You nerf Haste... what now?

[Unseelie]

Crothian and Henry: Your fighters aren't doing insane damage by level 10? How much are yours doing? Ours are terrifying by lvl 10... between Power Attack and the effects of Improved Critical (rage, specialization, high str... etc.) they do 50+ all the time.

Yup... that's the case in our game as well. I've seen our mainline fighter pull off a Cleave because of forcing a MDT check, which it failed.

I'd say that something that scary happens roughly once every 1 to 2 sessions.

Between SR, Elemental Resistances, and saves I find it difficult to get a spell through most of the time... maybe our foes are better buffed than standard... I know they have a level or two of classes added in more often than not. I cant find enough feats to get the punch I need.

Elemental Substitution: Sonic is your friend if you're running into lots of creatures with elemental resistances. While there aren't a lot of critters that are vulnerable to sonic damage, very, very few are resistant to it either.

Also, if you're casting large amounts of direct damage spells, seriously consider Spell Focus: Evocation. You'd be amazed how much of a difference that +2 makes.

There's also Spell Penetration from Magic of Faerun(?) I believe...

Also, don't ignore spells like Ice Storm that don't have a save.

Finally, avoid multiclassing into anything that doesn't add a caster level.

 

[LokiDR]

If you don't pay attention to the rules governing the metamagic feats, it's very easy to make powerful combos. Of the five spells you list, the only one Persistent Spell works on is Shield. (It only works on Personal or fixed (non-touch) range spells--consequently fly, improved invis, mage armor, and protection from evil are all out). Now, since mage armor is 1 hr/level duration, by the time you can use persistent spell, you can get better results by extending it twice so that bit doesn't matter. Persistent Protection from evil isn't a big deal either b/c rings of protection +2 aren't too pricey by 9th-12th level either. However, I suspect that losing Persistent Fly and Persistent Improved Invisibility will put a big kink in the power play.

The relevant line of the feat is

The persistant spell must have a personal or fixed range....

I would argue that "touch" is a fixed range, as opposed to "N ft. + X ft./level". If you have an offical example, Sage quote, or FAQ page, it would make my DM very happy.

In the case of improved invis, it isn't an issue since the range of the spell is "Personal or touch". Hmm, it might be a way to keep Persistant Spell from being obscene.

The point is that mages can muchkin in ways fighters can only dream of. Save or die spells alone make them effective in combat. They don't need haste, at least not as the 3rd level spell it is now.

 

[IceBear]

Ask and you shall receive. From the FAQ

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).

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

In the case of improved invis, it isn't an issue since the range of the spell is "Personal or touch". Hmm, it might be a way to keep Persistant Spell from being obscene.

Really? I have never noticed that. Wow, persistent improved invis, that's perhaps the best 7th level spell I heard of.

 

[IceBear]

I'd rule that a spell with Personal or Touch as the range wouldn't qualify for persistence (just to keep people from having persisent Improved Invisibilty). The OR in the range keeps it from being "fixed" in my mind (at least that's how I'd argue against it to a player )

IceBear

 

[Hypersmurf]

Really? I have never noticed that.

It's amazing how few people do - I think they remember "I can cast Invisibility on someone else, so I can't make it Persistent", without actually looking up the stat block of the spell.

Every time Persistent Spell comes up, someone talks about their Persistent Haste, Persistent Fly, Persistent Improved Invis combo, and then someone tells them all those spells are illegal, and then a third person (often me, if someone doesn't beat me to it) points out that the range of Improved Invisibility is "as Invisibility", and the range of Invisibility is "Personal or Touch".

As long as you're casting it on yourself... no problem.

-Hyp.

 

[aliensex]

Damn internet connection!

 

[aliensex]

They're nerfing Haste!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Not my Haste!

Damn. Another reason not to buy D&D 3.69 when it comes out!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd rule that a spell with Personal or Touch as the range wouldn't qualify for persistence (just to keep people from having persisent Improved Invisibilty). The OR in the range keeps it from being "fixed" in my mind (at least that's how I'd argue against it to a player )

I can understand the decision from a balance point of view, but from a rules standpoint, I'd oppose it.

For example, if there were a spell that could take different effects at time of casting (like, say, Fire Seeds, Flam Arrow, Fire Shield, Pyrotechnics), and if one of those effects had a Personal or Fixed range and the other didn't (hypothetical spell, y'see, 'cos I can't think of any examples), then I'd allow one effect to be made Persistent, but not the other.

In the same way, I feel that when the target/range of a spell is "You or creature touched / Personal or touch", as opposed to "Creature touched / Touch", the spell is treated differently when cast on "You".

When Invisibility is cast on the caster himself, its target/range is "You / Personal". When, say, Haste is cast on the caster himself, its target / range is "Creature touched / Touch".

Otherwise what's the point of having an entry of "Personal or Touch" in the first place, since an ordinary touch spell can be cast on yourself already?

(At least, that's how I'd argue for it to the DM )

-Hyp.

 

[IceBear]

Hyper - I WAS arguing against it from a balance point of view. I know from a rules point of view it's legal.

Then again, since I don't have anyone that could REALLY abuse this in my campaign, I'd probably let it stand as per the rules. If I had someone abusing it like crazy then I might not.

IceBear