sudden persist feat

[Infiniti2000]

I find the power creep differential between 1/day and 1/encounter to be small.

So, you're suggesting that you could change all spells to be 1 hour per level and it would have little effect on your game? That's utterly ridiculous.

If you're not suggesting that, then I have no idea what you mean.

 

[eamon]

I have no idea how you're able to justify telling a Cleric (with the Luck or Trickery domain) he can have a nice Persistent greater invisibility via mislead, but telling a Sorcerer or Wizard he can't. Same with fire shield (Fire or Sun) or repulsion.

Mislead does not have a fixed range and cannot be persisted. And even that's not relevant, since to show that a wizard can safely persist any single spell you'd need to show that for all spells a wizard can cast. The cleric is a special case in that because of DMM-Persist, there's been a bunch of clerics abusing this for a while, and it's been errata'd and well hashed out. I trust that the cleric won't break things. I'm unsure of the wizard or sorcerer.

 

[eamon]

So, you're suggesting that you could change all spells to be 1 hour per level and it would have little effect on your game? That's utterly ridiculous.

If you're not suggesting that, then I have no idea what you mean.

1 hour/level is not the same thing at all, since applying that to arbitrary (notably non-personal) spells means that you could apply the spell multiple times to multiple creatures. That's why I carefully mentioned the term 1/encounter, which is more comparable in this case.

So, as said previously, when restricted to a very limited set of spells for a single class, balanced by the cost of two feats and a spell slot, yes, I think a single persisted spell has little effect on the game.

 

[Nifft]

Mislead does not have a fixed range and cannot be persisted.

Ya got me. I read target (you) and assumed.

How about the other spells I mentioned, like fire shield and repulsion? (And that's just core, of course. FR's infamous anyspell makes much of your argument moot.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[eamon]

How about the other spells I mentioned, like fire shield and repulsion? (And that's just core, of course. FR's infamous anyspell makes much of your argument moot.)

Well, these other cases aren't much different from DMM-Persist. Since a "Sudden Persist" feat would be most similar to DMM-Persist, I don't see additional troubles. That is, the "unfairness" already exists and this is no different. Anyspell (good catch!) is a special case, and I feel that a uniform treatment is in order: a sudden persist feat should work like divine metamagic, and that means it should only apply to divine spells. If you consider Anyspell to be a divine spell, then your DMM problems will be greater than sudden persist's, but given that anyspell says it "allows you to read and prepare any arcane spell" and "When you cast the arcane spell, it works just as though cast by a wizard of your cleric level" which to me indicates it's an arcane spell, to which DMM-Persist and by extension Sudden Persist should not function.

So, the modified Sudden Persist would have Sudden Extend as prerequisite, and apply only to spells on the cleric spell list which satisfy the requirements as specified in Persist Spell. This is subtly stricter from the DMM specification which is a little more lenient, but needlessly complex, that only applies to divine spells that you know (both of which incidentally should prohibit anyspell abuse, IMHO).

Looking through the wizard spells, I see quite a few worrisome examples. Some of those are 5th level or lower, but many are in the 6-8th range (I've never played a game including casters capable of casting 9th level spells). Simple things like lightning ring (two free action 5d6 lightning bolts each round, and more electrical effects) look pretty nasty, and all the Bite of... spells are there, there's wraithstike, iron body, and weird things like gutsnake and superior invisibility...

I don't think a wizard's spell list is balanced with a feat like sudden persist, though isolated spells like fire shield are probably fine. Maybe it's fine despite the wizards different spell list, but it's a more risky choice than allowing sudden persist for cleric spells.

 

[Nifft]

Well, these other cases aren't much different from DMM-Persist. Since a "Sudden Persist" feat would be most similar to DMM-Persist, I don't see additional troubles.

This is a flawed premise. You're assuming DMM-Persist is balanced, which is an opinion I don't see corroborated by the rest of the thread.

That is, the "unfairness" already exists and this is no different.

Wait, the answer to "this looks broken" is "let's break more"? That's very much not how I like my rule alterations.

IMHO the Persist metamagic feat is the problem. I have no problem with Sudden Quicken, and I might even allow DMM-Quicken (if I were somehow convinced that Clerics needed the boost).

- - -

However, all that aside, Sudden Persist is terrible from a flavor standpoint. The "Sudden" feats are there to allow flexibility in metamagic use, particularly for prepared casters. They're designed to allow tactical (rather than strategic) use of metamagic.

But there's nothing tactical about Persist'ing a spell. It's the essence of strategic -- choosing one buff which (you hope) will last the whole day.

In other words, Sudden Empower is great if you don't know whether to prep an Empowered fireball or an Empowered lightning bolt in one of your precious 5th level slots. Sudden Persist has no such excuse for existing.

Cheers, -- N

 

[moritheil]

I don't think the requirements posted are sufficient since they allow all sorts of combos which I can't oversee; merely that it's OK in principle, with sufficiently narrow requirements which make it unattractive for other PCs. In particular, it should only apply to clerics, and should cost effectively cost two feats.

My analysis depends on Sudden persist effectively consuming 2 feat slots.

OK.

The BAB bonus is the biggest part of divine power, which is why I focussed on it. The hitpoints aren't much more useful when persisted than when not (they can't be healed between encounters).

But it's still useful because if you persist it it's guaranteed to be there in the first encounter you do have - as opposed to casting false life and then having it fade away because you end up not fighting.

The strength bonus doesn't stack with many things, but is of course useful. However, it's unlikely to tip the cleric over the border of being stronger than the fighter, who will have some other source of strength enhancement, especially as levels rise.

But it's free (or rather, the cost is paid by the feat slots.) The fighter is spending 16k gp or more for his strength bonus.

I find the power creep differential between 1/day and 1/encounter to be small.

We disagree on this. There are a lot of "nova" builds - yes, including cleric nova builds - that would go from "useful in a party" to "utterly able to kill everything in the campaign and not break a sweat" if changed from 1/day to 1/encounter. The persistent buff cleric takes those resources and instead turns them into long-lasting buff spells. If you would not multiply the nova cleric's resources, you cannot in good faith multiply the buff cleric's.

Wraithstrike is one of those spells worst in the hand of a two-handed power-attacker, which doesn't need any more boosting as is. It's definitely more powerful when used against PC's than when by them, but still, I'd keep it far away from any game I'm in if possible. It's worse than save-or-die, since you usually don't get a save, and many people don't have a defense against it (or don't have that defense "on" until it's too late) - and it's easily lethal in many cases. And wraithstrike+powerattack gets worse at higher levels.

Yes, but I fail to see your point. See, close combat almost always goes for the PCs and against the enemy at high levels - even dragons need to be wary, as entering close combat is statistically a losing proposition for them unless done under certain circumstances. Wraithstrike is a great equalizer that once again makes all those intelligent, formidable melee monsters no laughing matter. YMMV, but it's been fine in my campaigns.

Oh, and note that it has a "S" component - there is a ruling in many campaigns that you can't use it and 2h power attack in the same round, because you need to gesture. Hyp went into this with a nice article on the distinction between "wielding" and "holding" and a look into whether putting your hand back on the sword should be allowed.

As to why only a cleric should use Sudden Persist: I don't have a problem with boosting other classes, but Sudden Persist simply adds the least risk to a cleric. DMM clerics have been persisting for a while, and the errata's have fixed many egregarious problem spells. The remaining persistable spells for the cleric aren't that brilliant. Righteous Wrath of the Faithful is one of the better ones, as is Divine Power. Other classes haven't had that vetting. A druid using the Bite of... spells is scary.

The druid can take a level in cleric and then get the Sudden Persist Feat. Whereas, if he needs to use DMM, he can still do it with a level in cleric, but now he needs to worry about high charisma as well.

Perhaps other classes would be balanced, I'm just more sure that a cleric is, since I've seen that in play, and it wasn't overshadowing the rest of the party.

A cleric not overshadowing the party is just a cleric being played nicely. I don't doubt your experiences, but they don't match up with mine in terms of a cleric's ultimate potential for abuse (which is what we're discussing here.)

So really, this comes down to that persist just isn't that broken when you can't use it often, especially for a cleric.

It isn't the most broken thing in existence, but compared to feats like Toughness or Diehard, one must agree that it sets a new power curve.

 

[eamon]

This is a flawed premise. You're assuming DMM-Persist is balanced, which is an opinion I don't see corroborated by the rest of the thread.

In the rest of this thread? I've played with DMM-Persist in play and have not had troubles, and I don't think anyone else mentioned concrete problems. If you find DMM-Persist troublesome, don't allow Sudden Persist. I think Sudden Persist is less likely to be troublesome, and certainly less risky, so I'd encourage players to use it instead, if this is really what they want. Then again, I don't think persist works particularly well anyhow, so I'd normally recomment they not use it at all, but if they really want it, sudden is less risky than DMM.

That is, the "unfairness" already exists and this is no different.

Wait, the answer to "this looks broken" is "let's break more"? That's very much not how I like my rule alterations.

That's not at all what I'm saying, quite the opposite. I tried to be extremely explicit that I'm not willing to allow "new" exploits. You may find that it's unfair that a wizard cannot use DMM-Persist but a cleric can... but my suggestion not to allow Sudden Persist to apply to anyone other than a cleric is hardly "breaking it more". Quite the contrary - that's the whole point.

IMHO the Persist metamagic feat is the problem. I have no problem with Sudden Quicken, and I might even allow DMM-Quicken (if I were somehow convinced that Clerics needed the boost).

I'm of the opposite school of thought. Characters that go nova are extremely annoying, since they either cake-walk everthing or they die. A player who wants a less spiky power curve is my friend. And I don't see clerics dominating any of my combats, currently - they're very powerful, but largely due to flexibility (like a wizard), and usually that's not a problem in-game in my experience (since they're not outgunning the rest, just earning eternal gratitude for the well-timed death ward...)

Quicken is much more likely to break your game than persist. A player with DMM quicken instead of DMM persist can have all the same buffs as a persisting cleric for one combat, but then simply play that combat double-powered, quickening and perfoming melee buffed combat each round for quite a while. Persist looks twinked out, but it just can't even come close to that nova factor.

 

[eamon]

But it's free (or rather, the cost is paid by the feat slots.) The fighter is spending 16k gp or more for his strength bonus.

If a player is spending two feats to save 16k, that's fine and not in the least a problem.

We disagree on this. There are a lot of "nova" builds - yes, including cleric nova builds - that would go from "useful in a party" to "utterly able to kill everything in the campaign and not break a sweat" if changed from 1/day to 1/encounter. The persistent buff cleric takes those resources and instead turns them into long-lasting buff spells. If you would not multiply the nova cleric's resources, you cannot in good faith multiply the buff cleric's.

Persist is not a nova build. The difference between 1/day and 1/encounter is real, but not dramatic. For groups that fight only one serious(!) battle a day, there is no difference.

Yes, but I fail to see your point. See, close combat almost always goes for the PCs and against the enemy at high levels - even dragons need to be wary, as entering close combat is statistically a losing proposition for them unless done under certain circumstances. Wraithstrike is a great equalizer that once again makes all those intelligent, formidable melee monsters no laughing matter. YMMV, but it's been fine in my campaigns.

I don't think it's a fun spell, and it's easily more powerful in the hands of NPC's such as super-high-BAB and super-high-strength dragons than PC's. But if it works for you, all the best!

Oh, and note that it has a "S" component - there is a ruling in many campaigns that you can't use it and 2h power attack in the same round, because you need to gesture. Hyp went into this with a nice article on the distinction between "wielding" and "holding" and a look into whether putting your hand back on the sword should be allowed.

That's an odd ruling IMHO, but would help explain why you have less trouble with wraithstrike.

The druid can take a level in cleric and then get the Sudden Persist Feat. Whereas, if he needs to use DMM, he can still do it with a level in cleric, but now he needs to worry about high charisma as well.

Not if he's using the text I proposed, he can't, in which it can only be applied to spells on the cleric spell list.

A cleric not overshadowing the party is just a cleric being played nicely. I don't doubt your experiences, but they don't match up with mine in terms of a cleric's ultimate potential for abuse (which is what we're discussing here.)

I'm not trying to allow abuse. DMM-Persist is not nearly as abusable as many other feats. If you're trying to nova, why bother spending a bunch of effort to make buff's last longer, when you could just get the cheaper yet more powerful DMM-Quicken? Sudden Persist is less abusable than DMM-Persist, but if you feel DMM-Persist is a problem, don't allow it.

It isn't the most broken thing in existence, but compared to feats like Toughness or Diehard, one must agree that it sets a new power curve.

Which is why it's more useful to compare it to other actually attractive feats. If I'm going to go through the bother of balancing and allowing a custom feat for a player, it better not be useless, they'll just not choose it. In any case, Persist in all it's forms does not lend itself well to nova-abuse, and - though arguable - they don't tend to overshadow two-handed fighters or wildshaping druids or warblades or whatever else passes for a tank in the party.

Honestly though, I'm much less worried about the overshadowing bit, since that's heavily dependant on the party you're playing in (and sudden persist is anyhow less of a risk than DMM-Persist here).