Persisted Wraithstrike - good idea?

[PrinceRenais]

I think a Persisted Wraithstrike would make a decent option with some metamagic reductions, but I can't remember having ever seen it brought up. What do you guys think?

Also: Metamagic School Focus (Transmutation) would be a grand help if a DM would be insane enough to allow more than one level reduced for a single metamagic feat.
Arcane Thesis strikes me as a waste on this spell, but it's better than nothing.

This idea would most likely work best in a Gestalt campaign, I imagine.

[eggs]

If your game is at the optimization level where autohits at full power attack are a given, then sure it's a good idea.

Otherwise, it will foul with the metagame by singlehandedly pushing the game into that optimization level, which can very easily leave unprepared party members drifting somewhere behind.

[Jack_Simth]

If your game is at the optimization level where autohits at full power attack are a given, then sure it's a good idea.

Otherwise, it will foul with the metagame by singlehandedly pushing the game into that optimization level, which can very easily leave unprepared party members drifting somewhere behind.
I agree with this sentiment. If it's in the balance range of the existing party, it's OK. If it isn't in the balance range of the existing party, it's a really bad idea.

[Lostbutseeking]

Eggs has covered whether it is a good idea so here is how.

Metamagic wand grip or Incantatrix.

And may the DM have mercy on your soul.

For reducing the cost of persist without sidestepping it, the Easy & Practical Metamagic feats.

[PrinceRenais]

Fair enough - Balance is important, I can agree with that. I was just shocked at how great it'd be from an optimizer's point of view. Certainly something overpowering in the wrong place and obviously something a [sane] DM would consider worthy of a book-grenade.

[JadePhoenix]

Fair enough - Balance is important, I can agree with that. I was just shocked at how great it'd be from an optimizer's point of view. Certainly something overpowering in the wrong place and obviously something a [sane] DM would consider worthy of a book-grenade.
I remember an argument about personal spells not being valid targets for persist spell, but I can't remember the specifics.

[Urpriest]

It gets brought up pretty frequently, actually. It's a low enough level spell that it isn't usually brought up in the context of MM reducers, but rather suggested using normal slots for Gishes.

[DarkestKnight]

I have been hit with a DMG for asking whether or not I could buy a ring of continuous wraithstrike. Suitable head protection should be worn.

[Flickerdart]

I remember an argument about personal spells not being valid targets for persist spell, but I can't remember the specifics.
"Benefit: Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours."

Nope.avi

[Spuddles]

Be prepared for every enemy to come with scintillating scales.

[moritheil]

I have been hit with a DMG for asking whether or not I could buy a ring of continuous wraithstrike. Suitable head protection should be worn.

The MIC has an item that lets you wraithstrike 3/day for something like 3000 gp. But persistent wraithstrike is something that really would cause campaigns to have to be rebalanced. And some DMs hate the MIC item pricing.

It's kind of a tricky thing for the DM - wraithstrike is widely considered overpowered, but at least you're burning a spell each round you're using it, meaning that while a fighter/mage can use it to "go nova," they can't accomplish anything nastier than what a duskblade or pounce barbarian can do. Limited times/day vs. unlimited times/day is definitely a big difference. Dispels might be thrown at your character, but dispels are always a danger of playing a fighter/mage, and this doesn't really change that.

Another fun fact: since Wraithstrike has a somatic component, you technically shouldn't be able to use it with a two-handed weapon without burning a feat or applying Still Spell. Some DMs use this as a way of balancing the damage gains out, forcing players to tie up more resources or else only get the 1:1 damage ratio.

[Spuddles]

Somatic components and 2handed weapons- free action take hand off weapon, action cast spell, free action put hand back on weapon.

Yet another reason sword and board sucks.

[Greyfeld85]

Another fun fact: since Wraithstrike has a somatic component, you technically shouldn't be able to use it with a two-handed weapon without burning a feat or applying Still Spell. Some DMs use this as a way of balancing the damage gains out, forcing players to tie up more resources or else only get the 1:1 damage ratio.

You can hold a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand and use that free hand to cast your spell. There's nothing in any rulebook I'm aware of that says otherwise. And I'm almost positive shifting your weapon between hands is a free action.

Edit: Swordsaged

[ericgrau]

And once you hit around 8 uses per day it might as well be unlimited. Often 3 is enough if you only fight one combat that day. Maybe 2 since fights are going to end faster with you one shotting things, and if you can't reach foes to one shot them then you won't cast it anyway.

[JadePhoenix]

"Benefit: Spells with a fixed or personal range can have their duration increased to 24 hours."

Nope.avi

I was probably thinking about touch spells, then

[Malachei]

The brokenness of 3.0 haste was finds its successors in the brokenness of swift- and immediate-action spells. I like them, but I think they should not be persisted, unless you are playing on an optimization levelwhere you don't see a real difference whether you allow it or not

[Hirax]

Somatic components and 2handed weapons- free action take hand off weapon, action cast spell, free action put hand back on weapon.

Yet another reason sword and board sucks.

I remember Skip Williams saying explicitly that this was allowable in one of WotC's "Rules of the Game" articles, but I can't find it at the moment. It's probably buried in the PHB, DMG, or RC somewhere also.


I was probably thinking about touch spells, then

Yeah, those are the controversial ones to persist via ocular spell, arcane reach, etc.

[Glaurung]

In a 3.P game I am currently playing, I run a fighter/magic-user who has gained to ability to wraithstrike pretty much all day thanks to an artifact the DM cooked up. The mechanics are different than persist spell but amount to the same thing. At first I was ashamed to abuse the spell--surely the DM would take offense if I wraithstuck everything with an armor bonus!--but it turns out he throws lots of high CR baddies at us regularly and if you do not kill them quick they will autohit and kill pretty much any PC they can reach with a full attack. So it works...in the context.

In a normal game, I think all of the above comments about headgear would be in order.

[Malachei]

In a 3.P game I am currently playing, I run a fighter/magic-user who has gained to ability to wraithstrike pretty much all day thanks to an artifact the DM cooked up. The mechanics are different than persist spell but amount to the same thing. At first I was ashamed to abuse the spell--surely the DM would take offense if I wraithstuck everything with an armor bonus!--but it turns out he throws lots of high CR baddies at us regularly and if you do not kill them quick they will autohit and kill pretty much any PC they can reach with a full attack. So it works...in the context.

In a normal game, I think all of the above comments about headgear would be in order.

Of course, it can also serve as an excuse for the DM, if he/she wants to put a bit more fuel into the arms race.

As long as the other PCs are on the same power level, that would not be a problem per se, but reducing all enemies to their touch AC does change mechanics a bit.

[Acanous]

I once saw a forum-delver cook up a way to get Persisted True Strike as well, although it involved a few feats, a Prestige class, and he was a cleric.

If you could somehow get both, you'd be rolling only to confirm crits or fumbles :p

[JadePhoenix]

I once saw a forum-delver cook up a way to get Persisted True Strike as well, although it involved a few feats, a Prestige class, and he was a cleric.

If you could somehow get both, you'd be rolling only to confirm crits or fumbles :p

Persisted True Strike only means that your next attack roll in a 24 hour period will receive a +20 bonus and ignore concealment.

[LordBlades]

Of course, it can also serve as an excuse for the DM, if he/she wants to put a bit more fuel into the arms race.

As long as the other PCs are on the same power level, that would not be a problem per se, but reducing all enemies to their touch AC does change mechanics a bit.

Depends. If you're the only melee in a party of casters for example, everybidy wouldbe rolling vs. touch and saves already

[moritheil]

Somatic components and 2handed weapons- free action take hand off weapon, action cast spell, free action put hand back on weapon.

Yet another reason sword and board sucks.


You can hold a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand and use that free hand to cast your spell. There's nothing in any rulebook I'm aware of that says otherwise. And I'm almost positive shifting your weapon between hands is a free action.

Edit: Swordsaged

Actually, 3.5 doesn't clearly differentiate between "wielding" and "held." You can remove a hand from a double weapon to cast*, because that is explicitly permitted, but there's no text permitting you to remove a hand from a two handed weapon to cast, because two hands to wield == two hands to hold. You have to put the thing down, or not use somatics.

Other interpretations are possible (namely, using a one handed weapon to get a two-handed power attack should still be possible by that ruling), but this interpretation isn't without support in the RAW, and it's been popular amongst DMs I've played with.


A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.

*Note that holding a double weapon in one hand at some point during one round disqualifies you from using both ends in that round. You get a one-handed attack with a quarterstaff if you had to take a hand off of it to cast something. So ruling that two handed weapons are similarly limited is consistent.

[CigarPete]

The somatic component of Wraithstrike is explicitly described in the spell description, you swing the weapon through the air. I would argue it can be used regardless of what weapon you are using.

[moritheil]

The somatic component of Wraithstrike is explicitly described in the spell description, you swing the weapon through the air. I would argue it can be used regardless of what weapon you are using.

That rather depends on how you rule fluff text; some DMs, particularly the RAW-inclined, disregard fluff in their rulings.

Note, please, I am not stating that you must interpret the rules this way, just that I've seen such interpretations that tone down the power of Wraithstrike in multiple games and so I feel it worth mentioning. A DM who is willing to rule thus for the sake of his or her concept of balance is probably also really not going to like Persistent Wraithstrike, as it bypasses the issue entirely.