Persistant Spell Feat

[kayn99]

So I have a player who plans on using Divine Metamagic with the persistant metamagic feat. He want to create a 24 hour Monster summoning spell for his highest level spell. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? It does take him a lot of feats to do such an action so I am not sure I am bothered by it; He is a one trick pony. I just want to make sure there isn't any rules that I am over looking before he does this.

Kayn

 

[Infiniti2000]

Divine Metamagic + Persistent Spell is arguably the most commonly referenced broken combination. I would say that most people would not allow it at all, as many of that most at least use the incantatrix rule on Divine Metamagic.

So, does this help you decide?

 

[Joker]

Yeah, he can't use Persistant Spell with any summoning spell I'm aware of.

 

[Rkhet]

Persistant Spell requires the spell in question to have either Personal range or a fixed range. Summon Monster and most other summoning spells don't fit that criteria.

The 'broken' uses of Divine Persistant is mainly for self-buffs - Divine Power and the like.

 

[Mistwell]

So I have a player who plans on using Divine Metamagic with the persistant metamagic feat. He want to create a 24 hour Monster summoning spell for his highest level spell. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? It does take him a lot of feats to do such an action so I am not sure I am bothered by it; He is a one trick pony. I just want to make sure there isn't any rules that I am over looking before he does this.

Kayn

A Problem?

Only THE most broken commonly used combination in the game (Divine Metamagic plus Peristant Spell). Divine Metamagic SHOULD have a caveat in the description that bars its use for spells that otherwise are of a spell slot the caster could not cast but-for Divine Metamagic.

And if you let your player have a Nightstick (or G-d forbid more than one) from Libris Mortis, then you deserve the busted game you get for it.

 

[moritheil]

That's a little harsh. Clerics do indeed largely set the power curve with Divine Metamagic and Persistent (which, by the way, can easily be dealt with by a DM who judiciously applies dispel magic and similar spells), but if you take that away, there's no way they can possibly compete with artificers.

Regarding a persistent summons, it's not a legal use of Persistent, so I'd veto it.

 

[Crothian]

That's a little harsh. Clerics do indeed largely set the power curve with Divine Metamagic and Persistent (which, by the way, can easily be dealt with by a DM who judiciously applies dispel magic and similar spells), but if you take that away, there's no way they can possibly compete with artificers.

So niow we have to up the power of ever single class so they can "compete" with the most powerful class in the game?

 

[moritheil]

So niow we have to up the power of ever single class so they can "compete" with the most powerful class in the game?

So now I have to answer everyone who takes issue with any implied aspect of one of my statements?

I suggest accepting or denying builds on legal grounds wherever possible, as balance is a highly subjective issue. That said, if there is an artificer in that campaign, then yes, it would behoove the DM to consider the balance of other characters relative to that artificer. It seems from your tone that you have some issues with the artificer class itself.

Allowing a cleric to use divine metamagic and persistent metamagic is not "upping" the power of the cleric - it is merely allowing access to certain splatbooks. The power of clerics may increase as a result, but fundamentally we are considering an issue of access to material. Assuming that those splatbooks are otherwise allowed for other characters, it would be pretty unfair to exclusively deny access for clerics, don't you think? It seems that in this matter, your sense of fairness with regard to even rulings is being corrupted by your bias with regard to power balance.

 

[Crothian]

It seems from your tone that you have some issues with the artificer class itself.

No, my tone was quite neutral. I have no problem with the class

Assuming that those splatbooks are otherwise allowed for other characters, it would be pretty unfair to exclusively deny access for clerics, don't you think?

I wouldn't deny these options just for the cleric though, a fighter wouldn't be able to take divine meta magic with persistant spell (for instance) either. If I disallow an option for one class it is disallowed for all classes. But I don't always allow everything from one book, the books are just not that well written that everything in them is equal.

 

[moritheil]

No, my tone was quite neutral. I have no problem with the class

I wouldn't deny these options just for the cleric though, a fighter wouldn't be able to take divine meta magic with persistant spell (for instance) either. If I disallow an option for one class it is disallowed for all classes. But I don't always allow everything from one book, the books are just not that well written that everything in them is equal.

A fighter, of course, isn't able to take divine metamagic because he doesn't have turn attempts, so it's a moot point. If you decided to, say, double ASF rates for armor, would you also suggest that that is fair because the noncasting fighter is penalized just as much as a wizard who wants to wear a bit of armor so he doesn't get hit all the time, or a spellsword whose class abilities are now not nearly as useful?

I'll respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is not arbitrary to allow some things from a given splatbook while allowing others from the same book. It may be fair, and the DM involved may be 100% honest, but as a matter of policy it makes it too easy for players to cry favoritism.