Rebalance Persistant Spell

[Lactantius]

I'm considering to balance the metamagic feat persistant spell.

There are a couple reasons to do so and I would like to read your opinions, thoughts and ideas.

Reason 1: Dynamic, "easy-going" gameplay.

Some may have read in my thread on how to improve the easy, fluent gameplay of a wizard (less bookkeeping, less planning requirements), see here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=237958

My goal is not to get more powerful, it is to practical optimize. One pillar of this practical idea is to be able to play a wizard as "easy going" as a sorceror class.
Most will agree that this can be done by improving the spell resources or by outsourcing them.
Improving can be done by getting extra spell slots (by using magic items, extra specialist slots and spontaneous casting); outsourcing can be done by casting buffs on "another day" by using persistant spell.

So, IMHO persistant spell is not a tool to get too powerful, it is a tool to play a wizard easier since you can use short-time-duration buffs without planning and wasting actions in the combat.
If we continue this thought, many spells and schools will shine more than they did so far. I'm referring to abjuration which has many good buffs with short duration.

Reason 2: Using persistant spell in a more "common sense" and non-cheesy way.

Since we want to keep it easy and make it attractive to slight-mid optimization level, we don't want to refer to combos which make persistant spell too powerful.
Im referring to things like metamagic effect or divine metamagic.

The goal is it to use a metamagic feat "as it is written" without any modifiers, reducers etc.

That leads us to the problem the feat provides as written now.
I find the +6 modifier too expensive.
That's the reason why people use other methods to circumvent the costs - it is just not affordable.

Easy solution: re-adjust the cost modifier

My solution would be to decrease the slot modifier from +6 to +4.
It is in the same league as quicken spell then.

Pro:
- persistant spell is useable under reasonable circumstances with light op and without cheesy metamagics;
- persistant spell is useable in reasonable level ranges.
A persistant shield would be useable at caster level 9 (Level 1 + adjustment 4);
A level-2-spell requires a 11th level caster (Level 2 + adjustment 4)
and so on.
In balance terms, I find the advantage not better than using quicken spell. Both make the action economy better; the difference is that persistant does it pre-combat, quicken does it in-combat.
- persistant spell still requires an additional metamagic feat which works as another balancing factor;

Con:
- none so far. I find this idea so delighting since it is easy and supports the "real game" many people would like to play.
- The adjustment +6 was made under the assumption of the designers that the advantage of trasferring a 1 rd/lev-spell to a 24 hours-spell would be too powerful to allow them at mid level gaming (level 9-13).
My experience so far is that people would find many other cheesy stuff to break this limits (as said: DMM, Incantatrix, metamagic reducers etc).
Plus, with the release of swift action spells, casters gained action economy advantages anyway. I find these advantages better than using a (party) buff 24 hours and giving the wizard a more carefree, easy-going option.

So, what do you think about making persistant spell +4?
Consider that other reducers (like arcane thesis, easy metamagic etc) would not apply since the goal is to use the persistant spell feat just as it is: as a +4-feat.

[ILM]

So, IMHO persistant spell is not a tool to get too powerful, it is a tool to play a wizard easier since you can use short-time-duration buffs without planning and wasting actions in the combat.
I think that's kind of what makes Persistent Spell so powerful. Usually you'd spend a round or two buffing and getting whipped in the meantime; now, you're Superman with your pants on right from the initiative roll.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Easy solution: re-adjust the cost modifier

My solution would be to decrease the slot modifier from +6 to +4.
It is in the same league as quicken spell then.

So you're telling me I can now get half again as many DMM: Persist uses out of my Turn Undead uses with your houserule?

:smallamused:

I'm in.


A persistant shield would be useable at caster level 9 (Level 1 + adjustment 4);
A level-2-spell requires a 11th level caster (Level 2 + adjustment 4)
and so on.

Both require a caster level 8, when I take my third level of Incantatrix and Metamagic Effect comes online, now with a Spellcraft check 6 lower than I had to pass before! (Persistent Shield is now a Spellcraft DC33, which, thanks to 11 ranks in Spellcraft, 20 INT, +3 from Skill Focus, a +2 masterwork item, +2 synergy from Know [arcana], is a +23 with absolutely no optimization or costly items, more if I actually optimized for this sort of thing, which I probably did, since I'm taking Persistent Spell and Incantatrix.)

Or, if I'm a Cleric, both of them required level 3 if I'm Human or had bonus feats or flaws otherwise, and 6 if not, when Extend -> Persist -> DMM: Persist is available, same as before, just easier.

Bear in mind that this actually doesn't matter in high-op games, where things like Nightsticks, item familiars and wonky skill optimization tricks make these all auto-pass ordeals anyway, but a mid-op game would get broken wide open by this.


Con:
- none so far. I find this idea so delighting since it is easy and supports the "real game" many people would like to play.
- The adjustment +6 was made under the assumption of the designers that the advantage of trasferring a 1 rd/lev-spell to a 24 hours-spell would be too powerful to allow them at mid level gaming (level 9-13).
My experience so far is that people would find many other cheesy stuff to break this limits (as said: DMM, Incantatrix, metamagic reducers etc).

The, uh, DMM: Persist, Incantatrix, metamagic reducers, etc. that you're referring to, they... They don't go away. In fact, because the difficulty of each was mitigated by the level adjustment of Persistent Spell, they all just got easier to do: DMM: Persist now requires only 4 Turn Undead uses instead of 6 (you spend 1 Turn Undead use per spell level adjustment of the metamagic feat), and the Spellcraft check to apply Persistent Spell with Cooperative Metamagic and Metamagic Effect just became 6 lower (the Spellcraft DC is 18 + 3*final spell level of the spell after metamagics are applied). As for vanilla metamagic reducers such as Arcane Thesis, Metamagic School whatchamajigger, and friends, they're still a -1, so I'm now, with one, applying Persist for the cost of Maximize, and for two applying it for the cost of Empower Spell.


So, what do you think about making persistant spell +4?
Consider that other reducers (like arcane thesis, easy metamagic etc) would not apply since the goal is to use the persistant spell feat just as it is: as a +4-feat.

Sounds to me like the real common-sense solution here is to ban Arcane Thesis, Easy Metamagic, Metamagic School Focus, Incantatrix and DMM: Persist, which has been true since they first existed. Reducing the spell level adjustment of Persistent Spell doesn't stop people from abusing metamagic reducers; in fact, it just makes it easier, and that's precisely what's going to end up happening: If WotC were to reduce the actual level adjustment of Persistent Spell with a note that said,

"OK guys, we reduced the spell level adjustment of Persistent Spell for you, but you can't use it with metamagic reducers! That kind of defies the whole spirit of the thing. OK?

Love,
WotC Staff"

The collective D&D population would smile and nod, crumple up the note, and resume using the metamagic reducers (much more efficiently and easily).

[Acanous]

Eh, if Persistant spell was +4 and stated in the feat "This feat cannot be combined with any other metamagic feat or metamagic reducer" I'd be cool with it.

[supermonkeyjoe]

How about a limit as to how many persisted spells you can have running at once?

[Lactantius]

Well, most rules are theoretical possible, but in reality, it is up to the DM what to allow and what not.

So, if I recommend Persistant +4, then I also demand to not use DMM and Incantatrix stuff. The spirit of this new tweak is to make persistant worthwile for "normal" and "casual optimized" games.

ILM wrote:

I think that's kind of what makes Persistent Spell so powerful. Usually you'd spend a round or two buffing and getting whipped in the meantime; now, you're Superman with your pants on right from the initiative roll.

The whole point is: DMM and Metamagic Effect already are such "Supermen." Even worse, they use persistant even though they shouldn't be ablte in the first place.
My idea is to use persistant totally as written - no cheese and stuff.

Besides, quicken spell and its colleagues (swift action spells, metamagic rods) gain the action economy, too.

So anyways, you can cast twice per round or cast a spell before combat.
Furthermore, goint totally straight does not allow the real persistant cheese since you just could not afford to persist level 3 (until CL 13) or even level 4 (until CL 15).
So, the real problematic combos like persistant divine power come online much later - at a correspondend level range.

[eggs]

I don't think Persist should be a power. All it does is foul up the faint hints of balance that the action economy impose. Reducing it to a +4 level power would let it see more use, but so would reducing it to a +3 level metamagic, or +2 or +1.

Regardless, it's still way better than quicken (it doesn't eat a swift action and one spell slot extends every combat in a day).

If the goal is to make it more usable, but still not overshadow existing options too hard, you could make it a variable-level metamagic that increases durations by increments (1 round->round/level->min/level->10 min/level->hours/level->24 hours), adding [2*incremental change] to the spell level.

So it *could* make Wraithstrike last a whole dungeon, but it would eat a level 8 slot to do it. Or it could just let Mage Armor stay up all day with a level 3 slot.

[navar100]

Metamagic Feats are based on a few 2E spells that did what they do - modify other spells. Vocalize allowed casting spells silently. Extend I and Extend 2 increased the duration of spells. There was a 2E version of Persistent Spell.

It was in the Player's Option series in the Spells & Powers book called Persistancy, a 7th level spell I believe. It is a bit different than what 3E made it. It did not make a spell last 24 hours. Instead, the spell had its normal duration but you could suppress it and use a little bit of it within the next 24 hours whenever you want.

Suppose you cast Persistancy on a spell that lasts 1 round per level. You are 13th level so it lasts 13 rounds. The spell is suppressed. Upon the first combat of the day, you activate it. In 3E terms it was a free action. You benefit from the spell for 3 rounds, then suppress it again. You have 10 rounds left. Several hours later you are in a second combat. You activate the spell for 7 rounds. Combat over, you suppress it. You only have 3 rounds left. Third combat of the day. You activate the spell. The combat lasts more than 3 rounds. On round 4 you have no more duration left and no longer benefit from the spell.

If Persistent Spell worked like that it might be more palatable. It is more powerful than Quicken Spell since you can still use a persistent spell for more than one combat, but the total duration doesn't change providing a set limit. If you have 4 combats in the day, you would not have Persistent Wraith Strike for all the rounds of all the combats.

[Lactantius]

@navar: nice input, not bad!
One thing I dislike is that we have another bookkeeping factor - an aspect we wanted to minimize in the first place (that's why we want to persist: managing active spells easier; the power aspect is just secondary).

Besides sick spells like wraithstrike, are there generally noteworthy spells to persist (for wizards)?
Spell limit should be 5 (cause of 5+4).

At first glance, I would use shield, lesser globe, dragonskin, magic circle against evil and maybe blink.
haste would also be perfect, but I find some transmuting spells for 24 hours ridiculous (that's why I wouldn't make use of the bite-of-the-X-spells, polymorphs, alter self, blink or even haste).

[Jack_Simth]

So, what do you think about making persistant spell +4?
Consider that other reducers (like arcane thesis, easy metamagic etc) would not apply since the goal is to use the persistant spell feat just as it is: as a +4-feat.
It becomes noticeably stronger than Quicken Spell, which is what you're comparing it to.

With Quicken, you get one extra spell per round that the battle lasts - usually a buff - and have to repeat it for the next battle. So the Cleric-10 might go with a Quickened Divine Favor the first round, and a Quickened Shield of Faith the second round... but that's pretty much is, as the battle will generally be over before round 3. In Battle 2 of the day, the Cleric-10 might have a Quickened Divine Favor on round 1... and be out of 5th level slots for round 2 (three 5th level spell slots on Quickened spells).

With this house-rule on Persistent Spell, you have as many pre-battle buffs as you can afford from round 1. So that same Cleric-10 will start with a Persistent Shield of Faith, a Persistent Divine Favor, and a Persistent Conviction (Spell Compendium). All will be up and running in round 1 of battle 1, round 2 of battle 1, round 1 of battle 2, round 2 of battle 2, round 1 of battle 3, round 2 of battle 3, round 1 of battle 4, and round 2 of battle 4. The same resource investment (or near enough), but with this house rule, the Persistent caster gets roughly ten times the use out of the investment this way.

[ericgrau]

Both for re-usability and the fact that you can only quicken one spell per round, while this would let you have as many buffs as you want, this is better than quicken for buffs.

I might do:
+1 or +2: hour/level spells
+3 or +4: 10 min/level spells
+5 to +7 to "no way buddy": 1 min/level spells and 1 round/level spells, with the second one higher up.

Since forum goers tend to be higher optimization I wouldn't feel bad about using the lower end of those ranges. Maybe even +5 for rnd/level. But if you don't like power creep then you might try the higher end to err on the side of slightly too weak instead.

[Andion Isurand]

I think Persistant Spell should add 24 hours to a spell's duration, instead of changing the duration to 24 hours, that way its useful for more spells and you have some flex time for rebuffing the next day.