Persistant Spell Feat

[Rystil Arden]

You implied it, but it is good to clarify your position for the record.

What do you define as a rules exploit? Either a rules exploit is illegal, in which case it should be handled outside the rules, and no divine intervention occurs. Or it is legal, in which case it can be handled inside the game.

Since we are discussing Pun-Pun, the base assumption is that it is legal. (Otherwise, it doesn't work, and there is nothing to discuss.)

If it wasn't legal, it isn't an exploit--it is cheating. You can't exploit something when you aren't using it. A rules exploit is when you abuse (but still follow) the rules to create something blatantly overpowered, like Pun Pun. To fix this, you seem to suggest to allow the exploit and then have a god kill the PCs. Wouldn't it be much easier to just take out the rule that is broken and available for exploit?

There is a second thing we are talking about though, mainly, and it is not about rules exploits but rather about options like feats and spells that appear in splatbooks and will break the game whether exploited or not. The rules exploits only became an issue when you made a challenge in post 19.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, what I am saying is you are determining everything about this situation. That is hardly a realistic, fair, or likely example. If I give you a long and drawn-out example, I'm sure that beyond a certain point it will start to feel surreal to you as well.

For example: Rystil, I want you to suppose you get an argument with a fellow on the internet. For some reason, even though your mind rebels against the idea of losing, and even though you have no reason to lose the argument, you are compelled to give up and surrender. What will you do?

You have already stated the conclusion. It is almost fine, but let me rephrase that example in a way that parallels my own and that I would accept as a fair phrasing (and we'll ignore the possible intimation of ad hominem of this particular example):

I want you to suppose you get an argument with a fellow on the internet. For some reason, even though your mind naturally rebels against the idea of losing, the other person's arguments seem to ring true. Do you take the time to think it through and decide if maybe he is right, or do you just continue to argue?

 

[Rystil Arden]

I think you had a fundamental disconnect with me earlier, so could you give me a specific assertion in my example that you refuse to accept because I'm presuming too much? I've tried to find all of them that you could have. Choose any that apply.

Presumption 1) A book comes out with one completely broken feat like the one in the example.
Refusal A--No, a book can never come out with a completely broken feat (you earlier accepted that you wouldn't make this refusal and suggested tossing the book)
Refusal B--There is no such thing as a completely broken feat. The one in the example is fine.

Presumption 2) This book also has a huge amount of useful content that you like
Refusal A--No, I never find a huge amount of useful content from a book
Refusal B--I do sometimes find a huge amount of useful content from a book, but it is not humanly possible to make a book with one broken feat that also has that useful content

Presumption 3) You can think of many ways to use the rest of the book in your game
Refusal A--No, I never think of ways to use a book in my game
Refusal B--No, normally I think of many ways to use a book, but any book that has one completely broken feat cannot possibly also have things that I can use and thus I wouldn't bother thinking about it.

Something else (let me know--I thought I caught all my presumptions)

 

[Kae'Yoss]

That's a fallacious argument, as there exists no such feat.

Yes, it does. He just created it. If he slapped the d20 logo and legal stuff on it, he could sell this feat.

It's not "official" (meaning "made by Wizards"), but it does exist.

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.

I think that was his intention: To create an extreme example.

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.

Sure, the DM should always be able to challenge whatever build there is. But the DM could give nukes to kobolds. What counts is how far out of the way the DM would have to go - both to challenge the build and not to obliterate the rest of the party - which consists of sensible 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.

Yes, he is saying that. So am I. The reason is simple: Just because they're from the same source doesn't mean that they're equally valid. Often, there's perfectly good stuff in a book that contains a really broken rule tidbit. Then that broken rule has to be taken down, but that doesn't mean the rest of the book must be beyond limits, either.

And he's not picking on the playe who wanted that broken rule. Said player can choose any other stuff from the book the DM approves off. He could get the very same feat/spell/whatever that other player took. And said other player couldn't get the broken rulepiece, either. Noone's saying "this rule is banned - for you!". In fact, shame on the player for choosing broken rules and throwing a fit when he may not use it. That was one of the main reasons I threw a player out of my group.

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.)

Yes, but it isn't favouritism, so there's no injustice. If the player won't see that his choice is broken, but the other made a more sensible choice, then that player is clueless. Throwing a tantrum right after makes him clueless and rude. Being clueless and rude makes him a prime candidate for being disinvited.

I suggest accepting or denying builds on legal grounds wherever possible

"I am DM. My word is Law. Legal is what I say is legal. Your feat is dismissed."

There, perfectly legal. Of course, if the game is supposed to work, you'll give an explanation. "I think this rule is broken", is a good explanation, if you take the time to tell them why you think that, it's a great one.

Allowing a cleric to use divine metamagic and persistent metamagic is not "upping" the power of the cleric - it is merely allowing access to certain splatbooks. The power of clerics may increase as a result, but fundamentally we are considering an issue of access to material.

That is not true. We're not banning clerics from using that splatbook. He's free to take all the other classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, magic items, whatever from the book (provided they aren't broken and therefore banned). We just ban that single feat - for everyone.

And specifically saying that divine metamagic can be chosen and used with persistant spell most definetly means upping the cleric's power, since it directly means opening the door for him to cast divine favour, divine power or righteous might to last the day.

I once played a cleric with persistant divine power and persistant divine favour (back when persistant was only +4) as part of a "clerics aren't walking band-aids any more" project (basically, I showed the AD&D-marred players that clerics aren't weak sidekicks that can only heal) and it wasn't even funny. The DM soon approached me that it was too much, and I readily exchanged persistant with another feat (quicken).

Assuming that those splatbooks are otherwise allowed for other characters, it would be pretty unfair to exclusively deny access for clerics, don't you think?

Of course, but noone suggests to deny clerics access to whole books based on a single rule that is banned for everyone, not just clerics.

 

[Venator]

To ban an entire book over the 1 or 2 poorly written/tested feats, powers, spells, abilites, classes, or whatever is a bit much.

Saying, "I have to either allow it all, or ban it all" seems ludicrous to me.

Where a given thing comes from has zero impact on the rest of the stuff from the same place.

If a DM veto's something hes doing it for good reason. Hes denying power to *everyone* so he can preserve the game, and as a byproduct of that, keep everyone having fun.

Complete Mage comes out today. Im willing to bet that there isnt to much in there for my groups Barbarian. Should i ban the book because the arcane classes are gettin power from the book and he isnt? It is the same source afterall.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That has never happened, and as far as I know, will never happen. Your example is far too much of a stretch - it not only presupposes some ridiculous feat even the most die-hard powergamer would not like to see around, it also presumes to tell me exactly what my reactions will be.

His example is right on the money. moritheil, I either think you are not following Rystil's point or you are entirely alone in your position. Before this I would never have thought it possible that someone would take the stance of either allowing the whole book or banning the whole book with no middle ground. I don't think you'll find anyone out there who agrees with you on this.

 

[mikebr99]

So I have a player who plans on using Divine Metamagic with the persistant metamagic feat. He want to create a 24 hour Monster summoning spell for his highest level spell. Does anyone see anything wrong with this? It does take him a lot of feats to do such an action so I am not sure I am bothered by it; He is a one trick pony. I just want to make sure there isn't any rules that I am over looking before he does this.

Kayn

Just to make it clear... Persistantable spells must have a personal or fixed range, and "touch" isn't a fixed range. The summoning spells can't be made persistent, as they have a variable range (close).

As was noted above... it's the buffs that are valid spells for DM-persistent:
divine power
righteous might
righteous wrath of the faithful
etc.

Mike