Divine Favor and Persistent Spell

[Gumby]

Frum, check the feat's description again - it only applies to spells with a "personal" or fixed emanation range (i.e., Detect Magic, Detect Evil). Thus, Shield or Divine Favor would work, but Bull's Strength, Haste, Fly, etc. would not, as their ranges are not either "personal" or a fixed emanation.

Still, it's your choice, and not an uncommon choice among DMs.

 

[Forrester]

Persistent spell gets really icky when the cleric hits 15th level . . . Persistent Divine Might (which gives the cleric the BAB of a fighter and some extra hps) is especially scary, has been noted in several threads devoted to the issue .

I think what you did was the best call, IMHO.

 

[Ricimer]

don't be afraid to challenge your PC's, especially at what, 12th level?

Remember, similarly leveled opponents are proffessionals. They are good at what they do, and they use all the same dirty little tricks. They are going to try to engage mages in melee, or disrupt thier spells any way possible. They will pick of fighters with magic. They WILL dispel, it is very useful, so much so that it would be a common tactic amongst any higher level group.

I mean, if that cleric over there seemed a lot tougher than he looked and was cutting through melee like crazy, wouldn't you dispel the bastard? Area dispels would be common, target ones would not be uncommon. I mean maybe they notice someone improved invisible, or they know of the party before hand and have figured out how to counter them(12th level characters should have a pretty decent reputation afterall).

Combined arms tactics. Many groups, races, etc. have lots of different tactics. And they will cooperate to use them (unless they are new recruits). They will come up with some rather strange, unorthodox tactics. The NPC's aren't brainless.

Mainly, Variety! Switch up encounter types. Magic based ones, melee based, suprise type (do something unusual, or have somebody hiding, or an ambush, something) Multiple encounters (magic users are good for 2-3 encounters before they run out of firepower). Or combinations. Mix in Politics even!

I've gleened tons of ways to control players powers and make them diversify from reading Pirate cats storyhour. And in his most of them cast buff spells on themselves and others that last most of the day, EVERY morning regardless of expected action or not. And he challenges them with lower level encounters.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Hmmm . . . you're correct that it doesn't say "unattended" in the Dispel Magic description -- I believe that was the intent, but I have to agree that by the letter of the spell, the cleric is going to have a bigger chance to lose that Greater Magic Weapon and Magic Vestments . . .

Still, it's obvious from the rest of the PHB that whether an object is attended or not is usually very important. I wonder if the Sage has clarified this.

That is a good point.

But most every other spell in PHB that affects a creature or object also allows either a saving throw or SR. Dispel Magic explicitly bypasses such considerations.

Normally we think of possessing an item as giving a "virtual Super Saving Throw". That's why I don't lose half my worldly possessions every time I am hit with a Fireball. If saving throws and SR do not apply, then this implicit rule probably shouldn't either.

 

[Lela]

That is a good point.

But most every other spell in PHB that affects a creature or object also allows either a saving throw or SR. Dispel Magic explicitly bypasses such considerations.

Normally we think of possessing an item as giving a "virtual Super Saving Throw". That's why I don't lose half my worldly possessions every time I am hit with a Fireball. If saving throws and SR do not apply, then this implicit rule probably shouldn't either.

I think this is part of the innate weakness of "buffing" spells. In the case of Magic Weapon there would be little use in creating weapons that hold there own magic if all Clerics could cast it on command. Because of Dispel Magic and other similar effects, Clerics and Magi (in general) have found a way to give items magic of their own, allowing it to resist or ignore that which would normally have a negitive impact on their weilders.

 

[Vanye]

I know it is not written in his description, it's written as an immunity, but immunity to time stop makes no sense to me, as immunity to fireball or evards tentacles do make sense.

It makes perfect sense when you realize it's a holdover from 1st/2nd Edition, where Timestop stopped the flow of time *for* those affected, leaving the caster unaffected. Thus, Elminster could not be trapped in a field of stopped time.

When 3rd Edition came around, the spell was altered to actually speed the caster up, but the immunity was not updated. So, Elminster (and several others amongst the chosen) became immune to a spell that didn't affect them anyhow...

 

[Numion]

Flame Strike, a 5th level spell, will dish out an average damage of 12*3.5 = 42, or 31.5 if 50% of targets make their save on average. If you hit five targets (if you can't hit several targets, don't use it ) with it, thats about 150 points of damage.

To cause same kind of damage with Persistent Divine Favor, you'd need to hit about 40 times. At two attacks / round, minus time moving to the next target and missing and doing things other than hacking, it's about 30-40 rounds of combat. At that level combats (IMC, YMMV) take usually less than 5 rounds a pop, often less.

From these guesstimations it follows that there would have to over seven fights in a day for the spell to be more powerful than flame strike - a very unlikely occurence, at least in my games. In very hack'n'slash game it could be unbalanced, but I'd say that it isn't as good as people think.

 

[hong]

Flame Strike, a 5th level spell, will dish out an average damage of 12*3.5 = 42, or 31.5 if 50% of targets make their save on average. If you hit five targets (if you can't hit several targets, don't use it ) with it, thats about 150 points of damage.

To cause same kind of damage with Persistent Divine Favor, you'd need to hit about 40 times. At two attacks / round, minus time moving to the next target and missing and doing things other than hacking, it's about 30-40 rounds of combat. At that level combats (IMC, YMMV) take usually less than 5 rounds a pop, often less.

From these guesstimations it follows that there would have to over seven fights in a day for the spell to be more powerful than flame strike - a very unlikely occurence, at least in my games. In very hack'n'slash game it could be unbalanced, but I'd say that it isn't as good as people think.

This argument is along the lines of:

1) Persistent divine favour turns a cleric into a fighter.

2) But a cleric can kick more butt with a flamestrike.

3) Conclusion: persistent divine favour isn't broken.

However, this also implies

3a) Corollary: clerics can kick more butt than fighters.

Whether this is a feature or a bug is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Lela]

I would point out that, at the level this becomes availible, a Fighter would usually have a much higher Strength than 18. Plus, the Cleric still doesn't get the feats.

 

[Numion]

This argument is along the lines of:

No it isn't. It's along the lines of: Persistent Divine Favor (5th level spell) isn't notably more efficient, or as the saying here goes, broken, than other 5th level spells.

1) Persistent divine favour turns a cleric into a fighter.

2) But a cleric can kick more butt with a flamestrike.

3) Conclusion: persistent divine favour isn't broken.

PDF doesn't turn Cleric into a Fighter - persistent Divine Power might, though