Persistent Spell Errata and FAQ

[gabrion]

So I'm confused. In the Errata for FRCS (3.0 mind you), the Persistent Spell feat was Erratad so that it could not be used on touch spells. In CD though, they reprinted the feat and left out the part about not using it on touch spells. The Errata for CD hasn't changed this, so are we to assume that WotC had a change of heart after the FRCS Errata? Can Persistent Spell now be applied to touch spells?

BTW, I know a lot of people don't like the feat in the first place, and if you are one of them, I respect that, but on this thread I am just looking for a rules clarification, so please don't troll about the brokeness of this feat. Thanks.

 

[Thanee]

Maybe they thought, that the higher level modifier is enough?

Or they just forgot about it (as with so many other things).

Or it's just unnecessary, because they are excluded already.

Anyways, I don't know of any 3.5 Persistent Spell errata.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Liquidsabre]

So I'm confused. In the Errata for FRCS (3.0 mind you), the Persistent Spell feat was Erratad so that it could not be used on touch spells. In CD though, they reprinted the feat and left out the part about not using it on touch spells. The Errata for CD hasn't changed this, so are we to assume that WotC had a change of heart after the FRCS Errata? Can Persistent Spell now be applied to touch spells?

Look to the Player's Guide to FR for the updated version of Persistent Spell. Yes the Complete Arcane version of the feat left out the requirement that spells modified must be of personal range or a fixed range in order to be eligible for use with this feat. As with most things in the splat books that originally appeared in the FRs, I use the FR-version instead since they are usually better written.

 

[gabrion]

Well that works for me. The version in PGtF also says nothing about excluding touch spells. It functions the same as the CD version. My only real concern here was that the feat was once not permited for touch spell, but now it seems to be again and I didn't want to use it that way unless I was sure. Thanks for the help though.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I'm confused. In the Errata for FRCS (3.0 mind you), the Persistent Spell feat was Erratad so that it could not be used on touch spells. In CD though, they reprinted the feat and left out the part about not using it on touch spells.

The answer from the 3E Main FAQ is still applicable:

Would spells that have touch range, such as spell
resistance, be considered to have a fixed range, and
therefore be usable with the Persistent Spell feat?

No. Range touch is not “fixed” for purposes of the Persistent
Spell feat. The spell must affect the caster’s person (personal
range) or have some effect that radiates from the caster’s
person (a fixed range, expressed in feet).

Since 'touch' is not considered 'fixed', the FRCS errata line is unnecessary.

-Hyp.

 

[gabrion]

Hmmm...I've had a few discussions about whether or not stuff form the 3.0 FAQ can establish rules in 3.0, and I'm pretty decided that the old FAQ has very little legitimacy in determining rules.

The way I see it, every new rule that comes out trumps the old one. This means that whether or not WotC chooses to clarify the issue, if they print something in 3.5 that is contrary to 3.0, then the later version wins out. We should also keep in mind that while the FAQ can be hlepful, official sources and Errata out-rank it. In regards to Persistent Spell, this is how it was handled.

1) The feat was printed in 3.0 (in a FR book I think), and it was usable on touch spells. Note that it was a different feat at that time, only bumping the spell up 4 slots.
2) WotC published an Errata saying that the the text of the feat should be changed to specifically forbid its use with touch spells.
3) 3.5 is printed and the feat, which is listed in several books, is once again without the extra text that outlawed its use with touch spells. The feat also bumps the spell up by 6 slots this time around.
4) 3.5 Errata is published and they do not change the Persistent Spell feat.

Considering all this, I don't understand why we shouldn't take the feat as written and allow it to be used with touch spells.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hmmm...I've had a few discussions about whether or not stuff form the 3.0 FAQ can establish rules in 3.0, and I'm pretty decided that the old FAQ has very little legitimacy in determining rules.

The FAQ wasn't acting as errata in this case, though. It was answering the question "What does 'fixed range' mean?"

Fixed range is any spell with a constant numeric figure.

"Range: Touch" is not fixed range - the range could be 0 ft, or 5 ft, or 10 ft, depending on the reach of the caster.

"Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft/2 levels)" is not fixed range. It could be 25 ft, or 50 ft, or 75 ft, depending on the level of the caster.

"Range: 0ft." or "Range: 30 ft." are fixed ranges. It doesn't matter who casts the spell, the range is invariant.

In 3E, the feat stated "Any spell with a personal or fixed range." The 3E FAQ answered the question "What's fixed range?"

In 3.5, feat states "Any spell with a personal or fixed range." The answer to the question "What's fixed range?" hasn't changed... and 'touch' still doesn't qualify.

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

Suprise Suprise, Hypersmurf is right

 

[Timeboxer]

I use the FR-version instead since they are usually better written.

I must admit that this is probably the first time I've ever heard this sentiment.

Though I'm told that the FR mechanics are getting better nowadays.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I must admit that this is probably the first time I've ever heard this sentiment.

Though I'm told that the FR mechanics are getting better nowadays.

Unfortunately it's more a decline in splat book quality rather than an improvement of FR quality, the FR books have just been able to maintain a consistent level of quality in all aspects (art, mechanics, editing, etc.) that I've come to rely upon as a D&D gamer.

But it looks like the CA version got that sentence in there afterall, so it's all good, didn't see it at first glance. Just needed to clarify that touch spells are not "fixed" ranged for the purposes of Persistent Spell use is all.

Suprise Suprise, Hypersmurf is right

Speaking of consistent quality lol. That's Hyp for ya!