Persistent regeneration..not kidding here

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If it walks like a duck, "talks" like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. So, yes, since the spell exist in this fashion, it might be better not to research another version of it.
(Especially since it seems metagaming logic that inventing a changed version of this spell with target self/personal would allow one to make it persistent)

But probably only playtest will tell if it is too powerful. (And I don`t like the Persistant Spell Feat.)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[kreynolds]

(And I don`t like the Persistant Spell Feat.)

This kinda makes the rest of your argument a moot point then, doesn't it? I think it would have much simpler for you to say, "I don't like the Persistant Spell Feat. So I can't help you."

 

[kreynolds]

Just wondering if any of you would have a problem with a character researching his own "version" of Regenerate with the exact same spell description except the range being personal?

Not really. Though I'd prefer that more than just the range designator change. Shows that you really want to create a "new spell". Even still, I wouldn't have a problem with it. When you take away the ability of a spell to be cast on others, you take quite away quite a bit of it's "punch", or usefulness, if you prefer.

 

[SableWyvern]

Re researching the altered spell:

I don't think you necessarily need to call that metagaming. From an in-character perspective, the caster could well reason that...

1. I have developed the ability to make certain spells persistent.

2. Because of the way I cast Regen, I cannot use my persistent ability with this spell.

3. Persistent Regen would be grand.

4. I need to either a: improve and expand my ability to make spells persistent, or b: find a way to cast Regen that is compatible with my ability to make spells persistent.

Given that the rules do not support method a (unless the DM allows the player to create a new, improved persistent spell feat), the logical course would be to alter the spell sufficiently to make it compatible with persistence. To try and alter it further than the range designator (as MR suggests) would be pointless, from the characters in-game reasoning.

As to whether this should be allowed from a game-balance perspective - I don't really know.

 

[kreynolds]

To try and alter it further than the range designator (as MR suggests) would be pointless, from the characters in-game reasoning.

Exercising creativity with your character while "in character" is never pointless, no matter what you're doing. Sure, a player's idea might be outright insane, but it's never pointless. Even just recreating a spell to change the target, range, and material components is enough to earn yourself a "signature spell", and one day, it might become famous. Sure, your version might have the following tag line in the description, "Modeled after the "????" spell", but the spell is named after you nonetheless. I dig this kind of stuff.

 

[SableWyvern]

Kreynolds: I agree entirely; I may not have made the context of my statement clear enough.

I was referring to your comment:

Not really. Though I'd prefer that more than just the range designator change. Shows that you really want to create a "new spell".

I was trying to state that if a PC wanted merely to be able to make Regen persistent, there would be no direct in-character reason to do more than change the range. It could be surmised that the more you wish to change, the more effort is required, and there is no point further modifying the spell if your only aim is to make it persistent-compatible.

At no point did I mean to imply that changing more than the range would be pointless as a general rule.


Doh. I should also point out that I erroneously referred to MR in my last post; I should have been referring to kreynolds.

 

[kreynolds]

Doh. I should also point out that I erroneously referred to MR in my last post; I should have been referring to kreynolds.

Gotcha. It was the referrence to MR that threw me off track.

I was trying to state that if a PC wanted merely to be able to make Regen persistent, there would be no direct in-character reason to do more than change the range. It could be surmised that the more you wish to change, the more effort is required, and there is no point further modifying the spell if your only aim is to make it persistent-compatible.

Well, see, that's the funny part. If you're gonna bother researching a new spell, you might as well try to customize it as much as you can. Making more of an effort or less of an effort really has nothing to do with it. Why? A regeneration spell with a different range descriptor takes the same amount of time to research as a regeneration spell that is completely redesigned (so long as both are of the same spell level as the original), so why not customize it in any way you can? This kind of forethought tells me that you are using your creativity to it's utmost potential, or that you're at least making the effort to do so, instead of you just saying "The range sucks because I can't use it with Persistent Spell, so I think I'll just change that". Taking this kind of rash action could very well result in you not discovering other ways to improve the spell. Of course, if your character is an impatient spellcaster anyways, then that's really damn good roleplaying in my book.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

2 the one who is not Sean:
I placed this comment in brackets, because I wanted to say that this is not the reason why I gave my advise. (At least I wanted to create the illusion. Maybe, in my subconsiusness, I did use my opinion. Excuse my Humanity )

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[kreynolds]

2 the one who is not Sean:
I placed this comment in brackets, because I wanted to say that this is not the reason why I gave my advise.

It doesn't matter why you posted that comment at all. The fact is, you're biased because you don't like the feat which is an integral part of the entire discussion, which is ok, but you're biased nonetheless.

If I slept with your girlfriend, and you didn't know, and I asked you if you thought she was the "one", you might say she was indeed the "one". I would say she wasn't, because I would know something you don't know, and because of that, I'm biased.

If you're a vegetarian, believe me, you're the last person I would ask about how tasty a medium-rare new york strip steak is at any given restaurant. Why? Because you don't eat meat, thus you're biased, thus your response isn't helpful to me.

Bias. That's all I was trying to illustrate.

DISCLAIMER: The above is intended to be in good humor.

EDIT: Apparently, I didn't make this post "happy" enough, so maybe more smilies will help.

 

[Belares]

If I slept with your girlfriend, and you didn't know, and I asked you if you thought she was the "one", you might say she was indeed the "one". I would say she wasn't, because I would know something you don't know, and because of that, I'm biased.

This does not belong on these boards. I value your posts and think you are quite knowledgable regarding the rules, but you need to be careful with what you say, as you (ahem) seem to be a smartass too much. With that said please make sure you dog me with your wisecracks, but try not to be so offensive.

Of course, I am biased towards you. lol