T&B: Persistent Spell

[Liminal Syzygy]

So? I dont' see this as a huge problem. Given this would occupy a 7th level slot, it's alrady going to last 130 minutes or more ... meaning, probably one casting owudl cover every expected encounter for the day, ANYway.

Yes but if you do it without persistant spell feat, you are using up a spell level THAT DAY. What makes persistant spell feat particularly powerful is that you can cast on yourself before you go to sleep, it's still on you when you wake up for most of the next day, and you still have your full spell complement.

 

[hoyerhan]

Yes but if you do it without persistant spell feat, you are using up a spell level THAT DAY. What makes persistant spell feat particularly powerful is that you can cast on yourself before you go to sleep, it's still on you when you wake up for most of the next day, and you still have your full spell complement.

If so, particulary powerful for sorcerers that can persist unused spellslots at the end of the day.

 

[LokiDR]

If you know when encounters are going to happen (when you go into the dungeon) and you know there are only going to be a few encounters, and you can stop having encounters any time you like, then persistant is not very useful.

However, if that is the case, the DM isn't really challenging you.

The point, Pax, is that when you need to protect your entire party from *, you can. If that thing isn't a threat any more, then, the next day, you can use the slot for something else. Think of it as a magic item with infinite trade-in capacity. Instead of spending your money on basic magical gear, you can persistant a bunch of spells and buy more exotic items

As for every one's favorite, dispel, I don't like it. If the only way I can ever challenge a party is to open with a fleet of dispells, there is something wrong. Most monsters and basic classes do not have dispel. Not every group in the game should have access to this. But to hear you talk, they should. Persistant only exaserbates the dispel problem.

The detect spells are persistantable: detect evil-60'range, duration for concentration. Incidently, concentration is a standard action, so concentrating on the Blessed Aim for 24 hours would be silly. Curse of the brute can give a combat based cleric an amazing boost. Who needs int and cha? You beat things down.

Pax, you have never seen what persistant can do in the hands of powergamers. Perhaps you should look at it more carefully.

 

[Petrosian]

If you have already dug your emotional trenches around persistent anything i feel like, then far be it from me to try and assail that castle.

most of the time i see griping about the no-touch persistent spell thing its people wanting persistent bulls strength and such who just simply fail to realize that makes no sense. use extend to get those spells with hour per day to 24 hours and save a level or two.

I house ruled persistent to be "increases to next time increment... rounds to minutes, minutes to 10 minutes, etc... as soon as i saw it. My players, realizing this meant most wizards they fought would not have yesterday's shield still up all day did not think too poorly of this rule.

Persistent as written is very poorly balanced and i would have to say the range basis for allow/disallow is silly... at the very least the basis should be duration, with round/level or fixed duration being outlawed.

I hope in 3.5 they provide a more reasonable criteria or a specific list of spells.

 

[Grog]

Persistent spell was a neat idea, but IMO it's very, very close to broken, if not all the way there. There's really no problem with wizards taking this feat, but the problem is, clerics can take it too, and that's where it breaks down.

Throw on persistent Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might, and poof, your 17th level cleric is now a better fighter than your fighter companion. Plus, you can still cast a ton of spells.

This feat would probably be okay if it was restricted to arcane casters only.

 

[Caliber]

I can't seem to find that list of feats in 3.5 ... is Persistant on there? If so, lets hope they made it better. I particularly like your suggestion Petrosian.

I guess I'm just blessed with the non-munchkins, cause none of my players ever try stuff like this. Never stopped me though ...

 

[Piratecat]

I can't seem to find that list of feats in 3.5 ... is Persistant on there?

It is not.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Throw on persistent Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might, and poof, your 17th level cleric is now a better fighter than your fighter companion. Plus, you can still cast a ton of spells.

There's your list of spells, Pax.

Divine Favor and Divine Power are particularly disgusting when persisted.

 

[Hjorimir]

Yeah, this feat has been outlawed by Vymair in his campaign. I will probably do the same when I start my next campaign as well.

 

[Pax]

There's your list of spells, Pax.

Divine Favor and Divine Power are particularly disgusting when persisted.

Divine Favor is a Personal-range spell. It can STILL be made persistant, even WITH the (IMO senseless and unneccesary) errata.

Ditto for Divine Power -- Personal range.

And AGAIN, for Righteous Might.

Banning all touch spells from being affected by Persistent Spell, does absolutely nothing to change wether or not you can make Divine Favor, Divine Power, or Righteous Might persistent. You can still cast all three.

However, Righteous Might is not a "low level" spell - it's 5th. Made persistent, it's 9th.

Neither is Divine Power, it's a 4th level spell. Persistent, it's 8th.

...

So.

Question: how do those three spells support eliminating non-discharged touch spells from what can or cannot be made Persistent, based especially on the worry of clerics abusing peristent "low level" spells ...?

Answer: they don't. Not in the slightest.