Is persistence out of control?

[Toofey]

When I read around here, I get the impression that Persistence is now the general workaround to add powers to people's characters which seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Bear in mind I'm a 2nd ed player who knows persistence as a 7th level mage spell that lets you use another enchantment's duration as you see fit over the course of as many days as you have levels.

What seems weird to me is that people talk about persistences like they A are commonly available, and B are available at low levels, and isn't what I described above in and over itself too much poewr (sic) for a lower level character?

If anyone would see fit on explaining the rule so i at least have an accurate view of it with which to assess it please feel free.

[Bang!]

What game are we talking about?

[woodenbandman]

Permanency in 3.5

And yeah it's kinda dumb. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Kylarra]

Assuming 3.5, there are two primary abusers of persisting. Incantatrix and Divine Metamagic. The former allows you to persist spells by succeeding on a spellcraft check and the latter allows you to spend turn undead uses instead of spell level increases. Outside of those two, persisting becomes slightly more esoteric.

Permanency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/permanency.htm) is only a level 5 spell, but given the way dispels are usually thrown around at higher levels, not as useful.

[Toofey]

What game are we talking about?

In interested in whats going on in any of the newer eds.

[NNescio]

Probably Persistent Spell in 3.5e, from the point of view of a grognard who has never played 3.5e before. Which makes the whole point mostly moot.

(Persistent Spell is a metamagic feat which modifies another spell. A permanencied spell takes up a spell slot that is six levels higher than the original spell. There are various ways to reduce this adjustment, with the most infamous of them being Divine Metamagic, which allows the cleric [or anyone with turning] to use turn attempts to power up a spell instead of increasing the spell level.)

Alternatively, the spell Permanency, which 'though halfway decent, is dispellable and has the potential to backfire when it can't be turned off. It also costs xp, and can only be applied to a limited pool of other spells.

(Permanency is a 5th level spell.)

[Kylarra]

In interested in whats going on in any of the newer eds.Well, 4th edition doesn't generally have long term buffs AFAIK, so persisting is not an issue there.

[nedz]

Well having Played 1E, 2E and 3.5 I'm curious if there were any Persist Spell cheese in 3.0 ? (I completely missed out that edition :smallsmile:, as I'm probably going to with 4E).

Toofey: You should know about Metamagic, at least if you have the 2E Tome of Magic. In ToM Metamagic was modelled by spells which effected other spells. (There were some of these spells in the PH, it just wasn't spelled out as such.) In 3E Feats are used instead.

OK Toofey, do you know about Feats ?

These are optional abilities you can choose to add to your character giving different options. Some of these are called Metamagic feats, which allow you to modify spells. These are used for metamagic instead of spells. They usually have a cost reckoned in terms of raising the level of the base spell. So the Extend Spell feat allows you to double the duration of a spell for the cost of raising it one level. So an extended 2nd level spell is a 3rd level spell. There is another feat called Persist Spell which further extends the duration to 24 hours, the cost for this is +6 spell levels. So a Persisted 2nd level spell is an 8th level spell.

Now the cheesy bit comes when you take a further feat called Divine Metamagic(Persist Spell) This allows you to spend 6 Turn Undead attempts to Persist a spell. A DMM Persisted 2nd level spell is still a 2nd level spell, though you have to spend 6 Turn Undead attempts to power it. Getting additional Turn attempts is quite easy.

This isn't the full picture, for instance you can't Persist every kind of spell, and I havn't covered Incantrix (which is a completely different trick).

[Akal Saris]

NNescio gave a pretty solid run-down of the situation in 3.5.

And yes, persistent spell is frequently recommended on these boards. Personally, I find it quite over-rated.

Divine metamagic requires 3 feats minimum, and either more feats for extra metamagic or significant portions of PC wealth, which can easily be house-ruled not to stack with each other, and can be stolen, broken, etc.

Incantatrix itself is borderline broken, with no single ability that breaks the game, just 8 extremely powerful abilities that are ridiculous in combination. It
lets you persist ally's spells a lot, which is nifty but requires a decent party make-up as well as PC wealth spent on pumping Spellcraft up. Persisting a 1st level buff requires a DC 39 check at ECL 7, which is near-impossible without a custom Spellcraft item - which in turn would require a lot of a PC's wealth, a crafting feat, and DM permission. The 2 "free" metamagics that you get from the class are quite nice, though!

Short answer: Persistent spell is over-rated. If you ever run 3.5 and Persistent Spell bothers you, ban it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

In interested in whats going on in any of the newer eds.
Well, in 4e the game adds powers to characters by giving characters powers :smallamused:

The longest duration buffs in 4e consist of Encounter-length (max 5 minutes) powers which are non-trivial to stack.

...and that's news from the Fourth Edition! :smallcool:

[Toofey]

I do get the whole feats things (seemingly) they're kind of like Proficiencies that you use to purchase (seemingly mostly combat related) abilities.

I dislike the idea of lower level metamagics that extend usable durations that way at an XP cost. I think it's a bit silly, but that's admittedly an >2nd ed mindset. I just keep seeing recommendations for low level characters having multiple persistence effects, and I think it's unreasonable for a lower level to have the ability to use and control that much magic.

[ryu]

Welcome to optimization. Reasonable isn't a factor. Neither are fair, balanced, or even logical, and internally consistent. This kind of thing isn't standard. It's what the people who know the system deeply do to get ahead.

[Toofey]

Yeah, because no one ever optimized a character before 3rd ed.

[Kylarra]

It wasn't as "common knowledge" due to less interweb communities specializing in breaking the system within the rules.

[rayne_dragon]

Yeah, because no one ever optimized a character before 3rd ed.

Well, back then, that's what wraiths, intellect devourers, thought-eaters, and their ilk are for. :smalltongue:

Plus... the random, nonsensical save or die effect(s) in every module.

Those were the days... :smallbiggrin:

[Toofey]

And Lo, before these webs of inter which we all speak across now, we would sit up after we played, and discuss theoretical combinations, and read sections in great detail to min max our humble non-digitally contributed too characters. Sometimes we would use other materials which we found at stores which were specifically for gaming, typically there were people at these stores who spent their entire lives doing this...



Seriously, this all existed before the internet. I was just asking about the rules for Persistence because it was a spell reserved for middle upper level characters and it seemed to be cropping up in a lot of starting builds.

Edit: and before anyone says grandpa settle down, settle yourselves down.

[The Glyphstone]

And Lo, before these webs of inter which we all speak across now, we would sit up after we played, and discuss theoretical combinations, and read sections in great detail to min max our humble non-digitally contributed too characters. Sometimes we would use other materials which we found at stores which were specifically for gaming, typically there were people at these stores who spent their entire lives doing this...



Seriously, this all existed before the internet. I was just asking about the rules for Persistence because it was a spell reserved for middle upper level characters and it seemed to be cropping up in a lot of starting builds.

Edit: and before anyone says grandpa settle down, settle yourselves down.

Persistent Spell is normally a very high-level effect (with a +6 adjustment, spells that a 1st level cleric knows normally can't be persisted until he hits level 13). There's an ability in one of the divine magic-themed sourcebooks that allows a Cleric to substitute charges of their ability to Turn Undead and instead fuel Metamagics with it, so a Cleric sufficiently designed for the task can access Persistent effects despite being far lower-level than intended.

[awa]

another aspect to the divine meta magic is the night stick a magic item which gives you more turning attempts for a very low price so you can power lots of persisted spells at the same time.

[Toofey]

another aspect to the divine meta magic is the night stick a magic item which gives you more turning attempts for a very low price so you can power lots of persisted spells at the same time.

Ahh see the thread about that is what got me thinking about this, but I thought the guy was using cheap persistence to have some sort of ridiculous rate of attack by using a magical effect and a bunch of nightsticks.

edit: although that is more broken

[navar100]

Persistant Spell would work a lot better if it acted like it did on the 2E spell it was based on. The 2E spell from Player's Options series modified another spell so that you didn't have to use up all its duration at once. You can suppress its effect until you need it and perhaps suppress it again. The spell's duration doesn't change.

For example.

You are a 12th level spellcaster persisting a buff spell that lasts 1 round per level, 12 rounds in this case. When you cast the spell you immediately suppress it. You do not have benefit of the spell in anyway. Combat happens. You activate the persisted buff spell. Let's call it a swift action where in 2E it was free. You benefit from the buff spell in all ways. Combat lasts 5 rounds with you having 5 rounds of buffness. At the end of the combat you suppress the buff spell. You no longer benefit from the buff and have only 7 rounds duration left. Second combat of the day you activate the buff spell again. This is a tougher combat that lasts 8 rounds. You have the buff for the first 7 rounds. You don't have the buff on the 8th round because the duration ended. There's no spell to suppress after the combat. For the third combat of the day, you have no persisted spell to activate.

This effect can be a +4 spell level slot modifier because it works similarly to Quicken Spell plus Extend Spell can/should still be a prerequisite.

[Bang!]

For what it's worth, I played D&D 3e for 6-7 years and never saw anybody use tricks like DMM: Persist or Incantatrix outside of internet forums.

An artificer with free metamagicked Rays of Enfeeblement was as close as we ever got. But the character was mostly useless outside of those wands and was playing a support role, so after the initial "It loses HOW much strength?" nobody really cared.

[The Glyphstone]

For what it's worth, I played D&D 3e for 6-7 years and never saw anybody use tricks like DMM: Persist or Incantatrix outside of internet forums.

An artificer with free metamagicked Rays of Enfeeblement was as close as we ever got. But the character was mostly useless outside of those wands and was playing a support role, so after the initial "It loses HOW much strength?" nobody really cared.

I'd attribute that mainly to the optimization/decency relationship...the only people who are smart enough to figure out those tricks are also smart enough to realize using them in a game would be very poor form.

I personally have always wanted to play a Wizard/War Weaver/Incantatrix in a pure support role to make the entire party absurdly powerful, but never got a chance.

[Tengu_temp]

I'd attribute that mainly to the optimization/decency relationship...the only people who are smart enough to figure out those tricks are also smart enough to realize using them in a game would be very poor form.

Honestly, that's not the impression I get from discussions on this forum and others. Many people seem to consider cheese and rule abuse to be the standard, not just in DND but also other games. People who use the "hold a Glorious Solar Saber with all points put in Defense in offhand" tactic in Exalted come to mind.

[navar100]

For what it's worth, I played D&D 3e for 6-7 years and never saw anybody use tricks like DMM: Persist or Incantatrix outside of internet forums.

An artificer with free metamagicked Rays of Enfeeblement was as close as we ever got. But the character was mostly useless outside of those wands and was playing a support role, so after the initial "It loses HOW much strength?" nobody really cared.

Way back when Persistent Spell was +4 level and its power wasn't fully realized I did play a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric. At the time I was the only "warrior" in the group. The DM and I recognized the power, but he was ok with it. It was a DM-admitted high powered campaign anyway, so my character fit in.

I'm not inclined to do this again, but only because I did it already and got it out of my system. I might one day use Divine Metamagic Quicken Spell for a similar effect but available for any spell, but since we've switched to Pathfinder I've learned to appreciate the Channeling for healing to be useful enough I may not want to spend them on Divine Metamagic. (It was house ruled that any Divine feats from 3E used by a Pathfinder cleric or paladin would use Channelings.) Healing multiple people at a range costing no spell slots is a very handy thing.