actually raises the cap to 250.)

[moritheil]

Try comparing it off to other spells of that level in terms of damage. It does a rather severe amount of damage for the spell level it would wind up at compared to non-meta'd core spells. I suspect it wouldn't break anything, as it doesn't mesh well with a lot of metamagic shenanigans, but it is basically a damage spell dealing automatically maximized d10s on several targets.

Well, I don't think spells like meteor swarm are a very good benchmark, as they are comically bad in terms of efficiency. Something like Delayed Blast Fireball makes more sense. That said, it's probably situationally better than Energy Drain, another Clr 9 spell, because it hits multiple targets. Both are close range, and both are defeated by death ward (a 4th level spell.) Energy Drain is a debuff for taking down bosses whereas mass harm would be for healing undead allies or taking down cannon fodder that get too close.


Healing rather needs it in my view, since healing tends to be mostly useless in combat. An option or two of really high quality in combat heals is all that really saves the concept from the trash bin completely.

This is true.


I'd definitely allow it personally, but I'd keep an eye on what the other casters are doing. If I have got a party of unoptimized blasters in my party, the 250 save for half is a bit much compared to say, meteor swarm at the same level. (mass heal actually raises the cap to 250.)

I was curious about that, since I thought it should raise the cap, but the SRD didn't mention anything, so I figured I remembered wrong. Where does the text about cap raising occur?

[Yukitsu]

Well, I don't think spells like meteor swarm are a very good benchmark, as they are comically bad in terms of efficiency. Something like Delayed Blast Fireball makes more sense. That said, it's probably situationally better than Energy Drain, another Clr 9 spell, because it hits multiple targets. Both are close range, and both are defeated by death ward (a 4th level spell.) Energy Drain is a debuff for taking down bosses whereas mass harm would be for healing undead allies or taking down cannon fodder that get too close.

Well, like I said it'd be more in terms of what the party as a whole uses. It's still just a damage spell. It's just a much higher damage spell than most other damage spells, so if the group is using things like disintegrate, or fireball, it may be too strong at that level of optimization.


I was curious about that, since I thought it should raise the cap, but the SRD didn't mention anything, so I figured I remembered wrong. Where does the text about cap raising occur?

Mass heal listing in the SRD says "This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250." found on http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/healMass.htm.

[moritheil]

Well, like I said it'd be more in terms of what the party as a whole uses. It's still just a damage spell. It's just a much higher damage spell than most other damage spells, so if the group is using things like disintegrate, or fireball, it may be too strong at that level of optimization.

Hmm, doesn't disintegrate do 40d6 as a 6th-level spell, though, and also double duty as a utility spell for destroying corpses, razing fortifications, and punching holes in mountains? I don't think it's underpowered at all compared to mass harm as a 9th level spell. A split ray disintegrate would be an 8th level slot, hit 2 people at Medium range with 40d6 damage (average 120 each, or 240 to one,) and threaten disintegration. It also wouldn't be blocked by a 4th level spell that most adventurers keep up. I can certainly see that mass harm would occasionally be better for close-in fighting, but disintegrate is by far better a lot of the time.

Really the edge mass harm has is the double duty it can pull as healing for undead, which is the entire reason I want to include it in the first place.


Mass heal listing in the SRD says "This spell functions like heal, except as noted above. The maximum number of hit points restored to each creature is 250." found on http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/healMass.htm.

... huh. Okay, thanks. Guess the site I checked earlier was just incomplete. :smallsmile:

[The_Snark]

Hmm, doesn't disintegrate do 40d6 as a 6th-level spell, though, and also double duty as a utility spell for destroying corpses, razing fortifications, and punching holes in mountains? I don't think it's underpowered at all compared to mass harm as a 9th level spell. A split ray disintegrate would be an 8th level slot, hit 2 people at Medium range with 40d6 damage (average 120 each, or 240 to one,) and threaten disintegration. It also wouldn't be blocked by a 4th level spell that most adventurers keep up. I can certainly see that mass harm would occasionally be better for close-in fighting, but disintegrate is by far better a lot of the time.

You're right that Disintegrate has more general utility, but Mass Harm has much more potent effects on a failed save: ~100 damage, as opposed to Disintegrate's 5d6 (average 17.5). Even if it can't reduce them below 1 hp, it's still a solid chunk out of all but the toughest monsters and adventurers. It can also affect more opponents than a Split Ray-ed Disintegrate, and doesn't require an attack roll (touch attacks may be relatively easy to make most of the time, but there are ways of defending against them).

Plus, you're comparing it to a sorcerer/wizard spell with metamagic applied.

Having said that, I don't think Mass Harm would be broken. But it's definitely a powerful spell.

[Tulya]

I don't really see an issue. It's a necromancy and negative energy effect with close range and a save for half, and the damage is guaranteed to never kill or disable your victims on its own. Even in core-only, I'd prefer to prepare Miracle and always have all of the best spells up to 7th level available at my fingertips for any situation. (Undead parties excepted, where I'd slot it in as I would Mass Heal.)

[moritheil]

Plus, you're comparing it to a sorcerer/wizard spell with metamagic applied.

I am, but only because otherwise we're comparing a 6th level spell and a 9th level spell, which is a substantial gap. With the metamagic, disintegrate is pushed up to an 8th level spell slot - a more reasonable comparison to make. I suppose it could also be a domain spell cast by a cleric with access to Destruction, in which case it would be a 9th level spell with Twin Ray applied. So it's fair to compare the two (and I was responding to someone else, who brought up disintegrate saying mass harm would make it less worth taking, and I'm not sure I can agree with that at all, precisely due to that utility.)


Having said that, I don't think Mass Harm would be broken. But it's definitely a powerful spell.

Thanks for your input. :smallsmile:


I don't really see an issue. It's a necromancy and negative energy effect with close range and a save for half, and the damage is guaranteed to never kill or disable your victims on its own. Even in core-only, I'd prefer to prepare Miracle and always have all of the best spells up to 7th level available at my fingertips for any situation. (Undead parties excepted, where I'd slot it in as I would Mass Heal.)

That's pretty much the situation I want to allow it for. Thanks. :smallsmile:

[Doxkid]

Its rather strange that the damage is listed as a flat 12/level under 'Spell lists" and 1d12/level instead in the spell's description.

I would go with the flat 12 damage, since Heroes of Horror has quite a few MAJOR mistakes in it that suggest it was never proofread, revised, edited, looked at by a sober person or expected to be read by min/maxers.

One other glaring error is Dread necromancers get Death Ward as a spell twice, at spell circle 3 and spell circle 4. Something else that many would consider and error is that Dread necromancers get Animate Dead later than clerics or wizards, though that is just an opinion.

It certainly isn't overpowered when compared to other necromancy spells if it is ruled to be 12 instead of d12 since most are much harsher (Avasculate, for example) and it can be reliably countered by a competent party.

[Gray Mage]

You're right that Disintegrate has more general utility, but Mass Harm has much more potent effects on a failed save: ~100 damage, as opposed to Disintegrate's 5d6 (average 17.5). Even if it can't reduce them below 1 hp, it's still a solid chunk out of all but the toughest monsters and adventurers. It can also affect more opponents than a Split Ray-ed Disintegrate, and doesn't require an attack roll (touch attacks may be relatively easy to make most of the time, but there are ways of defending against them).


PLus, if Mass Harm works like Harm it has a Will save instead of Disintegrate's Fort save, so it'd be better agains targets with high fort saves but low Will saves, which would generally be those that have a lot of HP and thus the targets of the spells.

[137beth]

I am of the firm opinion that healing should grant more health than damage spells of the same level take away. It is important to remember, however, that both harm and heal are capable of healing, just to different creatures (which is why I prefer to decrease the damage done by both spells, or to increase the healing). Harm/inflict are mostly used by NPCs, so there's no real harm in adding them (unless you have a neutral cleric in your party). But if there is a possibility of a player being able to use it, then extra care should be taken in adding any additions to a tier 1 class.

[Arcanist]

Apart from "my CL is absurd" shenanigans, I don't see any problems that immediately come to mind.

Actually, the max they can be healed by would be 250 which by the time being able to heal that much would be a problem, the party should be able to do WELL over that damage (In fact so much damage that 250 becomes minuscule :smalltongue:) I mean damn I've seen a Warblade at my table do 2600+ damage in a single round with minimal effort and I've heard horror stories where Warblades have done like 4000+ damage in a single round :smalleek:

[moritheil]

But if there is a possibility of a player being able to use it, then extra care should be taken in adding any additions to a tier 1 class.

Hmm. I'm of the opinion that if the tier system is a concern, then the implications of the tier system also have to be taken in mind, which is to say that damage is one of the least impressive things people can do with 9th level spells.

But I will keep that in mind. :smallsmile:

[AlanBruce]

Greetings. I haven't played 3.5 in a while now. However I have used Harm in my games and adding the Mass version would not create much difficulty. Yet I would like to be refreshed on a minor note: Massive Damage. Wouldn't recipients of the spell need to make a Will AND a Fortitude save since the damage from a single source caused more than 50hp of damage? Again, this was back in the day, that rule may have been removed. If such is the case, ignore the post. Thank you.

[Mystral]

I wouldn't allow it. In my opinion, the Cleric should not have a spell that deals more damage then the wizard is able to dish out (at least to non-undead), and with friend/foe recognition, to boot. Harm is okay because it's single target and is weaker then the healing effect of heal (it does not cause negative status effects, while heal cures those). Mass harm would be a bit too much.

[killianh]

I wouldn't allow it. In my opinion, the Cleric should not have a spell that deals more damage then the wizard is able to dish out (at least to non-undead), and with friend/foe recognition, to boot. Harm is okay because it's single target and is weaker then the healing effect of heal (it does not cause negative status effects, while heal cures those). Mass harm would be a bit too much.

this. Mass harm would be able to do 250 damage to the entire party or 125 on a save. Though the party could heal it with a mass heal, it could wipe just about any encounter, especially considering all of the tricks to get extra 9th spell slots for a cleric.

even for damage against one creature a maximized meteor swarm (which requires a level 12 spell slot) can only do 192 damage

[manyslayer]

I am of the firm opinion that healing should grant more health than damage spells of the same level take away. It is important to remember, however, that both harm and heal are capable of healing, just to different creatures (which is why I prefer to decrease the damage done by both spells, or to increase the healing). Harm/inflict are mostly used by NPCs, so there's no real harm in adding them (unless you have a neutral cleric in your party). But if there is a possibility of a player being able to use it, then extra care should be taken in adding any additions to a tier 1 class.

Possible house rule to get this effect with Heal and Harm (and mass versions of said) have any damage healed to a target is 10/level and and damage done to a target is 1d10/level.

[navar100]

Heal and Harm are capped at a max of 150 hps. Mass Heal notes that it's just like Heal, except applied to all targets you choose within 30' of each other, so apparently it doesn't raise that cap. The Mass Harm I'm proposing would mirror Mass Heal.

I agree Cleric CL shenanigans are already present with Core spells, in the form of Blasphemy or its uncapped sister spells (everything -10 to your caster level dies with no save unless it shares your alignment, and things -5 levels are "merely" paralyzed and dazed), but putting in a Mass Harm mirror of Mass Heal doesn't add to the problem.

Mass Heal specifies the cap is raised to 250 HP.

[Downysole]

I'm honestly surprised that there's not a Mass Harm spell in 3.5. It should be for parallelism, just like mass heal. If someone asked me in my game, I would allow it just like that.

[jaybird]

this. Mass harm would be able to do 250 damage to the entire party or 125 on a save. Though the party could heal it with a mass heal, it could wipe just about any encounter, especially considering all of the tricks to get extra 9th spell slots for a cleric.

even for damage against one creature a maximized meteor swarm (which requires a level 12 spell slot) can only do 192 damage

Meteor Swarm is terribad and should be a 7th level spell at the highest.

[ericgrau]

Even vs metamagicking more efficient damage like fireball, a mass harm would do much more damage, hit many more targets and be much harder to resist (and most of the things that are immune get damaged by mass heal). This is not a good idea to allow. A party of clerics could wipe almost any encounter in 1-2 rounds (often 1), even on passed saves, no DMM persist or other tricks necessary.

I know the damage doesn't seem ridiculous at first but you have to remember to multiply it by the ~3-10 foes the party faces in which case the only sane DM response should be "wtf no". And remember most high level foes only have a couple hundred hp.

I think the issue is that people underestimate area or multi-target effects and forget to multiply the damage. And since mass harm might even hit 15 foes instead of 3, this is even more true. Even at measly meteor swarm damage DMs who would allow such a spell will have to kiss large scale combats goodbye and only send a couple foes at a time from now on.

[Arcanist]

Meteor Swarm is terribad and should be a 7th level spell at the highest.

Hey, i thought i was the only one who said that :smallamused:

Anywho! Mass Harm has so much to flexibility to exploit it besides with Complete Divine/Arcane a Cleric can already create a make shift (albiet feat hungry) Mass Harm :smalltongue:

[jaybird]

Even vs metamagicking more efficient damage like fireball, a mass harm would do much more damage, hit many more targets and be much harder to resist (and most of the things that are immune get damaged by mass heal). This is not a good idea to allow. A party of clerics could wipe almost any encounter in 1-2 rounds (often 1), even on passed saves, no DMM persist or other tricks necessary.

I know the damage doesn't seem ridiculous at first but you have to remember to multiply it by the ~3-10 foes the party faces in which case the only sane DM response should be "wtf no". And remember most high level foes only have a couple hundred hp.

I think the issue is that people underestimate area or multi-target effects and forget to multiply the damage. And since mass harm might even hit 15 foes instead of 3, this is even more true. Even at measly meteor swarm damage DMs who would allow such a spell will have to kiss large scale combats goodbye and only send a couple foes at a time from now on.

At level 17, sanity goes out the window and two hundred or so damage is trivial. Besides, a properly done Fireball can hit 200 or so damage fairly reliably by low teens, and still for less then a 9th level slot. It's only over the top compared to Meteor Swarm, and that's not what 9ths should be balanced against.




Hey, i thought i was the only one who said that :smallamused:

Guess you're not :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

Fireball hits about 100 without metamagic reducers or other tricks, does not exclude allies and is more often resisted at high levels. Average CR 15-18 monster HP is 225-300. I really don't know how else to say that a party of 4 cheese free clerics ending 90% of encounters in 1 round is a Bad Idea.

I'm surprised people are even considering it this long. Is it some kind of extreme hate for direct damage and/or meteor swarm that makes people want to swing too far in the other direction? The assumption that said clerics will always be fighting one CR 21+ foe instead of 4 smaller foes? EDIT @ V: That cheesy clerics are the baseline assumption?

[jaybird]

Fireball hits about 100 without metamagic reducers or other tricks, does not exclude allies and is more often resisted at high levels. Average CR 12-18 monster HP is 200-300. I really don't know how else to say that a party of 4 cheese free clerics ending 90% of encounters in 1 round is a Bad Idea.

Searing Spell, +1 metamagic that deals half damage to Fire Immune and outright ignores Fire Resist. Fiery Spell and Empower Spell for extra fun. Shape Spell to ignore allies. Also, remember that these are 4 level 17 Clerics - they're going to end 100% of encounters in 1 round no matter what, so long as the players all have at least SOME idea of what they're doing. I don't see how one blast will somehow make high-level Clerics so much better.

[moritheil]

Fireball hits about 100 without metamagic reducers or other tricks, does not exclude allies and is more often resisted at high levels. Average CR 15-18 monster HP is 225-300. I really don't know how else to say that a party of 4 cheese free clerics ending 90% of encounters in 1 round is a Bad Idea.

I'm surprised people are even considering it this long. Is it some kind of extreme hate for direct damage and/or meteor swarm that makes people want to swing too far in the other direction? The assumption that said clerics will always be fighting one CR 21+ foe instead of 4 smaller foes? EDIT @ V: That cheesy clerics are the baseline assumption?

I'm not sure what encounters you have at 17+, but mine almost never started in close range and almost always featured enemies with death ward or other ways of being immune to negative energy/levels. You're talking about a 4th level spell that is reasonable to have up for all sorts of other reasons, that blocks this. You think only 10% of encounters will have it or be undead? And the other 90% you speak of would also have to fail saves and SR. If there isn't cheese like DMM: heighten, it's by no means assured that they will always fail.

I don't mind you saying it's potentially strong, but you're completely ignoring some non-trivial limitations.

[Sziget Pengék]

What if it was treated as a very high level Chill Touch? Where its cast once, but stored for up to caster level charges? It would not wipe a whole field, but would still be worthy of being named Mass Harm.

[Silva Stormrage]

I think it would be fine. For 9th level spells prepare it against Maw of Chaos, pretty much the same radius it can daze opponents causes problems with spell casting and can deal much more damage if you can force enemies to stay in it.

Damage spells aren't even that strong at 17th+ level anyway and I don't think it should be a problem. If your group is playing with casting regular fireballs at 17th level then ya it might be too strong but I imagine that isn't normally the case.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, it's probably too much damage in a low op group. On the other hand, the BBEG should be able to heal his undead.

So a quick, dirty house rule would be to allow it to heal undead as mass heal, but do less damage to regular folk. 1d12/CL, HoH said?

[OttoT]

REVIVE THE MONSTER!!!!

Anywhoodles, I seem to not see a single person mentioning the key feature in all things roleplaying.

If a PC can do it, so can an NPC.
The good guy cleric has 2 Mass Harm prepared? BBEG's Cleric minion has Divine Defiance, 3 Greater Dispel Magics, 3 essay Spell resistance, Mass Heal and Mass Harm.

PC is gonna get wrekt.

Now, greater harm is ok, but I DO THINK that Mass Harm should have been 10/lvl not 12-d12/lvl.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread Necromancy.