DMM Persistent Spell - Do You Allow It?

[Nifft]

Actually, I find the whole "because Mistwell is arguing this way it must be overpowered" argument to be unconvincing, and hope it wasn't seriously offered (for the sake of not being rude to Mistwell, at the very least).

Mistwell is broken.

-- N

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Mistwell is broken.

-- N

Good lord ... is this "Shilsen is broken" v. 2.0 ?



Or - worse yet - does someone now need to make up a principle (or fallacy, or whatever you want to call it based upon how it is phrased) about how we know if an ENWorld poster is broken?

 

[Nail]

... this concept that something is broken all the time or across the board is just weird. The concept of "broken" is much too highly dependant upon the player's builds and the DMs style.

You've touched on something important: All discussions on these boards about "brokeness" do all boil down to play style.

That said, it sure is nice to have the potentially broken rules laid out on these boards. After the discussion, each of us can return to our games and chose to include, exclude, or modify the rule according to our own tastes.

In that vein, DMM(Persistant) is broken because it allows Clerics to do things that only higher level PC should be able to do, and it impinges on the roles of other classes, and it requires the DM to compensate in his game for that particular tactic.

You've got the info, now. So: "Do what you'd like with it."

 

[RigaMortus2]

The errata did nothing to correct the major flaw with this feat. It did not address the level cap issue. You don't have to be high level to get any real use out of it. It's incredibly powerful at just 6-7th level.

I certainly do like the idea of having a level cap for the feat, it makes sense and falls in line of how all other metamagic feats work. However, I still stand by my opinion that I would allow the feat in any game I DM in all circumstances (remembering that I as DM control those circumstances).

 

[RigaMortus2]

I still am in the camp that the overpoweredness of DMM: persistant is at best situational. As a DM, I know that I can handle it and it won't be broken in my campaigns. If other DMs come to the opposite conclusion based on their style and the people that they game with, that's great! But this concept that something is broken all the time or across the board is just weird. The concept of "broken" is much too highly dependant upon the player's builds and the DMs style.

True that!

I had to jump on the True that bandwagon... But seriously, this is how I feel. No one is going to convince me that this is broken, because I know if I were DM I would be able to handle a character/player who takes this feat.

 

[James McMurray]

True that!

I had to jump on the True that bandwagon... But seriously, this is how I feel. No one is going to convince me that this is broken, because I know if I were DM I would be able to handle a character/player who takes this feat.

ditto

 

[Nonlethal Force]

You've touched on something important: All discussions on these boards about "brokeness" do all boil down to play style.

Agreed, 100%. Really just because you're agreeing with me first, and I'm that kind of a guy. {No, not really }

That said, it sure is nice to have the potentially broken rules laid out on these boards. After the discussion, each of us can return to our games and chose to include, exclude, or modify the rule according to our own tastes.

Oh, absolutely. Even of out the "It is broken" vs. "Not broken" camps come potential solutions to cope. Examples with DMM: persistant are things like dispel magic, more undead, guerilla tactics, etc. There can be productive things that come out of these conversations. But, there are also bad things that come out of these conversations - like when tempers get flared. Not talking about anyone in particular, btw.

In that vein, DMM(Persistant) is broken because it allows Clerics to do things that only higher level PC should be able to do, and it impinges on the roles of other classes, and it requires the DM to compensate in his game for that particular tactic.

Here, let me help you with that one a little, though. "<snip> ... DMM(Persistant) can be broken because ... <snip>"

Other than that, I agree as well.

You've got the info, now. So: "Do what you'd like with it."

Thanks. Will do!

 

[evilbob]

This is a very interesting thread. I am a DM who understands this combo well and is allowing it in a game I'm running right now, and Mistwell, I do hope that by the end of this post you still agree that I'm sane.

For the most part, I like the way this thread has been going and I'll just echo the wise words that have already been said: this game tactic is not "broken." However, it will - like anything else - probably require the DM to adjust their playstyle. I believe running a game that has a party without a cleric, or a party with a dragon shaman (Mistwell: this class has the ability to turn on the lesser mass vigor thing [up to 1/2 HP] from level 1; or a regular cleric or other party member could gain this ability using Dragon Magic feats at level one as well), or a party with a monk instead of a main tank will require the same amount of effort on the part of the DM as running a game with a DMM/persistent cleric: you have to adjust what you're doing in order to keep the game both challenging and fun without being overwhelming. However, at the same time that's entirely the DM's job in the first place. As I've said before in another thread about "power gaming:" if you think something is overpowered or broken, the fault does not lie in the players, and (probably) not even with the rules. It lies with the DM.

I completely agree with Nonlethal force on all his comments. I can tell from this thread and others than Nail and Infiniti2000 are two DMs that choose a different style over my own, and I respect that. I believe Nail's comment about playstyle, quoted by Nonlethal Force above, is an excellent point and just about sums up everything someone would need to know about this situation. To clarify further, my point is: contrary to some of the other voices on this thread, I believe that you don't have to "nerf" or "ban" or otherwise restrict any of a player's options in order to keep a game balanced. ("Options, not restrictions," right folks?) In fact, I personally consider the challenge of adapting my playstyle to what the players can come up with the main reason as to why I DM in the first place. If you're worried about a player becoming too powerful or shining too much in the spotlight, then it is YOUR JOB to make sure that the other players shine and are given the spotlight as well. (Also note that players don't have to shine in combat in order to have the spotlight.) Anything can be adjusted for; nothing has to remain broken.


In fact, for any DMs who are considering allowing this combo into their games, here are a few tips I can give to help deal with the situation. I would suggest mixing and matching many different tips for an overall solution.

- The total effective gain from this combo (at the cost of a percentage of all resources for a cleric, including feats and any ability to turn and/or use other turn-powered abilities) is that you have duplicated a spell for X encounters per day, where X = every encounter in one day. (Technically, it also gives a free round to the cleric that they don't need to cast, as well.) If you want to truly limit the effectiveness of this tactic, lower your encounters per day. This has the side effect of boosting all spellcasters' power, but it does limit the combo's power as well. (And it tends to force the cleric to act more like a cleric.)

- While this combo -can- be done without a great deal of impact on the part of the cleric as some have said above, in order to really make it shine additional min/maxing is in order. For example, the cleric in my campaign made Str his highest stat for maximum fighting potential; he has just enough Wis to cast his spells and just enough Cha to get the trick working. This leaves him without many bonus spells or any turning ability. Net effect: more weaknesses. Look for these weaknesses and adjust as necessary. For example, since this ability runs off of turns, throw more undead encounters at your party if your cleric has none left after "powering up" - especially ones that are slightly higher than the EL they should normally be facing. This increases pressure on the cleric to at least wait-and-see, instead of automatically powering up at the beginning of each day, and can keep them guessing. Most of the time, a lot of turns is going to be more useful than any trick this combo can dish out against hordes of undead.

- Simplest tactic as mentioned before: start including more enemies with dispel magic. Don't deluge the party, obviously, but try to make sure you include a few every so often, so that the "trick" doesn't get used in every battle. Mage NPCs - wizards, sorcs, or better yet warlocks with voracious dispelling - are a good start, but if you hate constantly rolling things up (like I do), there are several monsters that have dispel abilities that work just as well. The MM4 has at least two very good monsters that can slice through this trick with ease (one is a swarm that would also negate the advantage of a counterspell ring mentioned earlier) that are about CR 7, which is just about the time this trick starts to really be powerful. (Also, since its been mentioned a lot recently: pixies. )

- Great combo tactic: combine the above with a greater number of encounters per day. Once you've burned the character's ability to pull off the trick, then put them back into regular combat a lot and let the "non-dispellable" fighters shine.

- Start including RP "penalties" for this trick. For example, the cleric using this ability in my campaign is level 10 and currently persistent-spelling righteous might. This makes him a large creature 24 hrs a day, which is certainly powerful in combat, but quite the opposite when it comes to certain social interactions. He generally has a hard time moving through doors (or any tight spaces, if you want to give a combat restriction), and because of his race, also weighs over 2000 pounds. This means if he falls in combat, or needs to travel ON something, no one else can really drag him along. D&D is a very medium-character-centric world; play it up if that's their spell choice. Otherwise, look for something else.

Overall general rule: if this trick seems to be too useful, be sure to include lots of encounters in which this trick just isn't useful. Often this will eclipse other party members as well, but as long as you mix it up, everyone should get to shine. If your cleric is competing with melee types, throw in a few area dispels. If they are competing with casters, lower the encounters per day or throw in aerial opponents. Mix it up and make sure everyone has fun!

These are just a few simple (and quite frankly, fairly obvious) ways to handle this one situation. Other "broken" combos just require other tactics. NOTHING in D&D is powerful against everything: like everything else, it pretty much always comes down to rock/paper/scissors. You just need to find the paper for their rock.

 

[Nail]

Here, let me help you with that one a little, though. "<snip> ... DMM(Persistant) can be broken because ... <snip>"

Other than that, I agree as well.

Heh, heh, heh......

FWIW, in the last high-level game I played in, I played a Clr with DMM:Quicken. I'd take that over DMMersistant any day of the week. Yoowza. That PC just leveled the competition 9 times outta 10.

 

[Mistwell]

True that!

Actually, I find the whole "because Mistwell is arguing this way it must be overpowered" argument to be unconvincing, and hope it wasn't seriously offered (for the sake of not being rude to Mistwell, at the very least).

I took it as a joke mostly. And I think it was meant that way. And if it wasn't, well then eat my shorts!