Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shard O'Glase" data-source="post: 636152" data-attributes="member: 1134">from a balance level how bad is it.&nbsp; It's a 7th lavel spell by then see invisibility should be the norm.&nbsp; I made gogles of see invis/darkvision for the entire party by 8th level, admitedly I'm a item creation freak but still by 13th level see invis isn't an unusal ability for inteigent foes to acquire and not unusual for a natural ability of monsters.[house rule] personally I just don't like persistent spell in how it works it makes spells that were balanced by a short duration too good sometimes, and just doesn't feel right to me.&nbsp; I would of perfered it being able to be used on a wider range of spells but only increase the duration by one time category(time categorys for this feat would be rounds, minutes, 10 miuntes, and hours)&nbsp; I'd expressly allow it to be stacked so two uses would bump it up two categories.&nbsp; Either be +2 or +3 spell levels not sure which.&nbsp; My next campaign I'm thinking of doing this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shard O'Glase, post: 636152, member: 1134"] from a balance level how bad is it. It's a 7th lavel spell by then see invisibility should be the norm. I made gogles of see invis/darkvision for the entire party by 8th level, admitedly I'm a item creation freak but still by 13th level see invis isn't an unusal ability for inteigent foes to acquire and not unusual for a natural ability of monsters. [house rule] personally I just don't like persistent spell in how it works it makes spells that were balanced by a short duration too good sometimes, and just doesn't feel right to me. I would of perfered it being able to be used on a wider range of spells but only increase the duration by one time category(time categorys for this feat would be rounds, minutes, 10 miuntes, and hours) I'd expressly allow it to be stacked so two uses would bump it up two categories. Either be +2 or +3 spell levels not sure which. My next campaign I'm thinking of doing this. [/QUOTE]

Verification