Ogre Magi are AWESOME

[Conejo]

even when hit with Flesh to Stone, they can still disappear, heal, and attack!

[Qzipoun]

Try adding a hold and paralyze in the mix, they just pop out 'til it wears off -.-

[Shecky]

Get a tactical fighter to nail 'em with Stunning Blow right off the bat and the mage will die before ever getting a chance to phase out.

[MysticTheurge]

Get a tactical fighter to nail 'em with Stunning Blow right off the bat and the mage will die before ever getting a chance to phase out.

Or, you know, just FoD or Destruction them.

But I don't think that's really the point. The point is that their "Invisbility/Gaseous Form/Fly" mechanic is really really really cheesy.

[Idahe]

Well, that basicly is the way they are in PnP. Cheesy, cowardly, powerful enemies that cheat to win. I'm actually glad there is at least one mob in the game that does not just bend over and take it. Sure, they take the hits, phase out for 45 sec then come back to get slaughtered, but that little interruption in the zerging is well worth the wait.

[MysticTheurge]

Cheesy, cowardly, powerful enemies that cheat to win.

Cheesy and powerful yes. But they don't cheat. Or at least, they dont cheat according to the D&D rules. Which can't be said for the DDO ogre magi.

[Aspenor]

Or, you know, just FoD or Destruction them.

But I don't think that's really the point. The point is that their "Invisbility/Gaseous Form/Fly" mechanic is really really really cheesy.

agreed. an ogre can use the spell sanctuary and we can't. Cheesy.

[DKerrigan]

I typically hit them with a paralyzer and ask the caster to finger them...if they break I'll hit'em again.

The best is in Madstone Crater when I'm greater giant bane/paralyzer TWFing and I turn them to smoke and tell the party to gather up behind me and back a little ways, since they always seem to reappear there... :cool:

Really they're more of a nuisance than anything. /shrug

[Mourning_Star]

They should make ogre magi a playable race!

[MysticTheurge]

Really, I wouldn't mind the current mechanic if they changed two things:

While they're "phased out" let people see them if they with True Seeing (the way invisibility works in D&D).

While they're "phased out" let people hit them with DR 10/Magic (the way gaseous form works in D&D).

[DKerrigan]

Really, I wouldn't mind the current mechanic if they changed two things:

While they're "phased out" let people see them if they with True Seeing (the way invisibility works in D&D).

While they're "phased out" let people hit them with DR 10/Magic (the way gaseous form works in D&D).

That'd been nice and all but it would render the whole action pointless, someone equipped similarly to my TWF above with true seeing would still hit for 3d6 bane dmg and 7d6 sneak attack dice, as long as it wasn't aggro'ed on me. That assumes that my paralyzer won't work while it's in gaseous form.

[bobbryan2]

That'd been nice and all but it would render the whole action pointless, someone equipped similarly to my TWF above with true seeing would still hit for 3d6 bane dmg and 7d6 sneak attack dice, as long as it wasn't aggro'ed on me. That assumes that my paralyzer won't work while it's in gaseous form.

That's kinda the point. Their mechanic in DDO is completely borked. They're cheating big time.

They're just a pain to fight. I have them held or paralyzed... and I have to tell party members NOT to hit them, because I'm trying to vorpal.

[Shecky]

Or, you know, just FoD or Destruction them.

But I don't think that's really the point. The point is that their "Invisbility/Gaseous Form/Fly" mechanic is really really really cheesy.

Agreed. Which is why I prefer to steal their cheese and eat it before they get a chance to use it. 'Cause cheese is good eatin'. :D

[Shrazkil]

Get a tactical fighter to nail 'em with Stunning Blow right off the bat and the mage will die before ever getting a chance to phase out.


Incedentally, they disappear while stunning blowed as well.

[DrAwkward]

I've always wondered what "innate ability" that phase out thing is supposed to be emulating.

Spell-Like Abilities: At will -- darkness, invisibility;
1/day -- charm person (DC 14), cone of cold (DC 18), gassy form, polymorph, sleep

Darkness -- so very happy they don't spam that. They probably don't because we'd end up calling them "Dire Kobolds" and they don't want that nickname.

Invis -- It ain't that. Tried "see invis" and "true sight" and nothing works.

Charm Person -- This is single target, so we know he isn't waving his hands in little circles telling us "You didn't see anything!". It would be funny to see one of the Wild Men running around with a pink hat being "charmed" by the Ogre Mage. Wouldn't change anything, but would add some flavor.

Gassy Form -- Not so usefull a spell as to make you immune to all things for a minute. If this is the effect the Devs give the spell, my wizzy wants it on his spell list.

Polymorph -- Can't be this. It would be awesome, though, if we go into a room full of wildmen and one of them grins and throws cone of cold, then poofs into his "true form"

Sleep -- Yeah. This must be the one. He doesn't dissapear, he just casts sleep on us and goes off for a spot of tea.

[MysticTheurge]

I've always wondered what "innate ability" that phase out thing is supposed to be emulating.

I believe it's supposed to simulate them going invisible (and/or gaseous) and flying away for a bit. Which is still silly.

[DKerrigan]

I believe it's supposed to simulate them going invisible (and/or gaseous) and flying away for a bit. Which is still silly.

Come to think of it, the bugbear assassins use the same disappear/reappear thing (same animation anyway), just not gone for 45 seconds to a minute, with a full heal when they return...plus they'll use it throughout combat...

It's always nice to keep tabs on them while they're away though, so I suggeset smacking them with a cursespewer the first time through...it's kind of like an OMPS (Ogre Mage Positioning System) :D

[MysticTheurge]

It's always nice to keep tabs on them while they're away though, so I suggeset smacking them with a cursespewer the first time through...it's kind of like an OMPS (Ogre Mage Positioning System) :D

This was my tactic of choice pre-mod 4 (and therefore pre-Destruction).

[Impaqt]

Curse Em....... The Flower Stays with em When you cant see em.

[DKerrigan]

This was my tactic of choice pre-mod 4 (and therefore pre-Destruction).

That's all fine and good for you casters, but us rogues don't have those weapons at our disposal.;)

[Conejo]

Come to think of it, the bugbear assassins use the same disappear/reappear thing (same animation anyway), just not gone for 45 seconds to a minute, with a full heal when they return...plus they'll use it throughout combat...

yeah but the Bugbear Assassins are using Hide In Plain Sight, sort of, and they always re-appear directly behind wherever you were facing at the time. you've got enough time to turn around and start swinging.

[DKerrigan]

yeah but the Bugbear Assassins are using Hide In Plain Sight, sort of, and they always re-appear directly behind wherever you were facing at the time. you've got enough time to turn around and start swinging.

I guess the ogre mages are using the same thing longer then? And casting while it's active? They'll still appear behind whoever has aggro (ok, maybe they have some heal pots;) ), they just wait a minute or so, literally; and if you try to turn around as soon as they disappear, they just run to get behind you again...a minor PITA really, as they don't really do enough dmg to wipe a party on their own. Now throw in 3 of them, 3 trolls, 2 fiend blooded trolls and a couple of giant skeleton warriors and barbarians and elite difficulty, and it's a different story if they reappear at just the wrong time for the party...

[Sue_Dark]

That's all fine and good for you casters, but us rogues don't have those weapons at our disposal.;)

You quoted the portion of the post about the spell. This much is true, Rogues, Rangers, fighters, etc dont have FoD or any other instakill spells unless they are serious multiclasses. However, anyone can find a curse spewing weapon that they can use and give the magi a party hat, for the purpose of location determination. Actually, it serves twin purposes, location and ability reduction (-4 from the curse to skills, etc) so why not do it, if they survive long enuff to need it.


Edit- didnt notice your winky-doodle there, so i assume you already know all about this ****...

[DKerrigan]

You quoted the portion of the post about the spell. This much is true, Rogues, Rangers, fighters, etc dont have FoD or any other instakill spells unless they are serious multiclasses. However, anyone can find a curse spewing weapon that they can use and give the magi a party hat, for the purpose of location determination. Actually, it serves twin purposes, location and ability reduction (-4 from the curse to skills, etc) so why not do it, if they survive long enuff to need it.


Edit- didnt notice your winky-doodle there, so i assume you already know all about this ****...

Yeah...I quoted his response to my post of cursespewer as OMPS device...:)

[fefnir3284]

ogre magi only do that disappearing thing when they hps get low (and yes I agree they are cheesy and should be able to do that while stoned, para, etc), so my best character for them is my ranger/rogue/wizard dual weilder that uses a +* rapier of punc and +1 seeking +8 shortsword of punc with percision turned on (so she does 0-15 points of damage). Five, or so, crits later and they are toast. ^.^

[Huebacca]

They cant do there disappearing act when they are tripped or comanded:D

[Mad_Bombardier]

They cant do there disappearing act when they are tripped or comanded:D
I don't know about commanded, but they do disappear when Tripped or Stunning Blown. I learned that the hard way when I had the wrong mob targeted for melee damage and the stunned Ogre Magi blinked out.

[Aspenor]

They cant do there disappearing act when they are tripped or comanded:D

wanna bet?

[DrAwkward]

ok, maybe they have some heal pots

Ogre Magi have regeneration. I totally don't blame them for "hiding" while they regen (I would, if I could). I am still curious what ability exactly they are using in order to do it. Nothing I see on thier list is spectacular enough to warrant it.

[Zenako]

I guess the ogre mages are using the same thing longer then? And casting while it's active? They'll still appear behind whoever has aggro (ok, maybe they have some heal pots;) ), they just wait a minute or so, literally; and if you try to turn around as soon as they disappear, they just run to get behind you again...a minor PITA really, as they don't really do enough dmg to wipe a party on their own. Now throw in 3 of them, 3 trolls, 2 fiend blooded trolls and a couple of giant skeleton warriors and barbarians and elite difficulty, and it's a different story if they reappear at just the wrong time for the party...


Is there really any right time for that mix to appear, let alone reappear??:confused: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

[DKerrigan]

Is there really any right time for that mix to appear, let alone reappear??:confused: :eek: :eek: :rolleyes:

Sadly yes...that describes the approach to the 3rd seer in Madstone Crater...the numbers might be a little off, but that's the jist of the mob mix there...

[MysticTheurge]

Ogre Magi have regeneration. I totally don't blame them for "hiding" while they regen (I would, if I could). I am still curious what ability exactly they are using in order to do it. Nothing I see on thier list is spectacular enough to warrant it.

In some cases, the invisibility/fly combo could theoretically explain it. Though it works less well in other cases, like, for instance, the tunnels underneath the Restless Isles, where they first appeared. Where exactly are you going to fly off to that I can't chase you down and kill your invisible ***?

[Huebacca]

wanna bet?

Sure, let me know when you prove me wrong.

All I know is I only use a vertigo +8 khopesh against these things and if they dont get up they dont disappear. ;)

I cant speak so much about command as I havent done as much testing with it.

[Zenako]

Sadly yes...that describes the approach to the 3rd seer in Madstone Crater...the numbers might be a little off, but that's the jist of the mob mix there...

Oh I know, was in Crater the other night...was, shall we say, interesting.

We did have the end Sorceror Giant Warlock dude jump down the mountain after us (I think he was chasing some of the people he knocked off:) ). He got stuck part way down and was taking incoming fromt he party for a while until he moved to chase someone who had moved and he then dropped to a low valley. I was worried the Warlock would tether and we would have to rinse and repeat since he was now at a sliver of health. My Cleric dropped down and hit him with a HEAL as I got close and I think put him over the top and "dead".

[MysticTheurge]

My Cleric dropped down and hit him with a HEAL as I got close and I think put him over the top and "dead".

Heal on Undead (like Harm on Living Creatures) will never kill anything. It stops at 1 HP remaining. Of course, it's pretty nice when someone else is also busy throwing things at it or anything cause then it dies really fast. But Heal/Harm on their own won't kill things.

[DKerrigan]

Heal on Undead (like Harm on Living Creatures) will never kill anything. It stops at 1 HP remaining. Of course, it's pretty nice when someone else is also busy throwing things at it or anything cause then it dies really fast. But Heal/Harm on their own won't kill things.

That's why my rogue always uses Searing Light wands there... ;) :D

[Glenalth]

Curse Em....... The Flower Stays with em When you cant see em.

Tag and release :)

[Shecky]

Tag and release :)

Heh. I call it the Demon Pigeon Poo Highlighter.

[Zenako]

Heal on Undead (like Harm on Living Creatures) will never kill anything. It stops at 1 HP remaining. Of course, it's pretty nice when someone else is also busy throwing things at it or anything cause then it dies really fast. But Heal/Harm on their own won't kill things.

Yah I know, but it is nice to take the last 10% down to 1 point so that any other hit will do it. Time / tethering was a concern of mine. Not sure what his leash is like, but DID NOT want to find out. Two ranged attckers were nailing him constantly at this point and he died? within moments. (Goes back to the old who gets kill credit conumdrum, the character that does the first 500 point, of the one who does the literally last point! like in this case. It really does not matter for the team victory, but does affect the narative when recounting battles.)

[Riddikulus]

They should make ogre magi a playable race!
They are in PnP, but it's an ECL of +7... ouch.

[DrAwkward]

Heal on Undead (like Harm on Living Creatures) will never kill anything. It stops at 1 HP remaining. Of course, it's pretty nice when someone else is also busy throwing things at it or anything cause then it dies really fast. But Heal/Harm on their own won't kill things.

MT, I just read Harm, and I think the "stops at 1 hp" only applies if they save for half. The way it reads to me, if they fail the save they can be killed by it.

Were you referring to the DDO implementation of the spell?

[Huebacca]

MT, I just read Harm, and I think the "stops at 1 hp" only applies if they save for half. The way it reads to me, if they fail the save they can be killed by it.

Were you referring to the DDO implementation of the spell?

nope its whenever they would be brought to less than one it automaticly puts them at 1 hp.

[DrAwkward]

nope its whenever they would be brought to less than one it automaticly puts them at 1 hp.
Again, are you talking about the DDO implementation of the spell, or how you interpret the spell to work in PnP?

In other words, are we about to enter a friendly discussion over semantics and wording of the spell, or am I filling out a bug report?

[DKerrigan]

Again, are you talking about the DDO implementation of the spell, or how you interpret the spell to work in PnP?

In other words, are we about to enter a friendly discussion over semantics and wording of the spell, or am I filling out a bug report?



School: Necromancy
Components: Verbal,Somatic
Usable Metamagic Feats (Enlarge, Quicken, Heighten)
Description Charges the target with negative energy, dealing 10 points of damage per caster level (max 150hp). Harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1. Against undead targets acts as Heal. A successful Will save reduces the damage by half.
http://www.ddo.com/index.php?page_id=339&menus=sp&do=spells&sp_cid=4&sp_lvl=6&cmi=5:4:6

DDO implementation

[Hence]

You can kill them easy before they fade out if your a fighter with stunning blow and a good puncturing weapon, like a +2 Icy Burst Rapier of Puncturing...

Never been a problem for me; and I can almost always kill them before they disapear, even without landing a stunning blow... Stunning blow just seals their death warrent.

[MysticTheurge]

They are in PnP, but it's an ECL of +7... ouch.

Which, following the rules for Drow, means we can play with with absolutely no consequences! Munchkins rejoice!


MT, I just read Harm, and I think the "stops at 1 hp" only applies if they save for half. The way it reads to me, if they fail the save they can be killed by it.

Were you referring to the DDO implementation of the spell?

Interesting, I never noticed the discrepancy. I was actually referring to the DDO implementation of the spell. It does sound like it ought to be bug reported.

[DrAwkward]

DDO implementation

Thanks DK.

Bug report on its way, MT.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread:
"(Phasing out + regenerating) * enemy = -fun"

[Ithrani]

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.

No you are misreading it, save or no save it drops the target to no lower then 1 hp, always has been that way in PnP. It used to be drops the target down to 1d4 hp from whatever it's HP was but that was cheesy in 3.0 and changed in 3.5. So no in PnP Harm still only drops you to one 1 hp if it would put you over. If you still want to argue your point please call the WOTC hotline and ask a game support rep. they will tell you the same thing.

How do Ogre Mages Regain their lost HP, here's how. Surprised that you all did not know this.

Regeneration (Ex)

Fire and acid deal normal damage to an ogre mage.

Their regen rate is 5, but it seems alot faster then that in DDO.

[Velexia]

Cheesy and powerful yes. But they don't cheat. Or at least, they dont cheat according to the D&D rules. Which can't be said for the DDO ogre magi.

So, casting spells and using abilities while turned to stone/paralyzed/held isn't cheating...

[Velexia]

yeah but the Bugbear Assassins are using Hide In Plain Sight, sort of, and they always re-appear directly behind wherever you were facing at the time. you've got enough time to turn around and start swinging.

They use Ninja Magic! Poof!

[Mad_Bombardier]

You can kill them easy before they fade out if your a fighter with stunning blow and a good puncturing weapon.My observation is this: Ogre Magi will fade out under all circumstances (trip, stun, command, curse, held, paralyzed) when they hit 20% life. It's just what they're programmed to do. Puncturing works because you are not affecting their life bar %. As their CON drops, their total HP drops, but with low damage it stays relatively full. It's a very nice workaround to a cheesy implementation of gaseous form.

[MysticTheurge]

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.

No you are misreading it, save or no save it drops the target to no lower then 1 hp, always has been that way in PnP.

No I think Dr. Awkward is reading it correctly. Consider:

Harm...deals 10 points of damage per caster level ... . [Period! End of Sentence!] If the creature ... saves ... it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

Also of note, the "save" entry in the spell's stat block says "Will for half; see text." Obviously, if the spell, whether you saved or not, couldn't reduce you below 1 HP, there'd be no reason to say "see text" as the save would just be a save for half.


So, casting spells and using abilities while turned to stone/paralyzed/held isn't cheating...

No that's absolutely cheating. And the DDO ogre magi do it (but D&D ones can't). (That's what I said ;))

[Garth_of_Sarlona]

ogre magi only do that disappearing thing when they hps get low (and yes I agree they are cheesy and should be able to do that while stoned, para, etc), so my best character for them is my ranger/rogue/wizard dual weilder that uses a +* rapier of punc and +1 seeking +8 shortsword of punc with percision turned on (so she does 0-15 points of damage). Five, or so, crits later and they are toast. ^.^

I agree - best this is to try and persuade the DPS builds to leave them alone and stick to vorpal and/or puncturing/wounding - the invisibility is triggered by low HP and it doesn't get triggered if you don't dps them.

Garth

[Ithrani]

No I think Dr. Awkward is reading it correctly. Consider:

Harm...deals 10 points of damage per caster level ... . [Period! End of Sentence!] If the creature ... saves ... it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

Also of note, the "save" entry in the spell's stat block says "Will for half; see text." Obviously, if the spell, whether you saved or not, couldn't reduce you below 1 HP, there'd be no reason to say "see text" as the save would just be a save for half.



No that's absolutely cheating. And the DDO ogre magi do it (but D&D ones can't). (That's what I said ;))

I just called WOTC myself and asked and yes it does only drop you to 1 HP no matter what. 1800-324-6496 please give a call yourself. These guys are the real experts not geeks like us. They are paid to be uber geeks :D

[MysticTheurge]

I just called WOTC myself and asked and yes it does only drop you to 1 HP no matter what. 1800-324-6496 please give a call yourself. These guys are the real experts not geeks like us. They are paid to be uber geeks :D

Hmm interesting. The spell is written wrong then.

Though I'm inclined to believe that the guy on the phone is more likely to make the mistake. (Seriously, why would it say "see text"?)

[Dungnmaster001]

I just called WOTC myself and asked and yes it does only drop you to 1 HP no matter what. 1800-324-6496 please give a call yourself. These guys are the real experts not geeks like us. They are paid to be uber geeks :D

Spend some time on the WotC forums and you'll find many instances where that hotline has given incorrect answers that were eventually corrected by the people who actually write the rules. The people who answer those calls have the rulebooks and can reference them and they have the most current errata but even with all that they still answer questions based on the way the rules read to them. Of course I haven't been on those forums in awhile so maybe they have increased the quality of their support.

[Ithrani]

Hmm interesting. The spell is written wrong then.

Though I'm inclined to believe that the guy on the phone is more likely to make the mistake. (Seriously, why would it say "see text"?)

It is written wrong and the see text part is odd. Also why is it a will save? but Harm has always been about dropping the HP of the enemy down to a minimal amount with out killing them, regardless of saving throw.

[Ithrani]

Spend some time on the WotC forums and you'll find many instances where that hotline has given incorrect answers that were eventually corrected by the people who actually write the rules. The people who answer those calls have the rulebooks and can reference them and they have the most current errata but even with all that they still answer questions based on the way the rules read to them. Of course I haven't been on those forums in awhile so maybe they have increased the quality of their support.

I never really use the forums cause I could never find what info I wanted with out searching for hours. Do you know a link for the forum where the writers have answered some questions?

This is from the FAQ on Wizards site. From having a decade of exp playing DnD I know for a fact Harm is not meant to kill someone. I highlighted the part that explains the saving throw or not, but please read the its entirety to understand why Harm should not be a possible instant death spell.

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.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Curse Em....... The Flower Stays with em When you cant see em.

Thats what I do, "tagged".

[DrAwkward]

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.

Written that way, then yes it can never kill you.


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 that amount, but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

Written this way, it can.

Does anyone have access to the eratta? I trust that more than the FAQ. The FAQ is there to explain the rules, not rewrite them.

[Redweaver]

Harm ... cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.


Please explain how this can be interpreted in any way to say the Harm spell can kill you.

[DrAwkward]

Please explain how this can be interpreted in any way to say the Harm spell can kill you.

Sure thing.

Harm does 10 points per level, max 150.

If they save, blah blah blah <-- every thing in this sentence is relevant only on a successful save. If the target fails the save, you don't even have to finish reading the sentence! It doesn't matter. You can read the sentences that follow, as they might be useful, but we are done with this one.

Let me give another example:

"Fireball deals 1d6 per level, max of 10d6. If the target saves, they take half, but a target with evasion takes none."

Would you intrepret these sentences to indicate that evasion makes you immune to fireballs?

[Redweaver]

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 that amount, but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

Look at the second sentance again.

If..., harm deals half that amount, BUT it (the harm spell) cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one.

...IT (the harm spell) cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one.

Poorly constructed, but the end of that sentance isn't really dependant upon the save.

Save or no, "it cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one".

Really pretty straightforward. But like most thing in rules lawyering, there's always another interpretation.

[bobbryan2]

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 that amount, but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

Look at the second sentance again.

If..., harm deals half that amount, BUT it (the harm spell) cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one.

...IT (the harm spell) cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one.

Poorly constructed, but the end of that sentance isn't really dependant upon the save.

Save or no, "it cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than one".

Really pretty straightforward. But like most thing in rules lawyering, there's always another interpretation.


Umm.. no. It does mean the spell, but it's under the umbrella of "if the target fails the save still"

Simply using a pronoun doesn't take it out from under that conditional.

[Ithrani]

Harm works the way it has always been drops to a minimal amount of HP, old school version 1d4 hp left, 3.5 10 damage per caster level max 150 no lower then 1 hp no matter what. It is silly to argue this anyone who has ever played a good amount of DnD knows that Harm was never meant to kill.

[Redweaver]

Harm works the way it has always been drops to a minimal amount of HP, old school version 1d4 hp left, 3.5 10 damage per caster level max 150 no lower then 1 hp no matter what. It is silly to argue this anyone who has ever played a good amount of DnD knows that Harm was never meant to kill.

Everyone knows this, but rules lawyers just love pretending they don't. ;)

[DrAwkward]

Everyone knows this, but rules lawyers just love pretending they don't. ;)

You guys can still age a year every time you cast haste because even though its not written that way, that obviously is what they meant because its always been that way. Your game, your house rules.

I prefer to read the rules as they are written without any cruft from 2.0. My game, my house rules.

Let me try another example, using the same sentence structure:
"We pass each other in the street. If you mug me, I'll give you my wallet, but I'll call the cops."

Does not meet "We pass each other in the street and I always call the cops"

You can take the description to some old fart 2.0 playing gamer, and he will read the description of the spell according to how he's played it for the last 20 years.

You can take the description to a professor of english or logic, who doesn't know the game at all, and ask them to write a truth table describing the results of the save and they will say ...


... "Get a life" (thats what they told me anyway)

[Ithrani]

You guys can still age a year every time you cast haste because even though its not written that way, that obviously is what they meant because its always been that way. Your game, your house rules.

I prefer to read the rules as they are written without any cruft from 2.0. My game, my house rules.

Let me try another example, using the same sentence structure:
"We pass each other in the street. If you mug me, I'll give you my wallet, but I'll call the cops."

Does not meet "We pass each other in the street and I always call the cops"

You can take the description to some old fart 2.0 playing gamer, and he will read the description of the spell according to how he's played it for the last 20 years.

You can take the description to a professor of english or logic, who doesn't know the game at all, and ask them to write a truth table describing the results of the save and they will say ...


... "Get a life" (thats what they told me anyway)

Harm
Necromancy
Level: Clr 6, Destruction 6, Drd 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes
Harm damages a subject with negative energy that causes the loss of all but 1d4 hit points.
If used on an undead creature (requires a successful touch attack), harm acts like heal


What was that about 2nd Ed. Harm now, some old fart only thinks of harm like this, wrong again. It has always been this way, they changed it in 3.5 for various reasons. Please stop debating me, you cannot win :D

[Shecky]

/put on rules lawyer mask and professional linguist suit

Let's look at the RAW (with emphasis on the as written). Part the first:


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).

Okay, clear enough. Now for Part the second:


If the creature successfully saves, harm deals half this amount, but it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1.

In this sentence, we are talking about ONLY when the creature successfully saves. It is inarguably evident that "but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1" applies ONLY to when the creature successfully saves. There is no way that an invented claim of "poorly written" can possibly defend an interpretation that Harm "can never kill". No matter how rotten the writer (and after having read tons of WotC rulebooks, anyone can see that their writers are OBVIOUSLY pretty darn good grammarians), in the context of the writing of all the rulebooks, the "never less than 1" bit applies to successful saves ONLY. It's painfully obvious that even a drunk writer, if intending to apply "never less than 1" to the spell REGARDLESS of success or failure in the saving throw, should have made another sentence.

What in the writing of the spell leads you to the enormous leap to the conclusion that you "know" that "Harm was never meant to kill"? It says what it says. Don't inject meaning where it does not already exist. Don't take away meaning that's already there.

COUNTERPOINT

That being said, look at this page (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ei/20030105a). If we read it exactly as written, they're saying point-blank that Harm CANNOT reduce the target to less than 1 hp, PERIOD.

And I could find nada in the errata about Harm. This is buggin' me somethin' fierce - two separate official statements that deal with the same thing, and they take OPPOSITE sides. And don't talk about previous editions - 3.5 changed so much from previous editions that "well, it was always X before, so it's gotta be X now" is an invalid position.

GRR. I wanna know!!! :confused:

[Alavatar]

I am confused. How does the spell Harm pertain to Ogre Magi?

[DrAwkward]

I am confused. How does the spell Harm pertain to Ogre Magi?

We are debating if Harm can be used to kill one.

Seriously, this is a major tangent, and if the OP is offended, I'm more than happy to take the discussion elsewhere.



What was that about 2nd Ed. Harm now, some old fart only thinks of harm like this, wrong again. It has always been this way, they changed it in 3.5 for various reasons. Please stop debating me, you cannot win

Um... I swear you just proved my point. Just because you started shouting "rabbit season" too doesn't mean you win the debate.

(I'm having fun debating the issue so please don't take the "old fart" stuff seriously. PM me if I cross the line)

[Redweaver]

You guys can still age a year every time you cast haste because even though its not written that way, that obviously is what they meant because its always been that way. Your game, your house rules.

I prefer to read the rules as they are written without any cruft from 2.0. My game, my house rules.

Let me try another example, using the same sentence structure:
"We pass each other in the street. If you mug me, I'll give you my wallet, but I'll call the cops."

Does not meet "We pass each other in the street and I always call the cops"

You can take the description to some old fart 2.0 playing gamer, and he will read the description of the spell according to how he's played it for the last 20 years.

You can take the description to a professor of english or logic, who doesn't know the game at all, and ask them to write a truth table describing the results of the save and they will say ...


... "Get a life" (thats what they told me anyway)

I gave you my opinion based entirely upon nothing but reading that sentance and applying my knowledge of the english language...it had nothing to do with any supposed bias from previous editions.

The pronoun "it" in the second sentance refers to the harm spell, and the sentance describes "it" as not being able to reduce a target to less than 1 hp.

I can see how it can be read another way, hence the argument between rules lawyers here.



Sorry to have taken a part in hijacking this thread. On topic:

Ogre magi are in the same classification as minotaur charges, and the myriad of incorpreal creatures phasing abilities. I think they are cheesy and unfair, but there's not much I can do but complain.

[bobbryan2]

I gave you my opinion based entirely upon nothing but reading that sentance and applying my knowledge of the english language...it had nothing to do with any supposed bias from previous editions.

The pronoun "it" in the second sentance refers to the harm spell, and the sentance describes "it" as not being able to reduce a target to less than 1 hp.

I can see how it can be read another way, hence the argument between rules lawyers here.



Sorry to have taken a part in hijacking this thread. On topic:

Ogre magi are in the same classification as minotaur charges, and the myriad of incorpreal creatures phasing abilities. I think they are cheesy and unfair, but there's not much I can do but complain.

Again... the pronoun doesn't take it out of the umbrella clause.

A fireball does a max of 10d6 damage. If the target saves, it does half damage.

Notice how the pronoun IT didn't take it out of the conditional clause. It obviously means the spell, but the spell does multiple things.

IT does one thing if they fail the save and IT does another if they make the save.

If the spell description was written.
This spell does 10 pts/lvl damage, but it can never take a target below 1 HP. If the target saves, it does half damage.

It would read totally different.

IF it's not supposed to be able to kill a target, it's written incorrectly. End of story. It might not be supposed to kill a target on a save or otherwise, but htat's not how the description is written.

[Redweaver]

Again... the pronoun doesn't take it out of the umbrella clause.

A fireball does a max of 10d6 damage. If the target saves, it does half damage.

Notice how the pronoun IT didn't take it out of the conditional clause. It obviously means the spell, but the spell does multiple things.

IT does one thing if they fail the save and IT does another if they make the save.

If the spell description was written.
This spell does 10 pts/lvl damage, but it can never take a target below 1 HP. If the target saves, it does half damage.

It would read totally different.

IF it's not supposed to be able to kill a target, it's written incorrectly. End of story. It might not be supposed to kill a target on a save or otherwise, but htat's not how the description is written.

No, the second sentance is constructed of two seperate clauses. If you save blah blah AND it won't reduce you below 1 hp. The prohibition from taking you below 1 hp is not dependant on a save...the "but" seperates it out to say "regaurdless of this, it can't reduce you below 1".

[bobbryan2]

No, the second sentance is constructed of two seperate clauses. If you save blah blah AND it won't reduce you below 1 hp. The prohibition from taking you below 1 hp is not dependant on a save...the "but" seperates it out to say "regaurdless of this, it can't reduce you below 1".

Again... that might be what's meant. That's not how it's read nor written. IF it was intended to be a seperate thought, you would (at the very least) seperate it into two sentences.

If the target saves, he takes half damage, but it will not take him below 1 HP.

There is simply no other way to read that sentence.

I'm not debating how the spell is supposed to work, I'm just saying how it's written.

I'm really trying to think of examples here... but it's tough.

If a car blows up, it is completely destroyed. But if it blows up on the very aft section, it is probably salvageable, but it will cost a lot of money to fix.

Costing a lot of money to fix is completely and utterly only modifying the conditional "blows on the very aft section".

[Redweaver]

There is simply no other way to read that sentence.

Obviously you are wrong here, as we have seen in this thread.

Pronouns are used to replace nouns, so let's put them back in.

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 that amount, but harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.



So, now we can see how the interpretation of harm not being able to kill you can easily come about. As a seperate clause "..., but harm cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than 1." is really a sentance that could stand on it's own, but it was jammed onto the other sentance (kinda the definition of a clause).

[Conejo]

Harm (and to extent Heal) were widely discussed when 3.0 to 3.5 was the hot-button issue.

if you remember all the chatter, you would be aware that the spirit and intent of Harm and Heal was to not be the one-shot-kill spell.

RAW aside (since it's a poorly constructed writeup this time round), the spirit of the spells was to do massive damage but not outright kill.


this, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with how badly Ogre Magi cheat in DDO.

[Riddikulus]

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 that amount, but harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.

The way it is written suggests that you cannot be killed if you make your save, but can if you fail your save.

If it were intended to never reduce you below 1 HP, it would have been written this way:


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), but it cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1. If the creature successfully saves, it deals half that amount.

I don't believe there is any question as to what is intended by what I wrote above, therefore I suggest that the wording by the SRD is intentional and that you can be killed by harm if you fail your save.

[dmitri]

They should make ogre magi a playable race!

Yea, just what we need, more fodder for the powergamers/minmaxers. How bouit gnomes for RP love?

[dmitri]

Obviously you are wrong here, as we have seen in this thread.

Pronouns are used to replace nouns, so let's put them back in.

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 that amount, but harm cannot reduce the target's hit points to less than 1.



So, now we can see how the interpretation of harm not being able to kill you can easily come about. As a seperate clause "..., but harm cannot reduce the targets hit points to less than 1." is really a sentance that could stand on it's own, but it was jammed onto the other sentance (kinda the definition of a clause).

All right... how bout we drop the Transformational Grammar debate and save it for English class?

Just messing around... ambiguity makes me laugh.

[Riddikulus]

Yea, just what we need, more fodder for the powergamers/minmaxers. How bouit gnomes for RP love?
As I mentioned earlier, Ogre Magi as a playable race is ECL +7. It would be pretty brutal to be capped at level 7 while everyone else is level 14.

And yes Gnomes would be fun. Kobolds too.

[Alavatar]

As I mentioned earlier, Ogre Magi as a playable race is ECL +7. It would be pretty brutal to be capped at level 7 while everyone else is level 14.

And yes Gnomes would be fun. Kobolds too.

Too bad DDO does not acknowledge such limitations as ECL, as can be exhibited by the exclusion of drow ECL modification.

[MysticTheurge]

I don't believe there is any question as to what is intended by what I wrote above, therefore I suggest that the wording by the SRD is intentional and that you can be killed by harm if you fail your save.

Further evidence that the SRD wording is intentional lies, as I said before, in the stat block.

If the spell worked in such a way that it dealt 10 points per level but never took you below one and dealt half that much on a save, then the "Save" entry would simply read "Will for Half" like any other save-for-half spell. Harm's "Save" entry does not, however, read "Will for Half." It reads "Will for Half; see text." The "see text" portion of the entry is there because there are additional rules that apply when the target makes its save that do not apply when it fails its save.

[Riddikulus]

Too bad DDO does not acknowledge such limitations as ECL, as can be exhibited by the exclusion of drow ECL modification.
True, but Drow are a shadow of the PnP-selves (your SR is what?)... so I imagine Ogre-Magi would be similarly gutted.

[Shecky]

I gave you my opinion based entirely upon nothing but reading that sentance and applying my knowledge of the English language... it had nothing to do with any supposed bias from previous editions.

The pronoun "it" in the second sentence refers to the harm spell in the context of a successful saving throw, since that's the topic of the sentence in which it finds itself, and the sentence discussing only the context of a successful saving throw describes "it" as not being able to reduce a target to less than 1 hp in the context of a successful saving throw.

I can see how it can be read no otherway, hence the incomprehensible argument between rules lawyers here.

Fixed it for ya. :D

[MysticTheurge]

True, but Drow are a shadow of the PnP-selves (your SR is what?)... so I imagine Ogre-Magi would be similarly gutted.

Using the Drow as a model, Ogre Magi would be implemented as follows:


* +10 Strength, +6 Constitution, +4 Intelligence, +4 Wisdom, +6 Charisma.
* Medium Size.
* An ogre mage’s base land speed is 30 feet. It also has no fly speed.
* +5 natural armor bonus.

That looks like LA +0, right? :rolleyes:

[HorridForm]

Not sure if it was posted yet, but if you puncture them to death they will not blink out and heal back all the lost HP.

[Ro-Longo]

Ok, here is what you do.

Throw down an ottos dancing sphere and mind fog and watch them dance. It's a hoot watching them smack thier butts. Then add in a Cloudkill and have your fighter hit them with a wounding weapon.

Or you could just pk,finger destruct them.

[DKerrigan]

The if/then statement and the but statement are to separate things. If you REALLY want me to I'll dig my Logic 101 text book out when I get home from work...

[MysticTheurge]

The if/then statement and the but statement are to separate things. If you REALLY want me to I'll dig my Logic 101 text book out when I get home from work...

They're the same sentence and the 'If' clause takes primacy in the sentence.

"The lights are on. If it were dark, I wouldn't be able to see you, but you wouldn't be able to see me either."

That statement doesn't mean that you can't see me regardless of whether it's dark or not. Your inability to see me is another result of the If clause.

"On the highway, the trip takes an hour. If you take the back roads, it's a shorter trip, but you'll probably get lost."

I'm not saying you're probably going to get lost whether you take the back roads or the highway, I'm saying you'll probably get lost if you take the back roads.

I really can't see how you guys are reading this sentence in any other way.

[bobbryan2]

I really can't see how you guys are reading this sentence in any other way.

Stubbornness.

[Ithrani]

But harm is not meant to kill ever. Never ever ever ever ever eveeeerrrrrrrrrrrr was Harm a deal so much damage the target is dead spell it was deal all the damage you could with out knocking it our, ALWAYS from 1st ed. through 2nd and even 3rd, but they found out a quickened harm and a mace make for a dead adult dragon in one round.

Ok "rules laywers" lets talk about spell level and potency, which is in the DMG, if Harm could just kill you out right by dealing 150 damage at 15th level then why is it only 5th level. At 10th level you can deal 100 damage to a fighter and chances are they are going to fail their Will save since it is nomrally low, and 100 hp is quite a bit for a 10th level fighter in PnP probably about the average. So a Cleric can one shot kill the average fighter of the same level with a failed save against a Harm spell. (Sure Slay Living can do this, but thats a fort save and normally Wizzies and Rogues have low fort saves, as well as lower HP then other classes. but these are insta death spells and not pure damage) A 10th level Wizard/Sorcerer could not boast the same kind of fire power. The best damage they can do at that level is a 10d6 damage spells or a maxed scorching ray.

The point is that Harm does to much damage all at once to be a spell that can kill due to damage. It should be a 7th level spell or so if it could actually kill, but since Harm is a staple 5th level spell and WOTC is smart enough to only rock the boat a little they changed it to do an amount of damage that would be about the average HP that a fighter or barbarian would have of the same level of caster, and since the spell was always meant to simply DROP THE TARGET TO A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF HP (I cannot stress this enough, that has ALWAYS been the purpose of this spell) instead of 1d4 HP left it became a no less then 1 HP.

Yes the sentence structure is poorly designed, but it is only meant to drop you down to 1 HP and no less. Just the fact that in the FAQ they state that Death from Massive Damage could be argued inapplicable to the damage done by Harm since it "goes against the nature of the spell" Geez how many ways can I prove my point.

If this was a judged debate you would all lose by a landslide, you all have 1 fact to back up your opinion of the spell, the sentence structure, and I have given at least 4 facts against it, with clear and articulate argument I backed up my opinion of Harm with those facts, I win. Immature, maybe, but I know how to debate and I know when I am 100% right.

[bobbryan2]

But harm is not meant to kill ever. Never ever ever ever ever eveeeerrrrrrrrrrrr was Harm a deal so much damage the target is dead spell it was deal all the damage you could with out knocking it our, ALWAYS from 1st ed. through 2nd and even 3rd, but they found out a quickened harm and a mace make for a dead adult dragon in one round.

Ok "rules laywers" lets talk about spell level and potency, which is in the DMG, if Harm could just kill you out right by dealing 150 damage at 15th level then why is it only 5th level. At 10th level you can deal 100 damage to a fighter and chances are they are going to fail their Will save since it is nomrally low, and 100 hp is quite a bit for a 10th level fighter in PnP probably about the average. So a Cleric can one shot kill the average fighter of the same level with a failed save against a Harm spell. (Sure Slay Living can do this, but thats a fort save and normally Wizzies and Rogues have low fort saves, as well as lower HP then other classes. but these are insta death spells and not pure damage) A 10th level Wizard/Sorcerer could not boast the same kind of fire power. The best damage they can do at that level is a 10d6 damage spells or a maxed scorching ray.

The point is that Harm does to much damage all at once to be a spell that can kill due to damage. It should be a 7th level spell or so if it could actually kill, but since Harm is a staple 5th level spell and WOTC is smart enough to only rock the boat a little they changed it to do an amount of damage that would be about the average HP that a fighter or barbarian would have of the same level of caster, and since the spell was always meant to simply DROP THE TARGET TO A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF HP (I cannot stress this enough, that has ALWAYS been the purpose of this spell) instead of 1d4 HP left it became a no less then 1 HP.

Yes the sentence structure is poorly designed, but it is only meant to drop you down to 1 HP and no less. Just the fact that in the FAQ they state that Death from Massive Damage could be argued inapplicable to the damage done by Harm since it "goes against the nature of the spell" Geez how many ways can I prove my point.

If this was a judged debate you would all lose by a landslide, you all have 1 fact to back up your opinion of the spell, the sentence structure, and I have given at least 4 facts against it, with clear and articulate argument I backed up my opinion of Harm with those facts, I win. Immature, maybe, but I know how to debate and I know when I am 100% right.


Again... you're arguing from the spirit of previous editions' rules. That's not the debate.

It's nothing about being a rules lawyer at all.

The sentence says that it can kill on a failed save. Now... it might be written wrong. They might have intended to write it another way. But that's how it's written.

[MysticTheurge]

So a Cleric can one shot kill the average fighter of the same level with a failed save against a Harm spell. (Sure Slay Living can do this, but thats a fort save and normally Wizzies and Rogues have low fort saves, as well as lower HP then other classes. but these are insta death spells and not pure damage)

I don't understand how you can argue this from a "power for spell level" concept.

Slay Living - Single Target. Fort save or instant death. Touch Range. 5th level spell.
Harm - Single Target. Will save or lots-of-damage-that-might-kill-you. Touch Range. 6th level spell.

Please tell me what's wrong with the power of Harm given that comparison? You seem to want it to be that Will Save spells are more powerful, which isn't true. They're more powerful against certain targets, sure, but not overall. You also seem to want it to be that damaging spells are more powerful than insta-kill spells, which is also not true. (If something has more than 150 hit points Slay Living still has a chance to kill them, Harm doesn't.)


If this was a judged debate you would all lose by a landslide, you all have 1 fact to back up your opinion of the spell, the sentence structure, and I have given at least 4 facts against it, with clear and articulate argument I backed up my opinion of Harm with those facts, I win. Immature, maybe, but I know how to debate and I know when I am 100% right.

Except that when it comes to rules determinations certain sources carry more weight than other sources, even within a given book. This is made abundantly clear by the designers of the rules. You take text before charts, for instance. Likewise, unless specifically stated otherwise, you take core rules over other stuff. We have 1 source, yes, but it's the actual source of the rule in D&D 3.5. You have four sources, one of which is moderately applicable (the FAQ) but which doesn't supersede the actual rules, and the other three of which are all entirely irrelevant (previous editions, etc.)

So, by all means, go ahead and "win."

[Ithrani]

Again... you're arguing from the spirit of previous editions' rules. That's not the debate.

It's nothing about being a rules lawyer at all.

The sentence says that it can kill on a failed save. Now... it might be written wrong. They might have intended to write it another way. But that's how it's written.

The debate is about Harm, the previous edition's rules are the facts, Harm not killing in 3.5 is my opinion.

I think it is pretty clear that I was not trying to "debate" what the older content stated but use it as a fact to back up my opinion of Harm not being able to reduced a target blow 1 hp, I also showed the FAQ where it states that it cannot reduce the target to lower then 1 passed or failed save, and where it states that Death from Massive Damage would be "against the nature of Harm". I called the WOTC hotline and asked myself and was told by their game support Harm never reduces a target below 1. As well as showed (something no one else mentioned, spell construction and appropriate parameters for spells and their level) that a spell of Harm's level is not meant to deal enough "damage" in one shot to kill any target of any just about level close to the caster. Again I have used more facts to back up my opinion, all of those individual facts are as strong as the single fact that the sentence is grammatically implying the opposite of my view of the spell. Since the fact of the grammar is out numbered by the facts I have presented the debate would be in my favor.

Harm should not ever be used to deal enough damage to kill a target, that is what the makers of the DnD rules always meant for it to be, if you don't like that rule or are so hung up on how the sentence is worded then you play it the way you want. But my view is in accord with the proper use of Harm in PnP, anyone wants to truly challenge this, go to a forum on Wizards and ask there. You will find I am right.

[bobbryan2]

Harm should not ever be used to deal enough damage to kill a target, that is what the makers of the DnD rules meant for it to be in previous editions

Fixed.

Saying they always meant for it to be a certain way (especially when the wording was changed) is presumptious at best.

[MysticTheurge]

The debate is about Harm, the previous edition's rules are the facts, Harm not killing in 3.5 is my opinion.

...

Harm should not ever be used to deal enough damage to kill a target, that is what the makers of the DnD rules always meant for it to be...

Harm is like that in previous editions because previous editions treated clerics like people who weren't supposed to be killing things. They had a lot of stupid restrictions that have been done away with in 3.5

Previous edition's rules are not facts that have any bearing what-so-ever on the 3.5 rules. Sorry.

[Ithrani]

Here is why Slay Living is not as powerful as Harm. Death Ward. Harm is unpreventable damage, only SR will prevent all of it and a will save prevents half. But the drawback to Harm has always been that it does not kill, what makes you think that the 3.5 writers would have changed the spell to be something so different. A poorly written sentence, it really is not much of a leg to stand on when it comes to D20 rules. I play Starwars D20, there are tons of grammatical errors that I have to call up and ask if I can't find an errata on it. Sadly Wizards does not update and errata ever tiny mistake. But since no one here will go to Wizards and ask, since they know they will be proven wrong :p I will do it.

[Ithrani]

Harm is like that in previous editions because previous editions treated clerics like people who weren't supposed to be killing things. They had a lot of stupid restrictions that have been done away with in 3.5

Previous edition's rules are not facts that have any bearing what-so-ever on the 3.5 rules. Sorry.

Clerics don't kill things, huh? Evil Clerics Slay you then turn you ito undead if you want to get iconic. Slay living and Destruction were around, Inflict Spells existed, and whats your argument then why in 3.0 it still could not kill with Harm if clerics can do plenty of killing in that edition. Ever see what Slime Wave does in 3.0, come on MT, you so far off base. 3.0 Clerics are so much more dangerous then in 3.5.

[MysticTheurge]

Here is why Slay Living is not as powerful as Harm. Death Ward. Harm is unpreventable damage, only SR will prevent all of it and a will save prevents half.

Um....

You should probably take another look at the descriptions of both Death Ward and Harm.

;)

[Ithrani]

Fixed.

Saying they always meant for it to be a certain way (especially when the wording was changed) is presumptious at best.

So is thinking that the writers meant for Harm to kill. When everything on Wizards site points to the opposite.

[bobbryan2]

Sadly Wizards does not update and errata ever tiny mistake. But since no one here will go to Wizards and ask, since they know they will be proven wrong :p I will do it.

It's not about being proven wrong.

At best, Wizards would have to admit they wrote the rule completely wrong. Either we're right... and you're wrong. Or we're right and Wizards is wrong. It's pretty much fact that the sentence says Harm can kill on a failed save. The multiple example sentences should prove that.

All we're arguing is the grammer says A. If Wizards intende B, that's not what they put down.

[MysticTheurge]

Clerics don't kill things, huh? Evil Clerics Slay you then turn you ito undead if you want to get iconic. Slay living and Destruction were around, Inflict Spells existed, and whats your argument then why in 3.0 it still could not kill with Harm if clerics can do plenty of killing in that edition. Ever see what Slime Wave does in 3.0, come on MT, you so far off base. 3.0 Clerics are so much more dangerous then in 3.5.

I was talking previous editions, like second and before.

3.0 Harm had that particular restriction because the spell had no saving throw and no damage numbers. It just reduced things to 1d4 HPs regardless of their initial HPs and without a saving throw. If you made your touch attack roll, your target, whether it was a kobold or a God was left with only 1d4 HPs. It was also overpowered. Which is why the spell was rewritten to do 10 points per level, with a save for half.

[MysticTheurge]

All we're arguing is the grammer says A. If Wizards intende B, that's not what they put down.

And that is absolutely when they errata things.

Given that the sentence and the spell's save entry both support our interpretation of the rule, if the spell were supposed to work the way you say it does, they would have errata'd it.

And saying they don't "errata every little thing" is absurd. Have you seen some of the errata?

[Ithrani]

And that is absolutely when they errata things.

Given that the sentence and the spell's save entry both support our interpretation of the rule, if the spell were supposed to work the way you say it does, they would have errata'd it.

And saying they don't "errata every little thing" is absurd. Have you seen some of the errata?

Things get looked over. Especially something that in the DnD world might be considered common knowledge.

[Ithrani]

I was talking previous editions, like second and before.

3.0 Harm had that particular restriction because the spell had no saving throw. It just reduced things to 1d4 HPs regardless of their initial HPs and without a saving throw. If you made your touch attack roll, your target, whether it was a kobold or a God was left with only 1d4 HPs. It was also overpowered. Which is why the spell was rewritten to do 10 points per level, with a save for half.

But if it was meant to kill a target then why?

1 In the FAQ is it not corrected that Harm can only reduce a target to no less then 1 HP even if they pass the save.

2 Also states that a variant rule that no Death from Massive Damage is possible from the damage of a Harm spell because "It goes against the Nature of the spell"

3. The WOTC Game Support Rep. answered the Question about Harm with out needing to refer to an errata FAQ or book (I did read the description to him, he answered quickly probably because it is a common question due to the poorly written sentence) And the answer was Harm never reduces a target to less then 1 HP failed or passed save.

[MysticTheurge]

1 In the FAQ is it not corrected that Harm can only reduce a target to no less then 1 HP.

From the front of the Errata:


Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D&#174; rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

The PHB is the primary source for spells and thus takes precedence over the FAQ.

Number 2 is just a repeat of number 1. The FAQ disagrees with the PHB. The PHB is the primary source and therefore is correct.

Or, if you want to get more technical, you could say that that particular statement says that a target shouldn't die from Massive Damage when he saves against Harm, even though 75 damage might otherwise cause a Massive Damage roll.


3. The WOTC Game Support Rep. answered the Question about Harm with out needing to refer to an errata FAQ or book (I did read the description to him, he answered quickly probably because it is a common question due to the poorly written sentence) And the answer was Harm never reduces a target to less then 1 HP failed or passed save.

If you check the WotC Site, as you keep suggesting everyone else should do, you'll find plenty of instances where CS has contradicted themselves over things. I'm usually willing to take their interpretation as true if a given rule is vague, but the Harm description is not vague in any way. It's perfectly clear unless you want to butcher the grammar of the sentences. The CS guy you talked to is wrong. Sans errata, the PHB is correct, regardless of what you or the guy writing the FAQ or the CS rep on the phone think the "Nature of the spell" is.

[MysticTheurge]

Let's turn your little list around.

If Harm is not ever supposed to kill things then why:

1) Does the "it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1." clause appear in the sentence about the effects of a save, rather than in the first sentence about the general effects of the spell?

2) Does the "Save" entry for the spell say "see text"?

3) Is the spell a 6th level spell compared to Slay Living's 5th level?

The truth is, the only possible answers you can possible come up with for the first two questions are based entirely on speculation. "They made a mistake in writing it, but everyone knows how harm is supposed to work." Sorry, that's just not good enough. That's not an actual argument, that's nothing more than a guess at something that supports what you want the answer to be.

[Ithrani]

Just not going to argue it anymore.

[MysticTheurge]

Sorry MT but I am right

Inability to debate the points and resorting to simply outright saying "I win" is a good sign of a weak argument.

But it's probably for the best. There's really nothing short of Official Errata that could convince me on this one.

[Ithrani]

Inability to debate the points and resorting to simply outright saying "I win" is a good sign of a weak argument.

But it's probably for the best. There's really nothing short of Official Errata that could convince me on this one.

:D Hey I debated my points just fine, you may not like them but they are valid.
But that is fine the only the Errata would change your mind. I feel that way about Wounding weapons only needing to hit the target and not damage them to take effect. Nothing official says the weapon has to do damage, only hit.

My argument there was that PnP "Puncturing" only needs to be a touch attack (No actual Puncturing there if it touches and not damages), so why should wounding have to actually damage the opponent. Counter arguments like it's blood lose so the blood has to leave the body through a wound isn't valid to me because we are trying to make sense of Magical affect which by nature defies logic and sense. Maybe the Wounding doesn't need a hole to be created for the blood to leave, maybe it can be internal bleeding, again trying to make sense of a magic affect. I read it for face value like you do with the Harm spell, and a CS told me that the to hit should imply that it has to get past DR as well and I disagree with them. The difference is with Harm I know what the writers intended for from experience.

Now you have me wondering if the old Wounding said damage or hit to make the target loss 1 HP per round. I would really be contradicting myself if I did not change my view based on the old description of Wounding but continue to do so for Harm.
And so I must change my view of wounding since the old edition says damaged and not simply hit. Ahh well that argument is old and moot now.

Oh yeah back on topic, Ogre Mage's and anything (bugbear assassins) that disappears needs to be fixed so that see invis and true seeing work on them.

[MysticTheurge]

But that is fine the only the Errata would change your mind. I feel that way about Wounding weapons only needing to hit the target and not damage them to take effect. Nothing official says the weapon has to do damage, only hit.

Which isn't a debate about the D&D rules, it's a debate about the DDO implementation of something.

There's a lot more haziness there, given that the weapon wasn't/can't be implemented exactly according to the D&D rules, and so Turbine gets a bit of leeway in doing it the way they want to do it.

This isn't like that.

[brokenscythe]

hey i hate those darn ogre magi too!

i dunno what the last couple of pages of this thread was about though :P

[Conejo]

i'm going to make a thread about Harm. maybe there, we can talk about Ogre Magi. :eek:

[Shecky]

The if/then statement and the but statement are to separate things. If you REALLY want me to I'll dig my Logic 101 text book out when I get home from work...

Linguistics has nothing to do with logic. Two separate things. :D

[DrAwkward]

Linguistics has nothing to do with logic. Two separate things. :D

Well, many Logic 101 books also include rules for dissecting sentences to form truth tables. I'm totally geeking out on this, and would dig it if DKerrigan dusted off his textbook. And, um, Ogre Magi smell like old tires.

[Shamguard]

And, um, Ogre Magi smell like old tires.

How do you know what old tires smell like? You haven't been sniffing around the back of my car? Again?

Beside Ogre Magi smell like jasmine and orange blossems. At least before the fireball goes off:eek: , then it's sulfer and bat guano. :mad:

[Shecky]

Well, many Logic 101 books also include rules for dissecting sentences to form truth tables. I'm totally geeking out on this, and would dig it if DKerrigan dusted off his textbook. And, um, Ogre Magi smell like old tires.

The problem with Logic 101 is that it almost always gives a dumbed-down version of real, hardcore logic. I had an absolutely excellent professor in my first year of a philosophy minor who started to get that forehead vein if anyone tried to use a "truth table" (his usual response was, "If there is a more contradictory phrase than 'truth table', I haven't seen it. I don't care that it's in the textbook - it's a load of BS."). Language always includes a panoply of assumptions for which the veracity is not susceptible to confirmation via logic. I had an ethnolinguist professor years later in grad school who agreed wholeheartedly (if you know the difference between descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar, you probably already know why she agreed!).

If you dissect language with any precision and thoroughness, you will inevitably find that it includes so many false-to-fact assumptions as to qualify nearly as random babble. Even mathematics, the "language of logic", is on shaky ground when it comes to the question of "truth" - just ask one generation of mathematicians what is provable, then ask about the validity of those proofs a couple of generations later, and you'll see what I mean. :)

[DKerrigan]

Well, many Logic 101 books also include rules for dissecting sentences to form truth tables. I'm totally geeking out on this, and would dig it if DKerrigan dusted off his textbook. And, um, Ogre Magi smell like old tires.

Since there's interest I'll do it when I get home from work...

[bobbryan2]

I sense another tangent coming. This one even more tangential than the last. :D

[DKerrigan]

I sense another tangent coming. This one even more tangential than the last. :D

The tangent's already here...I'm just adding to it...when I get home.;) :D

[MysticTheurge]

Since there's interest I'll do it when I get home from work...

Whatever your logic books say about the sentence in Harm's description, they're going to say about the two example sentences I offered above. But maybe people who read logic textbooks can't see even when the lights are on. ;)

[Shecky]

Since there's interest I'll do it when I get home from work...

I reserve the right to gouge my e-eyes out if you start truth-tabling at us. :D

[chimerasplice]

Ogre magi invis, and true seeing cant see them. Hmm looks like another example of 'lost in translation'...

[MysticTheurge]

Below is my email to and answer from WotC customer service. I asked pretty much all the same questions I've asked in this thread. I've cleaned up some of the formatting (and added a little bit of emphasis) but I've altered none of the actual text.


Subject: Harm Spell
Discussion Thread


Response (Support Agent) 06/26/2007 05:42 PM

Hi there <my name>,

Thank you for contacting Wizards of the Coast game support.

A failed save vs. Harm can kill you; a successful save cannot.


Take Care and Good Gaming! :)

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Sam
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST


Response (Support Agent) 06/25/2007 05:45 PM

<My name>,

I am sorry that you have not yet received your D&D question(s)! We are currently experiencing a delay in processing them however. We have not forgotten you; we just have a backlog.

You should recieve a reply to your query within 24-48 hours from the time of this mail. We apologize for the delay and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve this issue.

Please let me know if you need anymore help!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

John K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST


Customer (<my name>) 06/23/2007 08:19 PM

Given that the description of Harm is as follows:
-------------------------------------------------
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 the "it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" clause apply to the entire spell or just the results of a save.

That is, if the target fails its save, can Harm reduce a target to 0 or fewer hit points?

If not, why does the "it cannot reduce the target’s hit points to less than 1" clause appear in the second sentence rather than the first. Its appearance there strongly suggests that that particular aspect of the spell applies only on a successful save. Also, why does the "Save" entry for the spell include the phrase "see text" implying that there are additional results of a successful save beyond the "for Half" portion?

(Oh, and also, why hasn't the spell been officially errata'd to read properly if this is really the case?)

********************
Page Number: 239
Book Name: PHB




Auto-Response 06/23/2007 08:19 PM

[DKerrigan]

Below is my email to and answer from WotC customer service. I asked pretty much all the same questions I've asked in this thread. I've cleaned up some of the formatting (and added a little bit of emphasis) but I've altered none of the actual text.

Woot! I've been getting home from work late this week because of a customer visit tomorrow and various company bigwigs invading my office so I didn't get a chance to dig my book out...

Ticket away!!! Harm is teh uber dethz!!!!1111!11!!!!!!!!!!@!11!@#@#rfee!@eleventyo ne

EDIT: Oh wait, this is DDO, 140 (soon to be 150) pts of dmg is a nick to the mobs here...:rolleyes:

[bobbryan2]

Heh

[Shecky]

Below is my email to and answer from WotC customer service. I asked pretty much all the same questions I've asked in this thread. I've cleaned up some of the formatting (and added a little bit of emphasis) but I've altered none of the actual text.

Grammar FTW! Oh, how they scoffed... :)

[Conejo]

well thanks a ton MT. now what are we going to discuss in this thread if you have resolved the issue of Harm? :mad:

[MysticTheurge]

well thanks a ton MT. now what are we going to discuss in this thread if you have resolved the issue of Harm? :mad:

Ogre Mages?

[Shecky]

Ogre Mages?

Magi. And why on earth would we want to do that? ;)

[samagee]

Or, you know, just FoD or Destruction them.

But I don't think that's really the point. The point is that their "Invisbility/Gaseous Form/Fly" mechanic is really really really cheesy.

No kidding. They need to visit this pain in the butt, however it will be around as long as every NPC is an elf issue.