HELP, my DM will destroy my nightsticks.

[Forsaker]

Hi there thanks for watching, I made a thread not long ago about a cleric + nightsticks + persistance and some of the ppl here gived AWSOME ideas which it ended helping me to build a strong character. Going to the point here like the thread says my DM is kinda mad because I bought 5 nightsticks in a level 9 adventure.

I know him so well that he will somehow steal my nightstick with a rogue (probably) or send me a wizard with indijuction. IS THERE anyways I can protect my nightsticks during the night? or again'st mordikains indisjunction (I know wrong spelling) ?. I tought about saving 6 extra turns to persist Soul of the Waste but I am not sure if it can work well vs a rogue during the night. Is there anything that can hide my nightsticks? maybe an expensive item that protects them or something, maybe a cloth but many secret pockets ( doubt it will work again'st a rogue with +30 sleight on hand lol). Maybe a spell or any cool idea. PLEASE be creative this DM will not break rules but he will do what it takes to do the job without been broken tho.

Thanks again :).

[Greenish]

Actually, I can see why a DM would object to DMM persist cleric with a pile of Nightsticks, and while I don't agree with his method of handling it, well, it may well be that your character needs a drop on power to not to outshine others.

[Bang!]

Sovereign Glue them to your face, as a disguise.

That way, the thieves won't know that you're the one to rob and they won't be able to get their hands on them by creeping up on you from behind.

[holywhippet]

It's mage's disjunction in 3rd edition - and it's a level 9 spell. If you are in a level 9 adventure the DM has no business throwing it at you.

Gloves of storing will help with 2 of them - you can store and recall items at will so you can store one of them in each glove (you'll need two, and to find the rules that allow 2 of them being worn).

You could create an undead (like a zombie) and store your nightsticks inside of them - likewise you could use a golem if you can afford it.

Honestly though, you should try to come to some kind of agreement with your DM. If you are ticking them off because of your tactics then try to dial it down a notch. They are going to the effort of running a campaign, you shouldn't try to annoy them too much.

[Ytaker]

Have a wizard or sorcerer rope trick you to safety during the night. It's a pretty cheap way to stay safe, and a nightstick cleric is worth it.

[AslanCross]

I think the best way is to strike middle ground with your DM outside the game, rather than go on some wacky arms race to destroy something your DM shouldn't have allowed in the first place. Even if he didn't know how broken they could be, I think it's only fair that he be made aware of what they can do. A game that is based on players and the DM trying to one-up each other isn't a very stable game, IMO.

If I were him I'd just say "sorry, they don't stack."

[Greenish]

If I were him I'd just say "sorry, they don't stack."And have the spare ones replaced with something cool, like a hookshot. :smallwink:

[AslanCross]

And have the spare ones replaced with something cool, like a hookshot. :smallwink:

That's even better. Still, Nightsticking really is something the OP should have expected would invoke DM wrath.

[graeylin]

handy haversack. only you can retrieve what you put in, if you are half secretive about what/where/when you put items in.

then you just have to guard the haversack.

[erikun]

Haversack wouldn't help - anyone can reach in and grab what they want. If a rogue is going to steal the cleric's nightsticks, they they could just reach in and try to grab the nightsticks. Or just steal the haversack.

There are ways of going about preserving your items - I seem to recall using a buckler with a secret compartment, and then melding it with your body - but if the DM is actually annoyed with your tactics rather than just using them to provoke plot, then you're best talking with the DM about it. Not only is the DM unlikely to just hand over a glove of storing/haversack/special buckler, but you'll likely find the item cursed or intentionally designed by the rogue to make it easier to steal the nightsticks from you.

[Coidzor]

Well, this is definitely something that should be dealt with outside of the game rather than him getting angry and declaring he's going to do something fiat to specifically screw your character out of a significant portion of your WBL and keep on punishing you throughout the game by keeping you well behind the rest of the party.

He probably needs to learn not to expect to be able to get away with that, especially when he's doing it to cover for his own laziness and ineptitude/inexperience.

[holywhippet]

If I were him I'd just say "sorry, they don't stack."

That would be hard to justify (not that a DM really needs to). It's like saying you can't have three healing belts and swap between them as each runs out of charges each day.



handy haversack. only you can retrieve what you put in, if you are half secretive about what/where/when you put items in.

then you just have to guard the haversack.

So instead of potentially just losing the nightsticks he could lose the nightsticks, the haversack and anything else he has stashed in there.

BTW, the text for the haversack doesn't stop others from taking everything in there - it just says that if you want a specific item it will always be on top.

[Coidzor]

That would be hard to justify (not that a DM really needs to). It's like saying you can't have three healing belts and swap between them as each runs out of charges each day.

Some people think they can stack them so that they only use the nightstick charges rather than their own personal charges.


So instead of potentially just losing the nightsticks he could lose the nightsticks, the haversack and anything else he has stashed in there.

There's no way to win an arms race with the DM. The only way is to use the power of your position as a player against him and whatever other leverage you have in order to force him to be civil and reasonable when he wants to overreact.

After all, if the DM lacks players, he has no game. But actually getting the rest of the group to help with that leverage is not always an easy thing.

This is an interpersonal issue about how the game is to be run. I may be in the minority, but I feel quite strongly that telling someone you're going to screw with them specifically is bad form. Not on the sheer horror of the level that roleplaying out a brutal rape of their character is bad, but still unsavory and not the sort of thing to be tolerated or encouraged.

[AslanCross]

That would be hard to justify (not that a DM really needs to). It's like saying you can't have three healing belts and swap between them as each runs out of charges each day.


There's a difference between healing yourself extra times a day and persisting several powerful magical buffs, though.

[MrRigger]

Yeah, this sounds more like a problem that needs to be solved out of game. Talk with your DM and see if you two can't reach a compromise without bringing the problem in-game.

MrRigger

[Veyr]

It's mage's disjunction in 3rd edition
No, it's still Mordekainen's, it was just changed to Mage's Disjunction for the SRD, which isn't allowed to reference copyrighted characters like Mordekainen.

[Akal Saris]

That would be hard to justify (not that a DM really needs to). It's like saying you can't have three healing belts and swap between them as each runs out of charges each day.

I think a DM would be justified in ruling that multiple copies of charged items can't be used multiple times in a day. Healing Belts aren't so broken, but Belt of Battle certainly is.

[holywhippet]

I think a DM would be justified in ruling that multiple copies of charged items can't be used multiple times in a day. Healing Belts aren't so broken, but Belt of Battle certainly is.

In terms of power balance it might be fair enough. In terms of RAW and RAI it would be highly dubious. Admittedly, these are the same rules that give us Punpun so adding a sanity/reason check is fair enough.

[Squiggles]

If you're bent on preserving your nightsticks at least from a rogue, I've seen a pouch that blends into your stomach and requires a 30 search to uncover, you could always go that route. It would be the Possum Pouch from Complete Adventurer(pg134) and you could probably even go so far as to have the inside lined with lead as indicated in Complete Scoundrel(pg108). This will only get you so far though.

In the long run it would be best just to talk things over with your DM.

[Thespianus]

That would be hard to justify (not that a DM really needs to). It's like saying you can't have three healing belts and swap between them as each runs out of charges each day.
Seems simple and reasonable enough. I know it might not be to everyone's liking, but I'm all for limiting unlimited X-per-day items like that. One healing belt, one nightstick and one eternal wand of each spell, etc.

But it's an age old discussion about the level of magic in the campaign world, unlikely to be solved to everyones liking in a thread on this forum. ;)

To the OP: If your DM don't want your nightsticks to stack, he should tell you so out of character, not spend time in-game to steal them from you.

[Darth Stabber]

Cut a hole in you abdomen every night, but the night sticks in and heal yourself. In the morning cut them out and heal up again. You may want to add some alcohol or a remove disease spell to the mix, depending on your fortitude save.

Alternately realize that the gm is trying to balance the game, and be glad you got to do dmm tricks as long as you did.

That being said, depending on the gm, I had a more fun exploit with a cleric of obadhai. Take two elemental domains, there you go, two extra sets of turn attempts to fuel persists. It falls apart if you gm specifically requires turn undead attempts as opposed to just turn attempts.

[LordBlades]

Like others have said, this is a problem that should be solved out of game.

Getting into an arms race with a GM is always frustrating for both sides. Of course, the GM wins in the end, but to stop a player that wants to break the game from breaking the game he'll probably have to ban more than half of the published material:smallcool:

[The Boz]

...WTF is a Nightstick?

[Greenish]

...WTF is a Nightstick?Extra Turning in the form of an item.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, I can see why a DM would object to DMM persist cleric with a pile of Nightsticks, and while I don't agree with his method of handling it, well, it may well be that your character needs a drop on power to not to outshine others.

Yeahhhh...if you've been ridiculously more powerful than everyone else, well...have a chat with him to see how you can make it work out. A pile of nightsticks is kind of an obvious thing.

Perhaps consider selling down to like, one nightstick.

[Rei_Jin]

I don't understand this "my DM is going to do something about a tactic he disagrees with/dislikes". Whilst you, as a player, are there to have fun and play a game, the DM is there to arbitrate, control, and create the game (all to a degree, it's not absolute).

Thus, if you are doing something that upsets the other players OR DM, then you should discuss it maturely outside of the game context, rather than trying to outwit him. It can only end badly for everyone involved.

If your DM has a problem with Divine Metamagic cheese and Nightstick cheese being used together, then odds are that he's unhappy with you being a CoDzilla. Can't say I blame him. Have you ever considered that he's being reasonable and that perhaps you've overstepped the mark here?

Unless, of course, you have a Hulking Hurler with a moon as his weapon and a Wizard with his own demi-plane in a bag that he carries with him that has its own time traits. If you do, then he's being a douche. Odds are, however, that this is not the case.

[gbprime]

Question for you... do you feel that your character will be unplayable without the nightsticks?

If yes, then you've built a bad character. Stuff comes, stuff goes, don't get hung up on stuff. Your character is not defined by a list of his stuff.

If no, then what are you worried about? You only get one DMM Persist buff per day instead of four? Oh noes. How many does the Ranger get? Yeah. Deal with it.

[Forsaker]

First of all thank you all for your help and second WOW so many answers haha, my party is powerplayer / munchkin based so that means that every other character in this adventure is pretty powerful in its own.The only thing that separates me from every other melee class in the party is the fact that I can hit anything anytime (wraith strike) and they will miss every now and then.

I mean we have stupidly powerfull wizards that can deal 150 to 200 damage in a single round by using two ranged touch spells (metamagics included). My point is that he knew how my nightsticks worked and I even told that I was gona buy plenty of them at the beginning. He said '' You better buy a plenty because I doubt that you will see a Nightstik in a magic shop often (he was being sarcastic) I wasn't gona find nightstick ever again! ... SO GUESS WHAT!!! lol I used all my money on nightsticks .... I wasn't gona do this but he made me, he was gona restrict me buying them after I started the game so I decided to go ahead and start with 5 nightsticks and a reliquary holsymbol. I was gona gradually buy them (slowly) to make it fair but he was gonna just bann them after the starting package.....

He knew that I was gona be powerful with nightsticks, I told him that I was gona stack the nightstick to get plenty persistances per day. I didn't lie. He knew everything, I told him that I was gona spend all my money on nightsticks and he laughed (he probably tought that I was joking lol). But hey thanks for your support (all of you). By the way isn't persisting Soul of the Waste after going to sleep a good idea to evade intruders during the night?

[Tyndmyr]

That changes things a bit...but be aware that even in high-op games, you generally want to keep a little juice in reserve. It helps not to be obviously the most powerful, and to have something extra for tight spots.

For conserving your nightsticks, I suggest using multiple different methods of hiding them, with different ones in each spot. It's unlikely the DM will go for all of them, but if he gets one or two, he'll probably be happier.

Familiar Pocket is an excellent spell for such things. A low level spell that creates a long-term extra-dimensional storage space in an otherwise ordinary appearing pocket.

Glove of Storing is also classic. There's a few similar items in the MiC.

Make sure to also put dummy extradimensional spaces on things. Yknow, pockets with nothing but items with Explosive Runes or another trap of your choice on them. Gotta get those pesky nosy types.

[gbprime]

Yeah, Glove of Storing. You can store a bag in it, not just a single item. You can even store a Bag of Holding in it. And have a friend put a Nystul's Magic Aura on the glove every once in a while to make it look non-magical. Problem solved.

[Forsaker]

That changes things a bit...but be aware that even in high-op games, you generally want to keep a little juice in reserve. It helps not to be obviously the most powerful, and to have something extra for tight spots.

For conserving your nightsticks, I suggest using multiple different methods of hiding them, with different ones in each spot. It's unlikely the DM will go for all of them, but if he gets one or two, he'll probably be happier.

Familiar Pocket is an excellent spell for such things. A low level spell that creates a long-term extra-dimensional storage space in an otherwise ordinary appearing pocket.

Glove of Storing is also classic. There's a few similar items in the MiC.

Make sure to also put dummy extradimensional spaces on things. Yknow, pockets with nothing but items with Explosive Runes or another trap of your choice on them. Gotta get those pesky nosy types.

Hahaha the explosive trap is a pretty good idea, Im taking notes at the moment, thank you ^.^.

But yeah he knew about everything he just didn't expect me to use all my money on nightsticks thats all.

[Gullintanni]

That being said, depending on the gm, I had a more fun exploit with a cleric of obadhai. Take two elemental domains, there you go, two extra sets of turn attempts to fuel persists. It falls apart if you gm specifically requires turn undead attempts as opposed to just turn attempts.

The other way to do this is with a Lawful Neutral Cleric that channels Positive Energy. Then dip DN to gain a rebuking pool. :smallsmile:

[Analytica]

Do you actually need to hold the nightsticks to use them?

If not, just implant them into your body surgically. This might actually be kind of flavourful - you have taken bones from the reliquaries of saints of your faith and painfully merged them into you, to emulate their past greatness.

[Tyndmyr]

The other way to do this is with a Lawful Neutral Cleric that channels Positive Energy. Then dip DN to gain a rebuking pool. :smallsmile:

A way that requires only a feat is Favored of Tut'em'something or other. Sandstorm.

I am not responsible for your DM's reaction to you gaining Hippo-turning.

[Gullintanni]

A way that requires only a feat is Favored of Tut'em'something or other. Sandstorm.

I am not responsible for your DM's reaction to you gaining Hippo-turning.

Hippos are my favorite turnable creature :smallsmile:

Though if Fire and Water elemental turning have been ruled as unable to power DMM, then Hippo-turning probably will be too. Rebuking as a second pool is probably unassailable.

[Greenish]

A way that requires only a feat is Favored of Tut'em'something or other.Blessed by Tem-Et-Nu! The goddess of hippopotami!

[Edit]: Reject her and take damage as if bitten by a hippo! Exclamation mark!

[Killer Angel]

That changes things a bit...

Sure, but the issue remains the same.
For the DM, it's a problem, so they must resolve it OOG, otherwise the DM will try to screw the character in another way. Arms race, blah. :smallyuk:

[Tyndmyr]

Sure, but the issue remains the same.
For the DM, it's a problem, so they must resolve it OOG, otherwise the DM will try to screw the character in another way. Arms race, blah. :smallyuk:

Granted. Hence my suggestion of a distributed means of defense. The DM will invariably find a way through to get a couple of em. This will most likely satisfy him, without you losing all of em.

It's an in-game compromise, really.

[Veyr]

Also, I find the OP's claims of the party's "munchkinism" dubious... a Cleric does not need DMM to stay ahead of fighter types, and if a Wizard is only doing 150-200 damage per round while burning two spells on this... although he did say level 9. But I dunno. This sounds more like people attempting to be high-op without actually knowing how to optimize.

[Studoku]

...WTF is a Nightstick?

A nightstick gives a cleric more turn undead attempts per day. It doesn't need to be equipped- it is used- so it is possible to carry large numbers of them.

This isn't particularly useful on its own- it becomes broken when you use those extra turn undead attempts to fuel Divine Metamagic (Persist). You use this to have all your cleric buffs on permanently.

To the OP, it's only to be expected. Nightsticks + DMM is renowned for being cheese. I'm guessing you've been using this to outshine the rest of the party.

I agree you should make an agreement out of game. If you really want to keep your nightsticks, see if you can retrain DMM(persist) for DMM(Quicken). Use it to buff your allies (and maybe yourself) during combat. Still very powerful but the rest of the party gets to have fun.

If the DM has decided to solve this in-game by something happening to the nightsticks, it will. If you're lucky, it'll turn out to be a plot hook that you can survive. More likely, it'll simply be DM fiat that they are stolen and, if you make this impossible, something else will happen to them.

[Douglas]

A way that requires only a feat is Favored of Tut'em'something or other. Sandstorm.

I am not responsible for your DM's reaction to you gaining Hippo-turning.
DMM specifically requires and uses Turn/Rebuke Undead.

[Tyndmyr]

DMM specifically requires and uses Turn/Rebuke Undead.

Right. It would only apply in a case where the aforementioned elemental turning and the like was being allowed.

[Veyr]

Actually, despite saying that, other forms of turning seem to qualify as Turn Undead for the purpose of Divine feats. The argument comes from a particular Divine feat that said something like "unlike most Divine feats, only Turn Undead uses may be used with this feat" or something.

[Forsaker]

The other way to do this is with a Lawful Neutral Cleric that channels Positive Energy. Then dip DN to gain a rebuking pool. :smallsmile:

I am a Lawful Neutral cleric lol and yes I channel positive energy. What does DN stands for? is it a priestiege class? give me full name please.

[Forsaker]

Also, I find the OP's claims of the party's "munchkinism" dubious... a Cleric does not need DMM to stay ahead of fighter types, and if a Wizard is only doing 150-200 damage per round while burning two spells on this... although he did say level 9. But I dunno. This sounds more like people attempting to be high-op without actually knowing how to optimize.

Directly to the point: This sounds more like people attempting to be high-op without actually knowing how to optimize.[/QUOTE]

[Thefurmonger]

I am a Lawful Neutral cleric lol and yes I channel positive energy. What does DN stands for? is it a priestiege class? give me full name please.

Dread necromancer, its a base class.

[Killer Angel]

Granted. Hence my suggestion of a distributed means of defense. The DM will invariably find a way through to get a couple of em. This will most likely satisfy him, without you losing all of em.

It's an in-game compromise, really.

Something to save the honour, eh? It sounds feasible.

[Gullintanni]

I am a Lawful Neutral cleric lol and yes I channel positive energy. What does DN stands for? is it a priestiege class? give me full name please.


Dread necromancer, its a base class.

In Heroes of Horror. You lose a caster level doing this, but it's arguably worth it.

[Curmudgeon]

Actually, despite saying that, other forms of turning seem to qualify as Turn Undead for the purpose of Divine feats. The argument comes from a particular Divine feat that said something like "unlike most Divine feats, only Turn Undead uses may be used with this feat" or something.
You remembered that exception backwards, actually. The feats Elemental Healing and Elemental Smiting are the only ones that refer to using other turn/rebuke energy for divine feats.

Unlike other divine feats, you can’t use a turn or rebuke undead attempt (or other turning attempt) to activate the feat. Every other divine feat explicitly requires the ability to turn/rebuke undead.

[gbprime]

Though if Fire and Water elemental turning have been ruled as unable to power DMM, then Hippo-turning probably will be too. Rebuking as a second pool is probably unassailable.

No, but on a tangent, I'm pretty sure most DM's will allow Fire/Water/Air/Earth/Plant turning to power their related Devotion feat.

[Gullintanni]

No, but on a tangent, I'm pretty sure most DM's will allow Fire/Water/Air/Earth/Plant turning to power their related Devotion feat.

Hehe...I yearn for a Devotion Feat that requires Hippopotamus turning :smalltongue:

[The Cat Goddess]

A nightstick gives a cleric more turn undead attempts per day. It doesn't need to be equipped- it is used- so it is possible to carry large numbers of them.

Are you certain the nightstick doesn't have to be in-hand when you use the charges? Sure, you can put it away right afterwards... but you certain can't expect to be able to use it while it's in a bag of holding, for example.

[Douglas]

Are you certain the nightstick doesn't have to be in-hand when you use the charges? Sure, you can put it away right afterwards... but you certain can't expect to be able to use it while it's in a bag of holding, for example.
If you read the full description, you'll see that owning the Nightstick is all that's required to benefit from it. By strict RAW you could have it embedded in cement and sealed in a buried vault on another plane and still benefit.

[Gavinfoxx]

Just never, ever, ever go to sleep, ever. You don't need rest for your powers, just prayer at a particular time, and just use Lesser Restoration to never need to sleep. At most it will require using two second level spells for this task a day.

[Provengreil]

"blah blah blah...anyone who possesses [the nightstick] and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day."

this isn't a charged item, even charge per day, so the switching idea like healing belts doesn't really seem to hold water. It's unclear, because why should it be, this is D&D, what's a D&D game without rules lawyering, but even RAW I think it wouldn't stack. Even if it does, that can be easily overruled by the DM. in fact, my games have 3 house rules at all times (others are subjective to the campaign we want to play):

1. no psionics, one magic system is enough
2. intimidate and diplomacy are the same thing, using rich's alternate rules, but with different inflections on the "actual" proceedings, and as such are one skill
3. nightsticks don't stack

as is, i'd ask him to allow you to repurchase other items with the wealth from the 4 extras. if he doesn't allow that, then store them in 5 different places so it becomes very hard to deprive you of the bonus you do have.

[Veyr]

You remembered that exception backwards, actually. The feats Elemental Healing and Elemental Smiting are the only ones that refer to using other turn/rebuke energy for divine feats.

Every other divine feat explicitly requires the ability to turn/rebuke undead.
See, to me, "unlike other Divine feats, you can't use [...] other turning attempt) to activate this feat," would imply that other turning attempts can be used for other Divine feats.

[Tyndmyr]

See, to me, "unlike other Divine feats, you can't use [...] other turning attempt) to activate this feat," would imply that other turning attempts can be used for other Divine feats.

It would, but specific overrides general. So, a specific statement saying that feat x requires a specific turning would override the general implication.

Now, if you find feats that just say "turning attempts" or the like, without specifying what kind, you have a case.

[Veyr]

Fair enough. Using other forms of turning for Divine feats is fairly abusive anyway, just because it does work so much better.

[WildPyre]

From the Sage on the WotC site, way back in 2008...


Q: Can a character benefit from multiple nightsticks (Libris Mortis p78) or multiple orange prism ioun stones (DMG p260)?

A: Neither of these items provides extra bonuses in multiples. The rules for stacking (Rules Compendium p21) do not allow untyped bonuses to stack if they come from the same source. However, this does lead to an interesting question: could a character use a nightstick and then grab a second nightstick to use? The Sage recommends Dungeon Masters limit the nightstick and similar items to one a day.

Not sure why people still think this works... that **** don't stack.

[Stallion]

How large are the nightsticks? If they happen to be small enough, there's something that allows you to put a small storage compartment in a shield, I believe. If you stick one of those on a light shield, you could then use Absorb Weapon (assuming you can get ahold of the spell) and just keep it in your back/arm/leg/wherever at pretty much any time, especially (if I gathered and interpreted this correctly) since the nightsticks don't have to be wielded in order to be utilized.

[Gavinfoxx]

You're still pretty good even with one Nightstick and one Reliquary Holy Symbol... it just means you might have to use, yaknow, Quicken Spell rather than Persistent spell.

[tyckspoon]

Not sure why people still think this works... that **** don't stack.

That would be because the Sage is wrong, at least about the Nightsticks. They're not a bonus subject to the stacking rules; you just get extra turn attempts. There are a couple other similar situations that crop up from time to time.. basically, the designers wrote a few very (and probably unintentionally) complicated rules into the very most basic rules of the game, and then didn't take the time to figure out what they actually said- Sage Answers are not necessarily what the rule actually says, they're just that dude's opinion of what the rule should be. Especially when stacking is concerned; it's relatively obvious that the Sage thinks it goes something like "everything is a bonus, same source bonuses don't stack, how is this even a question?" But not everything is a stacking-limited bonus.. problem is you have to parse out the stacking rules pretty carefully to find that out, and there's no obvious reason you should have to read so carefully.

[cfalcon]

If your DM doesn't approve of Divine Metamagic, he should have told you that long ago.

If this is a legit case of your opponents having done their homework and they are trying to mess you up, then there's plenty of good solutions proposed here. One also points out that if you can find a way to spend time in another shape, then you can probably get them as "part of you". Since they are part of your buffing procedure that could work ok.

The question of whether they stack or not is pretty much moot. They aren't intended to stack, but that doesn't matter, because he wouldn't have six of them if they didn't stack in his game.

[nedz]

You remembered that exception backwards, actually. The feats Elemental Healing and Elemental Smiting are the only ones that refer to using other turn/rebuke energy for divine feats.
Every other divine feat explicitly requires the ability to turn/rebuke undead.

Except for these three from Races of Stone

Divine Damage Reduction
Divine Spellshield Reduction
Earth’s Warding
all of which require the Ability to Rebuke Earth Creatures

And of course: Extra Turning from the PH
Ability to Turn or Rebuke creatures

Actually, IIRC, some of the Divine feats require the ability to Turn Undead, some the ability to Rebuke Undead, and only a few allow for both.

[Veyr]

From the Sage on the WotC site, way back in 2008...

Not sure why people still think this works... that **** don't stack.
Sage is not RAW.

[The Glyphstone]

Sage is not RAW.

The Sage is RAW. Repeatedly Absolutely Wrong.

[WildPyre]

He seems spot on with this one... you can't get the same bonus from multiple magic items of the same type at the same time.

[cfalcon]

Generally if the sage says one thing and the rules say another, go with the sage. Normally he's trying to either fix a problem or tell you what was meant by the wording, even if the wording is a bit jacked up and imperfect.

The statement about it being bonuses of the same type is a bit dubious, being how it is framed and phrased- upon reading nightsticks, you would naturally conclude that they stack. Regardless, the intended ruling is not for them to stack, but that doesn't matter because in OP's game they do. What you do in your game is up to you, and what the rules say is pretty much unimportant in practice.

[graeylin]

Haversack wouldn't help - anyone can reach in and grab what they want. If a rogue is going to steal the cleric's nightsticks, they they could just reach in and try to grab the nightsticks. Or just steal the haversack.

The thief would have to know the specific item to retrieve it, per the description of the magic. That's why I always name my items, mark them with a dot or scribe mark, etc. before putting them in... that way, only I know the specific item in the haversack, and only I can retrieve it. Someone else sticks their hand in and thinks about a nightstick, they will come away with nothing. They must think about Altronius the nightstick, the stick with the Pi symbol just below the third carving.

[Veyr]

Generally if the sage says one thing and the rules say another, go with the sage. Normally he's trying to either fix a problem or tell you what was meant by the wording, even if the wording is a bit jacked up and imperfect.
I completely disagree. Numerous of the Sage's rulings have been nonsensical and to the detriment of the game, in my opinion.

(this is not one of them, I just mean in general there have been several)

[Douglas]

The thief would have to know the specific item to retrieve it, per the description of the magic. That's why I always name my items, mark them with a dot or scribe mark, etc. before putting them in... that way, only I know the specific item in the haversack, and only I can retrieve it. Someone else sticks their hand in and thinks about a nightstick, they will come away with nothing. They must think about Altronius the nightstick, the stick with the Pi symbol just below the third carving.
Read the item description again. It does not say that you must specify what you're trying to grab, only that if you do reach for a specific item then that item is on top.

[MrRigger]

Hehe...I yearn for a Devotion Feat that requires Hippopotamus turning :smalltongue:

Personally, I would let you power Animal Devotion with Hippopotamus Turning. Though that's just because Hippopotamus Turning is awesome.

MrRigger

[Curmudgeon]

If you read the full description, you'll see that owning the Nightstick is all that's required to benefit from it. By strict RAW you could have it embedded in cement and sealed in a buried vault on another plane and still benefit. I don't think so.
Anyone who possesses the rod and is able to turn or rebuke undead gains four more uses of the ability per day. That's possesses, not owns. Here's a sample of how the rules apply that term:
You can also use any material components or focuses you possess, even if such items are melded within your current form.
This object contains the power to instantly transport its possessor across any distance within the same plane to your abode. The connotation for "possess" is "attended object", not the modern legal definition of property ownership (which would be pretty anachronistic in a Medieval-based society).

He seems spot on with this one... you can't get the same bonus from multiple magic items of the same type at the same time. You're overlooking the limited scope of the basic stacking rule:

Stacking

In most cases, modifiers to a given check or roll stack (combine for a cumulative effect) if they come from different sources and have different types (or no type at all), but do not stack if they have the same type or come from the same source (such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus and worst penalty applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonuses however, do stack with one another unless otherwise specified. Number of daily turn/rebuke attempts isn't a "modifier to a given check or roll", and thus falls beyond what's covered by the stacking rule.

Now, is stacking Nightsticks abusive? Absolutely. But it's because the authors of Libris Mortis screwed up that we're having this discussion, not because the OP is coloring outside the lines.

[onthetown]

Just an idea, but you could talk to the DM and see if you can work out a compromise...

[WildPyre]

You're overlooking the limited scope of the basic stacking rule:
Number of daily turn/rebuke attempts isn't a "modifier to a given check or roll", and thus falls beyond what's covered by the stacking rule.


By that logic you could use multiple magic items to boost your strength since you're modfying a stat and not directly affecting a "check or roll". Getting +whatever to the amount of something would classify as a "bonus" nomatter what it's being applied to and to say you can only get a "bonus" to aq "check or roll" simply because the developers stated that bonuses were to checks and rolls (probably because at the time of writing that was the only thing they'd written bonuses to) is IMHO rather short sighted.

Basic rules and logic state that you can't get the same bonus to stack from multiple instances of the same spell or magic item unless specifically stated otherwise.

It just seems obvious to me... you may play differently however.

[AslanCross]

Just an idea, but you could talk to the DM and see if you can work out a compromise...

I really think this is the best solution, rather than being passive aggressive or engaging in an arms race that nobody really wins, and will most likely impact everyone else's fun negatively.

[Curmudgeon]

By that logic you could use multiple magic items to boost your strength since you're modfying a stat and not directly affecting a "check or roll".
The limitation would come into effect as soon as you make any Strength-based checks or rolls. The difference is that when using Divine Metamagic there are no checks or rolls at all.

[Pigkappa]

About using non-undead turning attempts:

"As a free action, you can take the energy from turning or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat to spells that you know."
[...]
"Because you are using positive or negative energy to augment your spells, the spell slot for the spell doesn't change."

[Veyr]

Hehehe:

Turn or destroy earth creatures as a good cleric turns undead. Rebuke, command, or bolster air creatures as an evil cleric rebukes undead.RAW, good clerics turn undead through positive energy; evil clerics rebuke undead through negative energy. Apparently, RAW, clerics with the Air Domain also use positive energy to turn earth creatures, and negative energy to rebuke air creatures. Because it's "as a (good|evil) cleric", with no rule change the energy type.

Plus, if it's "as a (good|evil) cleric (turns|rebukes) undead", seems to me that an argument can be made that it does count as "turn undead" for the purposes of Divine feats, as that phrase would indicate that it's exactly like normal (turning|rebuking) except for the target when used.

Note: I'm definitely playing Devil's Advocate here.

[ericgrau]

Hi there thanks for watching, I made a thread not long ago about a cleric + nightsticks + persistance and some of the ppl here gived AWSOME ideas which it ended helping me to build a strong character... my DM is kinda mad.
Well duh. This is theoretical optimization gone wrong. Please folks, don't use internet theoretical optimization tricks in real games where the offline DM hasn't heard of them. Practical optimization tips reasonable for your gaming group is ok though. This isn't as bad as the person who tried to play pun pun (infinite special abilities and stats), but still surprising when people even consider this.

+1 resolve it out of game. I like the retcon the items into something else idea.

[graeylin]

Read the item description again. It does not say that you must specify what you're trying to grab, only that if you do reach for a specific item then that item is on top.

perhaps it's semantics, but my reading of the SRD is that the wearer reaches in for a specific item, that is, he must know what's in the haversack, and be thinking of it specifically, and it appears at the top. If i just reach into the haversack, the magic has no idea what I want. I need to "specify" it somehow, and I imagine that the magic works on my mind's thoughts. I think of the specific item I want, the haversack magically reads that, and magically produces it. If I don't know what I want, or I don't have anything in specific, or I don't know what's in there, then it's just fishing and luck.

YMMV

From the SRD: When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top.

[mabriss lethe]

Here's a possible compromise:

"Hey Mr. DM-man. I'm feeling like my character might overshadow the others a bit right now, but I'm really fond of playing him and don't want to just cut out the things he's currently capable of doing. When you get right down to it, power is fun, you know. So how about this instead? For day to day shenanigans, I only persist one or two buffs on the party and leave the rest of the nightsticks alone. If we get into a situation where things get ugly and we're expecting a long drawn out fight, Only then will I go whole hog."

How's that sound?

[erikun]

Not sure why people still think this works... that **** don't stack.
Nightsticks work far more like a Pearl of Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#pearlofPower), granting the extra use of a class ability, than granting any kind of a bonus to anything. I have never heard of a character being limited only one daily use of a Pearl of Power - and I've heard of a number of characters using multiple - so I would assume that Nightsticks are more like Pearls and less like Bull's Strength.

[Provengreil]

Here's a possible compromise:

"Hey Mr. DM-man. I'm feeling like my character might overshadow the others a bit right now, but I'm really fond of playing him and don't want to just cut out the things he's currently capable of doing. When you get right down to it, power is fun, you know. So how about this instead? For day to day shenanigans, I only persist one or two buffs on the party and leave the rest of the nightsticks alone. If we get into a situation where things get ugly and we're expecting a long drawn out fight, Only then will I go whole hog."

How's that sound?

you ever tried doing that kinda stuff? intentionally holding back is a bad idea. it tends to make you look at the other players, thinking you're better than them because you're willingly holding back and still matching or worse, outpacing them. not to mention you keep looking at the unused power and feeling like it was a fairly useless investment. personally, i'd rather take an underpowered feat I use all the time on purpose than find out a feat i took was overpowered and let it sit there unused.

[cfalcon]

Basically, you need to talk to your DM. Me? I ban Divine Metamagic. Ridiculous feat. Banned it within a week of the book going live, never had to worry about it. But if you feel that way, you should NOT have a player's character BUILT around it. Failing to notice incoming power creep and then being petty about it is pretty damned lame.

[herrhauptmann]

Just an idea, but you could talk to the DM and see if you can work out a compromise...


I really think this is the best solution, rather than being passive aggressive or engaging in an arms race that nobody really wins, and will most likely impact everyone else's fun negatively.
Has the OP actually tried this yet? Or is he/she bypassing the logical, mature action for a much more immature one.

[Forsaker]

I tried to negotiate with him today, I even told him that I was gona drop wraithstrike (illumian can perrsist it) so I could miss my attacks often (which balances it compared to the whole party) but he smiled at me with an evil face lol.

Well Im asking it one more time please answer me!!, is [B]Soul of the Waste a good idea? I mean I can drop one of my persist spells and before going to bed I can persist SOUL OF THE WASTE and become sand (my equipment transforms with me too) for 24 hours or until I decide to becomee human again. Do you guys think that it could work?

[Coidzor]

I tried to negotiate with him today, I even told him that I was gona drop wraithstrike (illumian can perrsist it) so I could miss my attacks often (which balances it compared to the whole party) but he smiled at me with an evil face lol.

If you don't know how to make your DM stop showing his evil face when you're dealing with him and you're not limited by the constraints of an ongoing game of D&D, I don't know what to tell you. :smallconfused:


Has the OP actually tried this yet? Or is he/she bypassing the logical, mature action for a much more immature one.

To be fair, it seemed like a bit of a longshot with someone so bad at DMing they'd punish a player permanently for their own mistake.

[LordBlades]

Well duh. This is theoretical optimization gone wrong. Please folks, don't use internet theoretical optimization tricks in real games where the offline DM hasn't heard of them. Practical optimization tips reasonable for your gaming group is ok though. This isn't as bad as the person who tried to play pun pun (infinite special abilities and stats), but still surprising when people even consider this.


Well, from what the OP says, he did go over what he wanted to do with his DM, and he said it was OK. If you're not cool with something or you have no idea whether you can handle it as a DM just say so. Don't go all emo on your player in game for something that was ultimately your own mistake.

PS; Slightly off topic I did play Pun Pun once :smallcool: Was with a terrible, terrible DM (sadly it was the only game in the town I was spending the summer in) whose favorite pastime was humiliating the PCs ('you won only because I went easy on you' style) by building his NPCs around all the powerful tricks he denied to the players (DMM Persist clerics uberchargers and the like in a world where Leap Attack, Shock Trooper and Persistent Spell didn't exist for the PCs at all). So I did ask him specifically about each part of the Pun Pun, and he allowed them all. Therefore I proceeded to play a Kobold Egoist, and upon reaching level 12 I casually told him I had just won the game :smallbiggrin: Yeah, I was 16 and this wasn't the most mature thing to do, but sure as hell was fun teaching this guy a lesson.

[herrhauptmann]

Level 12? How long ago was this? Punpun worked at level 1 like 5 years ago, level 6 or so a few years before that.

edit: Wow, that's a terrible game. I feel for you, both of you actually.
There's cases where the only game in town just isn't worth it. Even if Mr. Wednesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gods)has something to say about that.

[Coidzor]

Level 12? How long ago was this? Punpun worked at level 1 like 5 years ago, level 6 or so a few years before that.

Well, level 1 requires Pazuzu, which such a DM would fiat to just outright kill anyone who summoned him anyway.

[AslanCross]

I tried to negotiate with him today, I even told him that I was gona drop wraithstrike (illumian can perrsist it) so I could miss my attacks often (which balances it compared to the whole party) but he smiled at me with an evil face lol.

The arms race is on, then. Nobody wins. :smallsigh:

[Coidzor]

The arms race is on, then. Nobody wins. :smallsigh:

Indeed. Come to think of it, you should probably see about getting the other players before he coopts them if it's not too late.

There is, after all, an advantage in numbers.

[LordBlades]

Level 12? How long ago was this? Punpun worked at level 1 like 5 years ago, level 6 or so a few years before that.



Level 12 Pun Pun is the least conspicuous version that I know of(relies mainly on the existence of a Sarrukh and Metamorphic Transfer IIRC, none of which should raise too many question marks to somebody unfamiliar with Pun Pun), therefore was the best for tricking the DM into not realizing what he was allowing.

[JaronK]

One obvious defense is to get a nice Enveloping Pit and build a tower into it. Put your sticks on the bottom floor of the tower, sleep on the second to bottom floor, and Arcane Lock the upper door. That should keep out Rogues at least.

JaronK

[Flawless]

The limitation would come into effect as soon as you make any Strength-based checks or rolls. The difference is that when using Divine Metamagic there are no checks or rolls at all.

So, if a wizard has 10 items that grant a +6 enhancment bonus to INT, they stack, unless your making a roll or check modified by INT?

That means the wizard gets all bnous spells fom his INT +60 ? And save-DC is not a roll either. So it stacks for this purpose too?

[DwarfFighter]

THERE anyways I can protect my nightsticks during the night?

Technically speaking? No. If the GM decides to remove them from the game he can do so without providing any in-game explanation for it and regardless of your protective measures: He can simply decide that they are gone.

Sure, the GM can be a bit more circumspect: He can examine your defenses and come up with a scenario that may result in the loss of your nightsticks and then play it out using the game rules. This way he at least takes your efforts into account and you may even have a chance of foiling his plot, this time.

However, the fact of the matter is that the GM will only attempt to remove your nightsticks if he wants them gone.

Your best defense is therefore to alter your play style and downplay their effect. Develop other tactics and strategies that you can try before resorting to your nightsticks. Mix it up and your GM will be happy.

-DF

I've got to be honest, I have no idea whether this nightstick thing is a spell, a familiar or an item. I assume it's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightstick.

[Eldan]

It's an item that gives more turning attempts per day. Divine Metamagic is fueled by turning attempts. Therefore, having a ton of nightsticks = ton of turning attempts = ton of divine metamagic = ton of persisted buffs.

[DwarfFighter]

Yea, I picked up from Stu42's post why this would annoy a GM. It sorta invalidates my suggestion that the player change his game style.

As a GM, I think I would need to rule that the nightstick can only be used for actual turning attempts. But that's another story I guess.

-DF

[Curmudgeon]

So, if a wizard has 10 items that grant a +6 enhancment bonus to INT, they stack, unless your making a roll or check modified by INT?
No, because that's only one of the stacking limits. Independent of how or if it's used in a check or roll, bonuses of the same type do not stack. It's only untyped bonuses (such as the bonus granted by Nightsticks) that raise this problem.

[The Boz]

Wouldn't it be much simpler for the DM if his enemies just started packing a whole lot of dispells?

[Gullintanni]

No, because that's only one of the stacking limits. Independent of how or if it's used in a check or roll, bonuses of the same type do not stack. It's only untyped bonuses (such as the bonus granted by Nightsticks) that raise this problem.

I always read Nightsticks as follows:

A Nightstick is an untyped bonus, and therefore stacks with other bonuses.
As we know, bonuses from the same source don't stack with themselves.
Ergo, Nightsticks don't stack with other Nightsticks.

Where it gets tricky for me is in answering the following question:

Is the Nightsticks ability an instantaneous effect?

1) If it is, then I possess Nightstick A, gain four turning attempts and then throw away the Nightstick. In which case I'm no longer under the effect of a Nightstick, but still have four additional turning attempts, and if I pick up and possess a second one, then I'm free to receive the bonus from the new one, because the bonus from the initial Nightstick has resolved. Namely, in this case, Nightstick B is not stacking with Nightstick A, because the effect of Nightstick A is instantaneous and no longer in effect when I pick up Nightstick B.

2) If it's not an instantaneous effect, then I'd lose those four extra attempts by throwing away the Nightstick. So I spend the four extra attempts, THEN throw away the Nightstick. Given that I've already exhausted the benefits of the Nightstick, and I'm no longer under its effect, I'm free to pick up and hold Nightstick B, thereby receiving the benefit again, because I'm no longer under the effect of Nightstick A.

In either situation, I'm not receiving the benefit of more than one Nightstick at a time, ergo I'm not stacking anything. By RAW, this should work.

...it's still incredibly abusive though.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, by very strict RAW, nightsticks stack. The logic of the options you listed is fine. No argument there.

But it would be a very, very reasonable house rule to not allow them to do so. If one of my players happened across the combo, we'd probably have a chat about if to allow it as stacking or not, and the result would depend on the power level of the game.

[Gauntlet]

If you *really* want to twist RAW, you might be able to manage more fun than usual with nightsticks.

1) Hold Nightsticks. Gain Turning attempts
2) Metamagic whatever spell you want to metamagic.
3) put down nightsticks. Used up turn attempts disappear.
4) Pick up nightsticks. Gain turning attempts.
5) Return to step 2).

[Curmudgeon]

3) put down nightsticks. Used up turn attempts disappear.
What gives you the idea that the count of turn attempts is associated with the object instead of the character? That makes no sense to me.

[Gullintanni]

Yeah, by very strict RAW, nightsticks stack. The logic of the options you listed is fine. No argument there.

But it would be a very, very reasonable house rule to not allow them to do so. If one of my players happened across the combo, we'd probably have a chat about if to allow it as stacking or not, and the result would depend on the power level of the game.

Agreed. Any sane DM playing in anything but an absolute TO game would have to limit Nightsticks. You could probably allow it in a game designed for all T1's but...I'd still hesitate to.

[LordBlades]

Agreed. Any sane DM playing in anything but an absolute TO game would have to limit Nightsticks. You could probably allow it in a game designed for all T1's but...I'd still hesitate to.

Stacking nightsticks is strong, indeed, but not that strong. There are a lot of worse things out there(speaking practical optimization here) .

IMHO DMM Persist (or any other Persist for that matter) actually makes the game easier for the DM, because it makes the cleric more predictable. It's much easier to design an encounter when you know the cleric will have spells A,B,C and D up, rather than try to account for any subset of buffs the cleric might have at that time (an encounter designed to challenge a fully buffed cleric will probably mop the floor with him if he somehow expends his buffs before it, while an encounter designed to challenge an unbuffed cleric will be a walk in the park if the cleric somehow gets buffed). DMM Persist doesn't really affect the peak output of a character, but rather it's endurance.

Of course, all of the above assumes the cleric is in line with the other chars (power wise).

[Douglas]

DMM Persist doesn't really affect the peak output of a character, but rather it's endurance.
You obviously haven't seen a truly optimized DMM Persist build. When the buff list gets multiple dozens of spells long, peak power most definitely does increase. A LOT. For something approaching the upper limit of it, see Team Solars in my sig. I used Incantatrix instead of DMM and a whole party contributing buffs instead of just one cleric, but a single DMM cleric can cover enough of the list to be quite significant.

[LordBlades]

You obviously haven't seen a truly optimized DMM Persist build. When the buff list gets multiple dozens of spells long, peak power most definitely does increase. A LOT. For something approaching the upper limit of it, see Team Solars in my sig. I used Incantatrix instead of DMM and a whole party contributing buffs instead of just one cleric, but a single DMM cleric can cover enough of the list to be quite significant.

I do actually. My last campaign involved a DMM Persist cleric and 2 chars with levels in Incantatrix (one of them with Reach spell as well for even more Persist goodies). I know what having 50+ spells active at all times means. What I want to say is that, assuming I'm going to apply Scry&Die (or something similar) to somebody, I can have the same 50+ spells up for the encounter, persistent or not.

[Forsaker]

Well FINALY had some agreement with him. I told him that I would drop Wraithstrike to make it less powerful and then he finaly said ... DEAL! lol.

Now I have a slot avaible to persist, it is a hughe drop of power to my build since I rely on Power attack. Is there any other jucy arcane spell level 2 or lower that I could replace? or maybe another divine spell that I could use? I have persisted the following spells: Rightous wrath, rightous wrath if the faithfull, divine power, divine favor, ( and previously) wraithstrike. Is there something else that I can use to maximise my power? =P. I want to fill that missing spot right away!!. Thank you all :).

[Greenish]

Well FINALY had some agreement with him. I told him that I would drop Wraithstrike to make it less powerful and then he finaly said ... DEAL! lol.

Now I have a slot avaible to persist, it is a hughe drop of power to my build since I rely on Power attack. Is there any other jucy arcane spell level 2 or lower that I could replace? or maybe another divine spell that I could use? I have persisted the following spells: Rightous wrath, rightous wrath if the faithfull, divine power, divine favor, ( and previously) wraithstrike. Is there something else that I can use to maximise my power? =P. I want to fill that missing spot right away!!. Thank you all :).Girallon's Blessing and 4-hand your weapon for 2.5x Str to damage?

[tiercel]

Um... since you've made melee combat obsolete and unfeasible, persisting another melee buff is probably pointless. Assuming this character will actually see extended play before the DM explodes, you might as well pick something that offers non-melee buffs (if you can dig up access to detect invisibility for instance, or perhaps something more like locate object).

*shrugs* Personally I always thought fasces-of-nightsticks-plus-DMM-Persist was one of those RAW tricks that had about the same viability in an actual real-world game as polymorph+awaken cycles or using greater planar binding for free infinite wishes -- it's a fun thought experiment for the forums, but you'd need a DM who doesn't use any kind of common-sense sanity check *at all* and has no heed for the consequences for his game to let it actually work because "I guess the rules technically allow it."

[Forsaker]

Girallon's Blessing and 4-hand your weapon for 2.5x Str to damage?

Girallon's blessing is touch, can I still persist touch spells? if I grap a 2 hander weapon with 4 hands do I hit with str 2.5x? is that a rule or something?

[Veyr]

Depends on whether or not you DM buys that "a touch" is a "fixed range", IIRC.

[Cog]

According to Savage Species, which as far as I know is still the most recent handling of it, a weapon must be specifically crafted for use with a certain number of extra hands. Any such weapon is at least masterwork, but the difference is included in that cost; there are a few other restrictions as well.

[Greenish]

Girallon's blessing is touch, can I still persist touch spells? if I grap a 2 hander weapon with 4 hands do I hit with str 2.5x? is that a rule or something?Using a weapon with more than two hands gives you 0.5x str per extra hand, as per Savage Species. The two above cautions do apply: you might not be able to persist Girallon's Blessing, and you need a weapon crafted for it.

[herrhauptmann]

Girralons blessing + Fuse Arms.

How are you persisting arcane spells?

From the errata:
Page 80: Divine Metamagic feat
The boldface text needs to be added to the Benefit
paragraph of the feat description:
When you take this feat, choose a metamagic feat that
you have. This feat applies only to that metamagic feat.
As a free action, you can take the energy from turning
or rebuking undead and use it to apply a metamagic feat
to divine spells that you know. . . .

[Greenish]

How are you persisting arcane spells?Anyspell, I guess, which is why said arcane spells have to be level 2 or lower.

[herrhauptmann]

Huh,
Which book is Anyspell in? Sounds like it can be VERY useful if chosen right.

[Pigkappa]

It's on the spell compendium, only in the weird "Spell domain". Casting time 15 minutes, you need to have an arcane scroll or a spellbook with the chosen spell.

[Forsaker]

According to Savage Species, which as far as I know is still the most recent handling of it, a weapon must be specifically crafted for use with a certain number of extra hands. Any such weapon is at least masterwork, but the difference is included in that cost; there are a few other restrictions as well.

Couldn't find the page, do you know in which page can I find this information?

[Kylarra]

Page 42, second column.

[Curmudgeon]

Girallon's blessing is touch, can I still persist touch spells?
How far can you reach to touch someone? That answer varies with characters of different sizes, so no, touch is not a fixed range.

[Forsaker]

How far can you reach to touch someone? That answer varies with characters of different sizes, so no, touch is not a fixed range.

So what about a gargantuan or colossal red dragon when casting ANY fixed range spell? I mean they are very very tall which will add some extra range when casting it to a smaller creature. My english is kinda bad (not my primary language) but do you get my point?

[The Glyphstone]

So what about a gargantuan or colossal red dragon when casting ANY fixed range spell? I mean they are very very tall which will add some extra range when casting it to a smaller creature. My english is kinda bad (not my primary language) but do you get my point?

It's a question of semantics - D&D is very specific when it comes to certain definitions, which can vary from normal dictionary definitions sometimes.

For a Gargantuan Dragon or a Halfling casting a spell with a range of 60ft., the actual range of the spell is unchanged - they can both hit a target 60ft. away from their space, the fact that a Dragon has a larger total space doesn't actually matter by D&D rules. a Touch range spell, though, can have a range of anywhere from 0 to 25ft. because of how reach affects touch range.

(there's also the problem that the only spells in D&D with a fixed range are Touch spells or spell with the Reach Spell or Ocular Spell metamagic effects applied, both of which are also considered questionable for Persist shenanigans).