Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5474159" data-attributes="member: 4937">I largely agree.&nbsp; I also agree that the Persistent Spell feat as written is just ripe for abuse.The biggest problem here, and it is a pervasive problem that can't be avoided simply by banning the Persistant Spell, is that at no point did the 3.X rules consider the difference in power gained between making a spell with a normal duration in rounds continuous and making a spell with a normal duration in hours continuous.&nbsp; In the case of a spell with a normal duration in hours, making it continuous with the Persistant Spell feat or with a magic item that is use activated does not represent that big of an increase in utility.&nbsp; The writer of the spell almost certainly balanced it while factoring in the assumption that the spell would have a long duration.&nbsp; But making a spell continuous with either the Persistant Spell feat or an always on magic item when that spell has a normal duration in rounds is a massive increase in utility, because the writer of the spell almost certainly balanced it on the assumption that the spell would have a short duration.&nbsp;&nbsp; So clearly the two things are not a like, even though the 3.X rules treat them as a like.&nbsp; In my opinion, the trick to writing the Persistant Spell feat (or making a truly liberating but balanced item creation system) is to make the number of spell levels it raises the metamagic'ed spell variable with the normal duration of the spell.One other issue that this raises now that I'm thinking about it is the issue of the simplistic duration model that 3.X uses by comparison to 1e.&nbsp; For example, in 1e I wouldn't have been surprised to see duration on a 5th level spell listed as something like &quot;1 round + 1 round/per level of the caster above 9th&quot;.&nbsp; But in third edition almost all durations are listed as something like &quot;1 round/caster level&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; As a result, all spells by a high level caster tend to have 'long' durations even if they are powerful spells that the caster has only recently learned and presumably not yet mastered.&nbsp; This helps exaggerate the exponential curve in power growth that casters experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5474159, member: 4937"] I largely agree. I also agree that the Persistent Spell feat as written is just ripe for abuse. The biggest problem here, and it is a pervasive problem that can't be avoided simply by banning the Persistant Spell, is that at no point did the 3.X rules consider the difference in power gained between making a spell with a normal duration in rounds continuous and making a spell with a normal duration in hours continuous. In the case of a spell with a normal duration in hours, making it continuous with the Persistant Spell feat or with a magic item that is use activated does not represent that big of an increase in utility. The writer of the spell almost certainly balanced it while factoring in the assumption that the spell would have a long duration. But making a spell continuous with either the Persistant Spell feat or an always on magic item when that spell has a normal duration in rounds is a massive increase in utility, because the writer of the spell almost certainly balanced it on the assumption that the spell would have a short duration. So clearly the two things are not a like, even though the 3.X rules treat them as a like. In my opinion, the trick to writing the Persistant Spell feat (or making a truly liberating but balanced item creation system) is to make the number of spell levels it raises the metamagic'ed spell variable with the normal duration of the spell. One other issue that this raises now that I'm thinking about it is the issue of the simplistic duration model that 3.X uses by comparison to 1e. For example, in 1e I wouldn't have been surprised to see duration on a 5th level spell listed as something like "1 round + 1 round/per level of the caster above 9th". But in third edition almost all durations are listed as something like "1 round/caster level". As a result, all spells by a high level caster tend to have 'long' durations even if they are powerful spells that the caster has only recently learned and presumably not yet mastered. This helps exaggerate the exponential curve in power growth that casters experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification