The Gaming Den

Can 3.5 Harm take you below 1 Hitpoint on a failed save?

Game On,
fbmf

I believe so - although they did use the wrong conjunction. Technically, "but" is still just a conjunction like any other, so both the half damage and the inability to reduce hit points to less than one are attached to the same sentence - which is about what happens when you make your save.

It should say "and" instead of "but" - although tha change doesn't actually alter the meaning of the passage, only its clarity.

Note that Harm is a crap spell anyway, as 5th level Clerics already get Planeshift, Wall of Stone, and Slay Living - which ollectively do the job of new Harm better at a lower level. So I can't come up with a single reason to prepare Harm as anything other than a massive healing spell for the Undead.

-Username17

Frank -- do you allow Harm to trigger a save vs. Massive Damage?


Essence

Massive Damage is an optional rule which is really dumb and I don't use it. So no.

If, however, you were for some reason using the massive damage rules, Harm and Flame Strike would trigger massive damage saves all the time.

-Username17

The massive damage rule sucks so hardcore that Andy Collins had to put in several optional wraparounds in the ELH just so an unlucky roll won't ruin the game.

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1074454273[/unixtime]]Massive Damage is an optional rule which is really dumb and I don't use it.

Death from massive damage is NOT optional, Frank. It's even in the PH. Death from massive damage based on size is the optional rule presented in the DMG.

- da chicken

As is the "ignore massive damae" optional rule.

Yes, I overstepped myself. Massive Damage is a minor rule that is so detrimental to good gaming that there are no less than twelve officially sanctioned patches on it which make it less inrusive or go away entirely.

After all, if we played 3.5 as written, complete with Andy's "you always fail saves on a 1" brain fart then essentially every attack (magical or otherwise) from about level 13 on has the 3.5 Vorpal quality. You should roll that save before you even roll damage, since 50 points is chump change - but a 1 in 20 chance of them falling over dead is not.

Honestly, you have a measure of how much massive trauma you can take before you die - it's called hit points - and sidestepping that game mechanic is the worst idea that 3rd edition ever had.

-Username17

This idea did surface prior to 3.5. I think the second edition optional rule was if you lose half of your fully healed HP in a single attack you have to make a system shock role or die or something weird like that.

Not that I disagree with the actual meat of the discussion.

3E just took a bad optional idea and distilled it into a bad rule.

TA

The FAQ wrote:

The harm spell deals 10 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 150 points at 15th level) and cannot take a target’s hit points to less than 1. If the target creature makes a successful saving throw, the damage is reduced by half, but the spell still cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1. What happens when the spell deals 50 points of damage or more to the target (as it might to any creature that has 51 hit points or more)? Does the death from massive damage rule apply? 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?

Technically, that’s right. If you take 50 points of damage
(or more) all at once, you’re subject to the death from massive damage rule (see page 145 in the Player’s Handbook). It makes no difference what the source of that damage is.

In the case of the harm spell, the death from massive damage rule creates a situation that’s arguably absurd, because once you have 51 hit points or more, you suddenly become susceptible to instant death from the spell when lesser beings (with fewer hit points) do not. If the situation really bothers you, you might try one of the following house rules:

No Instant Death from Harm Spells: The death from
massive damage rule doesn’t apply to damage inflicted from a harm spell.

Expended Instant Death from Harm Spells: Whenever you fail your save against a harm spell, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or die, no matter how much damage the spell actually deals to you. If your save against a harm spell succeeds, you still have to make a DC 15 Fortitude save or die if the spell deals at least 50 points of damage to you.

The first unofficial rule should prove easier to remember and use, and it matches the intent behind the harm spell better than the second rule. The second rule, however, provides a better fit with the death from massive damage rule.

Thoughts?

Game On,
fbmf

As I've said elsewhere, this has only convinced me that DFMD is an abberation to the system and should not be used.

It ignores the fundamental concept of the hp system that dealing 9 damage to a creature with max 10 hp is more damaging that dealing 50 damage to a creature with max 100 hp, and is equally as damaging as dealing 90 damage to a creature with max 100 hp.

Thoughts?

The person who wrote it is a moron. The wording of Harm is explicit: the limitation of not reducing your target's hit points below 1 is a dependent clause on them making their save, and has no effect if they fail. The numerical examples are incorrect.

Nevertheless, that this discussion can even happen outlines the fact that DFMD is the retarded younger brother of a well-thought-out rule.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1075882448[/unixtime]]
The person who wrote it is a moron.

Skip Williams? A moron? The hell you say!

It's just a slight change on the same question/answer for the 3rd edition Harm - without reference to the fact that the wording on the 3.5 version is completely different.

-Username17