Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gabrion" data-source="post: 2212756" data-attributes="member: 30779">I agree with the last part of that sentiment, if a mechanic is changed then we can no longer trust an old FAQ, but it brings up three concerns for me.1) The new FAQ is meant to clarify all of the rules for the new version, not just ones that were missed in the old FAQ.  Knowing this, if something is left out of the new FAQ but was in the old one, then why should we take this as a change in the understanding of the rules.  2) More importantly, I think there is an argument to be made that the mechanics for persistent spell were changed in 3.5.  The feat bumps a spell up by 6 levels instead of 4 now, which is a huge change, and it can be used with divine metamagic on spells that it would normally put over ninth level. The same FAQ in 3.0 says that persistent spell can't be used on a spell if it would make the spell higher than the level of spells you can cast (even if that isn't ninth level).3) Another way to look at the last point is that the 3.0 FAQ has actually been corrected in regards to persistent spell.  If we used the stuff from the 3.0 FAQ about that feat, we would not be able to use divine metamagic to persist spells that would normally end up being a level higher than we can cast.  If the FAQ isn't reliable in regards to the feat, I don't know why we should trust it to guide us in using the feat.The real problem seems to be in defining what spells have a fixed range, which is what the FAQ was doing in the part you referenced.  I'm not aware of anything in the 3.5 rules or errata that ever defined this concept.  This is why I brought up the example of AMF.  I don't want to make that the subject of the thread, but I would like to know what you think about that.  The only place in 3.0 that says AMF blocks line of effect is the FAQ.  Should we use that as our ruling now?  You may think it's obvious that a touch spell does not have a fixed range, but I think a good case could be made that the range of a touch spell is effectively 0 ft.  At any given time, a character's reach is a fixed number, so that could be another reason to think of touch spells as having a fixed range.I'm interested in whether or not touch spells should be considered fixed range without the 3.0 FAQ, and if so, then why should we still use that FAQ?@dagger-The list of spells that can be persistent is very long.  Vigorous Circle is a personal favorite of mine.  Fast healing 3 for all the party members?  Sign me up!</blockquote>

Verification