Persistent Spell?

[reichtfeld]

I'm almost positive this is probably bringing up old news, but I don't have the search feature. Is there any resource on this board, another board, or on a site that list spells compatible with the persistent spell feat?

Do spells with a range of "touch" qualify as having a "fixed range" for the purpose of this feat? Since the description references detect magic, with the oddball 60 ft. range, I'm unclear on that. If touch spells can't qualify as persistent then this feat loses a whole lot of attraction for me.

One thing that makes this difficult for me to personally adjudicate is some of the inconsistencies in the PHB spell descriptions. Is there any particular reason invisibility is personal or creature touched while fly is just creature touched for targeting purposes? I have the first printing of the PHB, but I don't recall any errata cleaning this sort of stuff up. That sort of nitpicking hadn't made a difference either way for me until looking at persistent spell.

Also, what about the case of see invisibility? This spell has always confused me a bit the way it is described. A literal translation of the description means it drops the invisibility of anything in the cone area for 10 minutes/level, regardless of where the now-visible creature moves to. But I also wonder if the cone is just the caster's facing and that only the caster can see invisible creatures or objects within the cone, which lasts for 10 minutes/level. If the first is correct then it wouldn't make any sense as persistent, but if the second is the case then it would make sense as a personal effect. Could someone clarify?

From a balance perspective, I haven't noticed anything outrageous with a casual observation of the impact on making touch spells persistent. The feat has what I'd consider a negligible impact on offensive spells & debuffs and is only useful, from my perspective, for increasing buffs that do not rely on a 1 hour/level duration: spells like blindsight, darkvision, fly, etc. And I imagine true seeing would be a super idea for an epic slot.

So is there any official ruling about touch targets and persistent feat? If touch spells can't officially be persisted, is it a common house rule to allow them? Is there any list of persistable spells? I'd really like to think that touch spells work with the feat, since it seems in the spirit of trading spell slots for the XP cost of permanency, which begins to suck after the umpteenth successful dispel I imagine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So is there any official ruling about touch targets and persistent feat?

There is, and it's "No".

It's in the Tome and Blood FAQ, from memory.

-Hyp.

 

[reichtfeld]

Tome and Blood FAQ was the first thing I checked and it didn't have anything relating to the feat. I know the main FAQ has a question about persistent time stop, explaining how/why it is impossible. At least I think it was the main FAQ.

 

[Caliban]

Tome and Blood FAQ was the first thing I checked and it didn't have anything relating to the feat. I know the main FAQ has a question about persistent time stop, explaining how/why it is impossible. At least I think it was the main FAQ.

The main faq has this to say:

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).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah.

p. 37, Persistent Spell:
Second sentence Change: “Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged.”
To “Spells of instantaneous duration, spells with a range of touch, and spells whose effects are discharged cannot be affected by this feat.”

FRCS Errata. The feat showed up there before T&B.

-Hyp.

 

[reichtfeld]

But checking over the main FAQ I did see the same question, which I hadn't before. Touch does not equal fixed range for the purpose of the feat.

Is there any published list of spells that do qualify for the feat? Are there any DMs that houserule touch spells working with persistent spell?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, the debate begins when we look at Improved Invisibility, with its range of "Personal or Touch".

Is it a spell that can be cast on "you" with a range of "Personal"? Or is it a spell that can be cast on "you" with a range of "Personal or Touch"?

If the first, it can be made Persistent. If the second, it can't.

-Hyp.

 

[reichtfeld]

Exactly. I really think that the PHB authors simply slacked off on spell descriptions. I think it'd make sense for all "buffs" that aren't solely personal (like shield) to read personal or touch and have their saves as (harmless). We already know they fudged up on the descriptions handling cat's grace, bull's strength, and endurance from the FAQ. From a balance perspective, comparing the buffs listed as personal and those listed as touch, I don't think it makes any difference to include them as persistent. I think the Sage's issue was probably with debuff or attack spells being made persistent. Either that or simply making a literal interpretation of the rules without considering game balance and intent. Either way, it makes no real sense to persist a debuff spell unless you plan for it to be a very, very long fight. Or you just want to roleplay being some sort of cruel sadist.

I'd argue it's alright to persist invisibility or improved invisibility. As a 15th level wizard, the earliest you could possibly prepare a persisted improved invisibility, you could already extend it to last 10 hours for the same exact level adjustment. For the cost of another feat I don't think it's unbalancing to be able to persist it. And besides, there are also the roleplaying penalties for being invisible the whole day. You're doubtless going to want to drop it for one reason or another.

I'd make the same argument for most other touch buffs. From a balance perspective it doesn't make sense to disallow any touch buffs when you have to spend a feat and could otherwise multiple extend them. I'd like to imagine 3.5 will clean up the spell descriptions and make everything neater with account to all the new material that's been published, but I doubt that it will happen.

Hypersmurf: Could you answer my see invisibility question? The explanation you gave on my multi-class skill points question made it perfectly clear and the spell description for this has been bugging me ever since I considered it as an option for persistent spell and began wondering how exactly it's intended to work.

 

[Caliban]

Now, the debate begins when we look at Improved Invisibility, with its range of "Personal or Touch".

Is it a spell that can be cast on "you" with a range of "Personal"? Or is it a spell that can be cast on "you" with a range of "Personal or Touch"?

If the first, it can be made Persistent. If the second, it can't.

-Hyp.

If you cast it as a Personal spell it can be persisted. If you cast it as a Touch spell it cannot.

If you prepare it as a Persistant spell, it loses that attribute if you cast it on someone.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's like Detect Magic, in that it creates an area within which the caster can perceive something he could not otherwise perceive.

It's not "Target: Personal", but in some ways it behaves like one.

If a magical emanation moves out of the area of Detect Magic, you cease detecting it. If an invisible creature moves outside your cone of See Invisibility, you can't see it any more.

However, it's unlike Detect Magic in that it does not have a fixed range, and is therefore ineligible for Persistence.

-Hyp.