DMM Persistent Spell - Do You Allow It?

[Doug McCrae]

Proper use of Dispel magics and Undead really makes the players think about the consequences of DMM and they begin to realize that DMM isn't really worth it.

Don't you find it a bit restrictive having to include casters with dispel magic, or undead, in every encounter? Also dispel magic can be thwarted, at least once, by a ring of counterspells.

 

[Crothian]

I allow it as is. I've yet to even have a player take the feat let alone get to abuse it. And we've gone beyond level 20 many times.

 

[moritheil]

I allow it as is. I've yet to even have a player take the feat let alone get to abuse it. And we've gone beyond level 20 many times.

This is one of the issues I'm in solid agreement with Crothian on. I have had one cleric character take it, but he was not very impressive at front-line fighting despite persistent spells.

Besides, as I'm fond of reminding people, there are much more powerful builds out there. If you're going to ban something, ban those.

 

[moritheil]

I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...

I just want to add for the record that this is a very loaded term. "Incredibly abusive" can only be fairly judged in context, and there are many more abusive builds out there. Yes, DMM is powerful. It's actually much less abusive than many powerful builds, though.

 

[Sejs]

DMM Persistant is not allowed, under the "Don't Be A Dick" DMing provisions. If a player suggests a character built around the DMM Persistant schtick, I as the DM, will give said player a withering look and tell them to not be a dick.

All DMM is restricted to a maximum of a spell level that the character would normally have available. If you can cast a max of 4th level spells, no DMM'ing spells over effectively 4th level.

The Persistant Spell feat is allowed as normal. +6 level adjustment makes it work out alright.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...claiming that it "uses too many resources". It's NOT using that many resources.

Calm down, Mistwell. Please don't jump down my throat because I posted about my experiences, okay? Your experience and my experience are allowed to differ and we can still be friends at the end of the day! I'm not employing a "ploy." I'm not even being deceptive or sneaky. I am saying that considering how easy it is to counter it involves a significant amount of thought and character design.

In my experience, a couple of feats (or domain selections) and a couple of used spells is a significant amount of resources, considering the only thing it has cost the enemies is a successful dispel magic. From that point on, the cleric has to now use more resources to defeat the encounter. So long as when the encounter is done I have caused the cleric to expend X% of their resources, I'm happy. [X being whatever percentage should be expected for the specific encounter's CR.] Once persistant magic is down, it's down. And, it's unlikely that they are going to be able to put it up too often. Twice in a day is considered stellar. Thrice is considered amazing. {Assuming no nightsticks in a campaign, of course.}

I agree that countering a DMM isn't going to kill your cleric. But then again, my goal as the DM isn't to kill the players. My goal is to make the game fun. {Again, my opinion, not fact} And countering the players DMM/Persistant forces them to think and use their other resources. In my book, that's a win.

Don't you find it a bit restrictive having to include casters with dispel magic, or undead, in every encounter? Also dispel magic can be thwarted, at least once, by a ring of counterspells.

Not once per encounter. In most cases, once per day. {Assuming no nightsticks.} Twice per day at the worst, typically. So, that would be a no. Not all that restricitive.

The way I see it, there are a couple of possibilities. If the party is going up against a known foe, then the known foe is going to likely know alot about who's coming up against them. They'd be prepared - I.E they'd want to have a few dispel magics on hand. That's just good tactics from the perspective of the BBEG. Restrictive, no. Smart, yes.

Or, they could just be coming against random encounters. If the encounters are so random, then I probably don't really care too much about how challenging the combat was. In that case, I'd likely just let the persistant spell remain up. Or, perhaps use guerilla tactics that imply easier encounters which aren't resolved by kills but by retreating.

There are more ways to frustrate a player with DMM/persistant up than dispel and undead. Those were the two easiest examples I thought of.

 

[moritheil]

There are at least a dozen threads I can remember on the ENW forums about ways to counter ring of counterspells: dispel magic. Here are a few off the top of my head: psionic dispel, reaving dispel, greater dispel magic, dispelling touch, wall of dispel magic, wall of greater dispel magic, slashing dispel . . .

If your player buys a ring of counterspells, laugh. He or she has only bought misery.

 

[James McMurray]

I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...claiming that it "uses too many resources". It's NOT using that many resources. Three feats and your turn attempts isn't going to kill your cleric! You still have lots of room to develop your character, and lots and lots of power. You're still a cleric! You still have most of the best buff spells in the game, plenty of direct damage spells, great AC, decent HP, good saves, spontaneous healing, good utlity spells, a decent BAB, decent weapons, etc...

Speaking as a GM, I know that when I say it uses too many resources, it's not an attempt to sneak it into anywhere.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?

I ban/nerf things on theory. In fact, I think that is the MUCH preferred and smarter method. I hate, absolutely hate, retconning in the middle of a game. That REALLY hurts the game much worse than just leaving in a broken rule. Touch of idiocy? Gone. Persistent Spell? Gone. Elation? Nerfed. Mass Resist Energy? Nerfed. Etc.

Btw, I object to the idea of allowing broken combos in a one-shot and not in the regular game. The regular game offers the only chance of making such combos palatable (over time). For the one shot, there's no repercussion and it just sucks the life out of that one session for the DM and other players. (Maybe not, but it probably will be unless the one shot was about finding broken combos. I know my group is not about that so such a method of gaming would be the opposite of a fun time.)

 

[EvilGM]

I used this as a player and, as a result, won't allow it in games I DM. Definitely borked.