DMM Persistent Spell - Do You Allow It?

[Mistwell]

Because he overreacts in one direction he is immune to overreacting in the other direction?

I don't think I overreact in either direction.

I'm not sure how this turned from a joke into a personal thing about me. But, that sure sounds more personal than the posts that came before about me.

 

[Mistwell]

So it seems like the poll results, rounded off, come out pretty consistently around this (again, not exact):

50% Ban it
30% Limit it
10% Consider it fine
10% Not sure, or other

Pretty rare that we take a poll and have the opinions come out that much against RAW.

 

[Slaved]

I don't think I overreact in either direction.

I am sorry, I meant that more as an "if he does one" rather than saying that you actually do. I also meant it to be more general as in "if anyone does one" instead of singling you out personally.

 

[Mistwell]

I am sorry, I meant that more as an "if he does one" rather than saying that you actually do. I also meant it to be more general as in "if anyone does one" instead of singling you out personally.

Okay, fair enough. I should have figured, knowing your posts, that you didn't mean it personally.

 

[gnfnrf]

Wouldn't a persistant mass lesser vigor have a duration of "24 hours (max 25 rounds)"? I see no reason why you should ignore the note in the duration field just because you change the duration.

--
gnfnrf

 

[nittanytbone]

After letting this run for a few days here are my thoughts, in summary.

Verdict: DMM Persistent requires careful DM management but is only absolutely banned in about half of games.

60 people (48%) ban DMM Persistent outright. A lot of these folks weighed in with comments ranging from "I think its broken, theoretically," to "It was broken in my campaign" to "I don't use DMM or Persistent spell, and definitely not both together." From my observation, it seemed that there were relatively few "horror stories" about how a CoDzilla totally smashed a campaign, and more pre-emptive bannings based on theoretical logic.

An area of further polling for the future could be seeing how folks that use different rule sets treat DMM Persistent. For example, the folks that are core-only probably ban it. What about the folks that allow Core+Complete? Or Core+Complete+Races Of...? Or Anything WOTC goes? Or anything 3rd Party + WOTC goes?

On the other far end of the spectrum, 13 votes (~10%) think DMM Persistent is fine under any circumstances.

The majority of folks that allow DMM Persistent put some sort of caveat on it (~29% + 7% for "other"). They either restrict the most abusive tactics (Nightsticks are a big one) or impose some sort of house rule. A common one limits the spells that can be persisted to the highest spell that could normally be affected. Some impose RP penalties or specifically start to adopt countering techniques (more undead, more Dispels, fewer encounters/day).

Finally, a small minority (~5.5%) indicated that they were "not sure" or unfamiliar with the combination. This seems to indicate that most folks are familiar with the combination and know how to treat it in a rules sense, and that most folks also agree that it is technically legal in a strictly BtB sense.

Interesting, thanks for all the thoughts! I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it. However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Interesting, thanks for all the thoughts! I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it. However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.

I disagree with your conclusion. Many of the people who weighed in on having not banned it said "I never banned it, and my players have never even taken it either." Thus, it doesn't seem that it's a standard build at all. Also, those who nerf it so that you can't cast spells above your usual maximum spell level (the smartest and most fair nerf--I voted that I banned it because I did, but I would allow that nerf) are likely making it not a standard build in their games (because you can't even use it on 1st-level spells until level 13).

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Ditto for my last high level Cleric (until he ran into a Maximized Orb and an Empowered Orb while in an Antimagic Field). I didn't even want to let the DM know about DMM: Persistent, I just took Persistent and cast the high level spell to make Mass Lessor Vigor persistent as is.


With regard to the topic at hand, I think DMM itself is broken because it does not have a level cap (I think most of the metamagic without increasing spell level feats are broken, but they could have at least put in a level cap). All the talk about Dispels and using up multiple feats is nonsense IMO. It's not as if every opponent has a Dispel and using up feats in order to gain a broken concept does not by definition indicate that it is not broken. It merely indicates that a price has to be paid to gain the broken concept.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it. However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.

I disagree with this conclusion as well. In a poll of only 125 people, your margin for error is pretty big. Claiming that 48% indicates "fewer than half" is not statistically sound. "About half" would probably be a better approximation. Also, the fact that the poll shows that only 10% of the audience allows the feat as written implies that it is anything but standard.

I suppose you could use the numbers to support any side you wanted, though.

 

[evilbob]

Actually, we don't have anything close to a statistically significant poll; we have voluntary responders instead of a random sample. It's only fair to say that "less than half of the people who chose to respond to this poll" feel a certain way. The poll itself is undoubtably biased, because only those who feel strongly would respond. Absolutely zero conclusions can be drawn about any sort of population at large.

Just FYI.