DMM Persistent Spell - Do You Allow It?

[Mistwell]

I've never had an issue with it, but most of my play hasn't reached the levels where it's a problem. I'm of the opinion that given the general rule that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast (and I do NOT see that DMM breaks that restriction by text - absence of specific enforcement of a general case is not the same as making an exception to that case) and the large feat-investment, it's like most other "broken" combos - something that makes a character into a one-trick pony, and thus only fun as wankery.

My general rule is "sure, you can do that, but we'll all laugh at you."

There is no stated general restriction that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast. There is a result in common usage that ends up that way, but nothing says it as far as I know, and hence it's not actually an exception to a rule.

I agree with you that it should be there, and in the text. But it isn't. So changing it to include that "rule" I think is a very wise houserule, but as far as I can tell it isn't RAW.

 

[Destil]

A) Persistent Spell has been on my hit list of horridly balanced rules ever since day 1. The "The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range" clause is a terrible balancing factor, it does not hold true that all such spells will be balanced as persistent nor do I want to be constrained by the feat when designing new spells.

The huge problem with persistant is that there's no reason for it to exist. Just let a player stack extend 4 times (4x duration). If the duration isn't 24 hours yet then there's a good reason it shouldn't be an always on spell, IMHO. (Stacking the same metamagic was only really a problem with a few corner cases like a double empowered bull's strength... empower is also on my "Needs some sort of balancing factor aside from the 'random' limit, but it's not nearly as easy to break).

B) The biggest problem balance wise with divine meta magic is that is breaks the cap for spells, letting a PC cast a spell that would use a higher level slot than their normal limit. There's a reason a 8th level cleric can't usually cast 8th-9th level spells, and I don't care how many turnings you trade it's not balanced.

Likewise you're trading a pretty limited resource that's only useful in some encounters (turn undead) for something that's always good. From a flavor standpoint divine metamagic should only work with spells like cure and searing light, IMHO (positive energy spells) for good clerics.

All in all this is about the most solidly BANNED thing in 3.5e for me. I've gone so far as to get rid of turn undead entirely and make a new meta-magic feat called persistent spell with completely different effects just to make it 100% clear in my game.

 

[Piratecat]

I can't think of any situations in which I'd allow this.

 

[Nifft]

Not only don't I allow DMM(Persist), I don't allow DMM or Persist in isolation.

-- N

 

[Pyrex]

Don't let the investment of feats, or the "one time a day", fool you. The feats in question are usually gained for free by careful selection of domains (Planning Domain gives Extend for Free; Undeath Domain gives Extra Turning for free).

Selecting particular domains to get those feats as domain granted powers has nearly as high an opportunity cost as just selecting those feats in the first place. Taking those domains means there are other strong domains you *aren't* taking.

Any way you slice it, DMM-Persistent is a large investment for a character to make.

 

[Mistwell]

Selecting particular domains to get those feats as domain granted powers has nearly as high an opportunity cost as just selecting those feats in the first place. Taking those domains means there are other strong domains you *aren't* taking.

Any way you slice it, DMM-Persistent is a large investment for a character to make.

The payoff is hands down much larger than the investment. I really can't see how it would end up as balanced relative to the opportunity cost of the feats you are passing up. What other feats would result in something more powerful than this result?

 

[Elethiomel]

"Other" because "It Depends On The Campaign". In a carefully planned long-running campaign with a story, actual NPC interaction, all that good stuff? Banned. One-shot/ short running kick-in-the-door slay-all-the-monsters get-all-the-treasure? "Is fine. Crowe! Zey can come in."

 

[IanB]

Nooooooo. No. No way.

 

[Nail]

I can't think of any situations in which I'd allow this.

Me too.


Banned!

 

[pawsplay]

I put "other." I cap DMM; it allows for more metamagics than normal, but not higher level ones.