Persistant Spell Feat

[Crothian]

I'll respectfully disagree with your assertion that it is not arbitrary to allow some things from a given splatbook while allowing others from the same book. It may be fair, and the DM involved may be 100% honest, but as a matter of policy it makes it too easy for players to cry favoritism.

I think the players would have to be pretty petty to see this as favortism. The books are not written to be an all or nothing deal. In fact this is the first time I've seen someone say that everything in a book has to be used, usually people are disallowing an option or two as they see fit from most books.

Is it favortism if I disallow these things before players make their characters?

 

[moritheil]

I think the players would have to be pretty petty to see this as favortism. The books are not written to be an all or nothing deal. In fact this is the first time I've seen someone say that everything in a book has to be used, usually people are disallowing an option or two as they see fit from most books.

Is it favortism if I disallow these things before players make their characters?

That's not exactly what I'm saying. It's perfectly within the DM's purview to approve or disprove individual PrCs, for example, and that would make a clear example wherein a DM approves part of a book but does not approve another part of it. However, fundamentally, you must consider that what you are doing is saying that it is OK for one person to get a power increase, but not for another person to get a power increase from the very same source. I think it would be perfectly natural to see that as injustice, and IME players tend to assume injustice is the result of favoritism (or outright cluelessness, but I doubt you would be accused of that.)

 

[Crothian]

However, fundamentally, you must consider that what you are doing is saying that it is OK for one person to get a power increase, but not for another person to get a power increase from the very same source.

Actually, I'm saying they can't have this one power increase from that book. They can use pretty much all of the others. And it's from Complete Divine so its not like the Bard is using this book to dominate the world. It has nothing to do with who is playing the character.

 

[moritheil]

It sounds like everyone was able to agree that it wasn't unfair or overpowering in that particular example. However, I still caution against regularly doing such things as a matter of policy.

 

[nittanytbone]

He can't summon all day, Persistent spell onyl works on personal spells.

Get your BBEGs with Dispel Magic ready.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Actually, I'm saying they can't have this one power increase from that book. They can use pretty much all of the others. And it's from Complete Divine so its not like the Bard is using this book to dominate the world. It has nothing to do with who is playing the character.

I completely agree with Crothian here. I have never kicked a player out of a game before, but if she couldn't understand why I choose to allow the Scout base class, for instance (an well-written and flavourful base class that is a lot of fun to play) and not the Wraithstrike spell (the fastest, easiest way to completely destroy a game and its balance--this one does it even sooner than Divine Metamagic does) and insists that I have to allow all or nothing from a book as a packaged deal no matter the explanations I give her, I'd probably tell her to look for a game elsewhere.

 

[moritheil]

I won't disagree with you, RA, but I don't think at this point you are talking about what I was talking about above.

At any rate, I find it quite revealing that everyone holds his or her preconceptions regarding balance and power level at various character levels to be cherished things, and will edit the rules to maintain balance, rather than basing their concepts of balance directly on what is and is not possible within the rules.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I won't disagree with you, RA, but I don't think at this point you are talking about what I was talking about above.

At any rate, I find it quite revealing that everyone holds his or her preconceptions regarding balance and power level at various character levels to be cherished things, and will edit the rules to maintain balance, rather than basing their concepts of balance directly on what is and is not possible within the rules.

So to take your argument and admittedly make it more extreme, you are saying that if a new sourcebook called "Ultimate Divine" came out with the following feat, that everyone should allow it and base our concept of balance on it rather than dismissing it as making the game less fun?:

Ultimate Power of the Gods
[DIVINE]
Prerequisites: Able to cast 3rd-level Divine Spells, Access to at least two domains
Benefit: Whenever you make a d20 roll, you may elect to automatically succeed. If you do so, you never experience the benefits or detriments of effects based on levels of success (such as critical hits), you merely succeed. Similarly, for any effect targetting or including you that requires a d20 roll, you may elect to cause it to automatically fail.

 

[moritheil]

So to take your argument and admittedly make it more extreme, you are saying that if a new sourcebook called "Ultimate Divine" came out with the following feat, that everyone should allow it and base our concept of balance on it rather than dismissing it as making the game less fun?:

Ultimate Power of the Gods
[DIVINE]
Prerequisites: Able to cast 3rd-level Divine Spells, Access to at least two domains
Benefit: Whenever you make a d20 roll, you may elect to automatically succeed. If you do so, you never experience the benefits or detriments of effects based on levels of success (such as critical hits), you merely succeed. Similarly, for any effect targetting or including you that requires a d20 roll, you may elect to cause it to automatically fail.

That's a fallacious argument, as there exists no such feat. I am the first to admit that WOTC's grasp of balance is at times shaky, but your example is so extreme as to constitute parody.

However, name any legally valid "broken" build. I am almost certain that, as a DM, I would find ways to challenge that build within the limitations of EL - not once, but repeatedly.

*I should note that Pun-Pun's ascent to power constitutes a challenge to the Overdeity of his material plane, and thus is not an encounter that I would consider the DM picking out and throwing at him, but rather an encounter that he willingly provokes - just as if your average first level fighter deliberately picks a fight with an ancient red dragon.

 

[Rystil Arden]

That's a fallacious argument, as there exists no such feat. I am the first to admit that WOTC's grasp of balance is at times shaky, but your example is so extreme as to constitute parody.

However, name any legally valid "broken" build. I am almost certain that, as a DM, I would find ways to challenge that build within the limitations of EL - not once, but repeatedly.

How about Pun-Pun? Perfectly valid, and more powerful than that cleric feat. As to my example, it doesn't matter how broken the feat is--you made a theoretical argument that whatever appears in WotC's books is what we should balance our game around. This is purely theoretical so far, so I ask you--if that feat above appeared (and I readily admit that it is extreme!), would you continue with this policy?