Quick Question About Persisent Spell + Extend

[tanderson11]

Is it possible to extend a persisted spell and have it last 48 hours?

Is it possible to use extend in conjunction with DMM persist?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal."

Extend Spell only affects the spell's normal duration, and Persistent Spell replaces the normal duration with a duration of 24 hours.

If you apply Persistent Spell first it lasts 24 hours, then apply Extend Spell afterward the normal duration will be doubled but the persistent duration will override that if it's longer.

So no, you cannot combine Extend Spell with Persistent Spell.

[Gildedragon]

Except the normal duration for a persistent spell is 24 hours
Yes it can be used with Persistent Spell.

[Tvtyrant]

And there you have it, the two interpretations laid out.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The rules don't explicitly spell out how metamagic feats can change the 'normal' qualities of a given spell, but we can find at least one extremely strong example:

The rules on spontaneously cast spells with metamagic feats state the following:
"If the spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn’t the same as a 1-round casting time.) For a spell with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell."

Thus if the spell's normal casting time is less than a standard action, such as Feather Fall or Wraithstrike, then spontaneously casting it with a metamagic feat does not increase the casting time because the above rule only applies to spells whose normal casting time is 1 standard action or longer.

Quicken Spell changes a spell's casting time to a swift action (or a free action, depending on what books you have access to), just like Persistent Spell changes a spell's duration to 24 hours. However, spontaneously cast spells with Quicken Spell applied will still have their casting time increased by the above rule, because even though that spell's casting time is less than 1 standard action, its normal casting time is still what's printed for that spell. The same goes for Persistent Spell, it can change the spell's duration to 24 hours, but that spell's normal duration is still what's printed for that spell. A metamagic feat is not capable of modifying the normal qualities of a spell, and Extend Spell can only double the spell's normal duration, which is what's printed for it.

[shadowseve]

There are cases for both sides. In any case it's a dm call.

[aleucard]

Agreed with Shadowseve; however, even if your DM would allow this, I'd recommend against doing it. It's a VERY cheesy upgrade to an already-cheesy tactic, and if the DM underestimates what madness this can bring, the offending player may find themselves being made to eat their own character sheet if they want to attend future sessions. Don't open this one up unless if you're nearing the end of the campaign, and probably not even then. There's being a smart player, and then there's cheating.

[Cruiser1]

Except the normal duration for a persistent spell is 24 hours
Yes it can be used with Persistent Spell.
You can apply effects in the order most beneficial to you. That's an argument for RAW allowing 48 hours. (Whether it's balanced or "should" be allowed in real games is of course another matter. A +6 level adjustment for 24 hours is already very high, so +7 for 48 hours isn't unreasonable. Things only become overpowered when you bring in builds abusing extreme metamagic adjustment (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280365).)

A Maximize + Empowered spell doesn't do 150% maximum damage, but rather applies the two feats separately, doing (100% damage + 50% of the rolled amount). Interestingly, that's an argument both for and against Extend + Persist being 48 hours. It supports it because there's no specific text saying they don't overlap (the specific rule for Maximize + Empowered is there because it overrides the general case). However, it's against allowing it because it suggests that there's really is a general rule that metamagic feats are applied separately (hinted at in Maximize + Empowered case, but not repeated in all the subsequent metamagic feats that got printed). Are "Mailman" builds valid by RAW? How much damage does a Maximized Twin Repeat Energy Admixture Fireball do? Is it 60x2x2x2 = 480 damage? Or is it just 60+10d6+10d6+10d6 = 165 average damage?

[Khedrac]

A Maximize + Empowered spell doesn't do 150% maximum damage, but rather applies the two feats separately, doing (100% damage + 1.5x the rolled amount).
Absolutely wrong.

A Maximize + Empowered spell does 100% damage + 0.5 x the rolled amount.

This is explicitly given in and example somewhere, and it is because Empower adds half the damage of the spell not one and a half.

And this is, as you said, an argument for Persist and Extend not stacking.

[OldTrees1]

Except the normal duration for a persistent spell is 24 hours
Yes it can be used with Persistent Spell.


All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half

All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are maximized.

An empowered, maximized spell gains the separate benefits of each feat: the maximum result plus one-half the normally rolled result.
I think it is clear that each metamagic feat modifies the original spell. Metamagic feats do not modify the effects of other metamagic feats have on spells.

[nyjastul69]

You can apply effects in the order most beneficial to you...

I read this a lot, is it actually stated in the rules somewhere?

[TuggyNE]

I read this a lot, is it actually stated in the rules somewhere?

Only place I've seen it is in the FAQ, actually; something about the "operator" being permitted to apply effects in the order most beneficial to them. (Not, as it is sometimes paraphrased, the player as such.)

I don't know if it has any rule basis, but if it does it's almost certainly not in Core.

[Andezzar]

I think it is clear that each metamagic feat modifies the original spell. Metamagic feats do not modify the effects of other metamagic feats have on spells.This is only clear for the combination of Empower Spell and Maximize Spell. This is an explicit exception.
There is no rule whether all adjustments due to additional metamagic feats apply to the base spell or to the already augmented spell. The level increase at least applies to the already modified spell. So it is not a stretch to deduce that other adjustments are applied in the same manner barring an exception.

[KillianHawkeye]

This is really a case where the writer of the Persist Spell feat should have mentioned how it interacted with Extend Spell (given that Extend Spell is a prerequisite).

They did not.

Thus, each DM has to decide for themselves whether or not the two metamagic feats are capable of interacting.

In other words, you will get no concrete answer here.



EDIT: In my personal opinion, they should not stack. Not because of rule per se, but for balance reasons. I think it is too powerful.

[Chronos]

The first two posts give the two most common interpretations, but there are two others:

3: The duration is 1 day plus the normal duration. In practice, this is the same as saying that it's just 24 hours, because any spell that you're going to bother to persist is going to have a normal duration that's negligibly short compared to 24 hours. This is the way I think it should work, but I don't think it's actually supported by the rules.

4: It depends on what order you apply the effects in, and if you apply Persist first the 24 hours gets doubled, but if you apply Extend first it gets overridden by Persist. This interpretation is not favorable to DMM clerics, because they would generally be applying Extend at the time of preparation (by using a higher-level slot), but applying Persist at the time of casting (by using DMM). You could get around this by taking DMM Extend, too, but that means burning through an extra two turns per spell, and having one fewer feat to spend on Extra Turning. This is the interpretation which I think is supported by the rules.

Oh, and to be thorough, there's also the interpretation my DM gave me when I was playing a DMM cleric and asked about this: 5: The spell lasts for 24 hours plus twice its normal duration. Note that I have no idea how he came up with this interpretation, but it's out there somewhere.

[ace rooster]

The question depends on whether a 'metamagic spell' is a 'spell', and hence can have metamagic applied as a spell (As opposed to applying metamagics to the original spell, regardless of how many metamagics are on it already). The explicit examples given suggest that this is not the case. ie: A maximised empowered spell is a spell with both feats applied to it, rather than treating the empowered spell as the spell that is then maximised. In particular this would suggest that the extend feat reads the original duration, rather than the modified one. If they stack, a persisted extended spell would last 24 hours plus original duration.

Wands and items explicitly mention that you can make items of metamagic spells, which suggests that metamagic spells and spells are different things (or you would not need a rule concerning them). This means that whenever you read "spell" in a metamagic feat, we have to look at the original spell, rather than a 'metamagic spell', which is not a spell.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a explicit answer as to how metamagics interact, so it is DM dependent. I would certainly rule that metamagics to not interact, with things like chain spell only arcing the original spell.

[nyjastul69]

This is only clear for the combination of Empower Spell and Maximize Spell. This is an explicit exception.
There is no rule whether all adjustments due to additional metamagic feats apply to the base spell or to the already augmented spell. The level increase at least applies to the already modified spell. So it is not a stretch to deduce that other adjustments are applied in the same manner barring an exception.

I don't read this as an exception. I read it as a clarifying example of the general rule.

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't read this as an exception. I read it as a clarifying example of the general rule.

I tend to agree with this mindset, even though the rules of the game would generally indicate that the specifically mentioned interaction between Maximize and Empower is an exception to the rules rather than a generality. I personally believe it to be an indicator of the overall rationale for metamagic feats as a whole, and rule as such in my games.

[OldTrees1]

This is only clear for the combination of Empower Spell and Maximize Spell. This is an explicit exception.
There is no rule whether all adjustments due to additional metamagic feats apply to the base spell or to the already augmented spell. The level increase at least applies to the already modified spell. So it is not a stretch to deduce that other adjustments are applied in the same manner barring an exception.

When there are no rules except the single case, then the single case is the rule and not merely an exception.

[shadowseve]

Me personally I would allow it as a dm as I tend to agree that persisted spell alters the normal duration of the spell thus allowing them to stack. That's just me. So I would allow it. I would note to the PC that turn about is fair play. Expect me to play the same card. But I don't think there are perfectly clear rules and raw is def not perfect and leaves so much grey areas. However; a GM is perfectly justified in ruling either way. To me as long as both player and GM are happy, then rock on.

[Cruiser1]

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a explicit answer as to how metamagics interact, so it is DM dependent.
One thing that may help are the rules for multiplying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#multiplying):


Sometimes a rule makes you multiply a number or a die roll. As long as you’re applying a single multiplier, multiply the number normally. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3).

When applying multipliers to real-world values (such as weight or distance), normal rules of math apply instead. A creature whose size doubles (thus multiplying its weight by 8) and then is turned to stone (which would multiply its weight by a factor of roughly 3) now weighs about 24 times normal, not 10 times normal. Similarly, a blinded creature attempting to negotiate difficult terrain would count each square as 4 squares (doubling the cost twice, for a total multiplier of ×4), rather than as 3 squares (adding 100% twice).
The above, if applied to combined metamagic feats, suggests that "Mailman" builds are NOT valid. A Maximized Energy Admixture (Acid + Cold + Electricity) Fireball should do 60+10d6+10d6+10d6 = 165 average damage (because each "doubling" adds +1 instance). It does not do 60x2x2x2 = 480 damage (with each doubling multiplying by x2). That's supported by the "special case" rules for Maximize + Empower, which add/apply the two metamagic feats separately.

However, the above also suggests that real world values that aren't die rolls are doubled normally. Therefore a Twin + Repeat spell gives 4 instances (instead of just 3). Also Persist + Extended does multiply to 48 hours (instead of just adding to 24 hours + a few minutes or whatever).

[Chronos]

Except that the Mailman isn't really based on doubling, per se. It's casting one spell that produces two orbs, and each of those orbs does an amount of fire damage and an equal amount of acid damage, and the damage on those orbs is as high as possible, and then another orb shoots out automatically the next round, and then you cast another spell just like that as a swift action, and so on. The net effect is a bunch of doublings, but there's nothing that says "this doubles the damage of the modified spell".

[Andezzar]

I don't read this as an exception. I read it as a clarifying example of the general rule.And what general rule would that be? The problem is that with the exception of Maximize and Empower spell, there is no rule how multiple metamagics modify the spell.


When there are no rules except the single case, then the single case is the rule and not merely an exception.It is the rule but it only applies to the single case.

[OldTrees1]

It is the rule but it only applies to the single case.

There are no rules stating how metamagic feats interact except in the Maximize Spell feat. Therefore one either treats Metamagic as dysfunctional (for not having rules for how multiple metamagic feats interact) or one uses the only metamagic interaction rule as a general rule.

TLDR: Use the only rule as a general rule.

[Kraken]

I'll throw my vote into the 'no clear answer' camp. There are plausible arguments for both interpretations, but in years of seeing arguments about it, I've never seen anything that comes remotely close to validation for either side. Nothing new has been posted in this thread so far, and it's unlikely that will happen. Ask your DM.

[eggynack]

There are no rules stating how metamagic feats interact except in the Maximize Spell feat. Therefore one either treats Metamagic as dysfunctional (for not having rules for how multiple metamagic feats interact) or one uses the only metamagic interaction rule as a general rule.

TLDR: Use the only rule as a general rule.
It's a way to go, but it's obviously not the only way to go. By RAI, sure, applying specific rules universally is a logical thing in this instance, but if we're seeking a RAW answer, then I don't think this will ever get us there.

[OldTrees1]

It's a way to go, but it's obviously not the only way to go. By RAI, sure, applying specific rules universally is a logical thing in this instance, but if we're seeking a RAW answer, then I don't think this will ever get us there.

True. RAW the lack of rules mean there is a lack of rules and thus it is Dysfunctional.

So
RAW: Dysfunctional
RAI: See Maximize Spell feat

[Gildedragon]

True. RAW the lack of rules mean there is a lack of rules and thus it is Dysfunctional.

So
RAW: Dysfunctional
RAI: See Maximize Spell feat

Um... the very nature of RAI means there is no clear answer.
One could see Max's ruling to indicate that it is not the case in all other metamagic stackings.

[Kraken]

True. RAW the lack of rules mean there is a lack of rules and thus it is Dysfunctional.

So
RAW: Dysfunctional
RAI: See Maximize Spell feat

I don't even know that it's fair make a judgement one way or the other about what the intended interaction is. Rather, I'd wager that when persist was written, this issue simply wasn't considered. From a practical perspective, I agree that you probably shouldn't allow them to stack, but I would never say that's the intended resolution, even if it's the most practical one.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It's a way to go, but it's obviously not the only way to go. By RAI, sure, applying specific rules universally is a logical thing in this instance, but if we're seeking a RAW answer, then I don't think this will ever get us there.

There is, however, a very clear example of the definition of a normal quality of a spell, it's that which is printed for it, and not that quality after it's been modified by a metamagic feat. If a spell's 'normal' casting time is what's printed for a spell and not what a metamagic feat changed the casting time into, then a spell's 'normal' duration would likewise be what's printed for a spell and not what a metamagic feat changed the duration into. The interaction between metamagic casting times of spontaneous spells and Quicken Spell is the clearest RAW definition we have of a spell's 'normal' quality, so it can be applied to the wording of Extend Spell. As it just so happens, the result of this coincides with the given examples of the interaction of multiple metamagic feats, indicating that his is not only correct by RAW, but that it's also correct by RAI.

[eggynack]

There is, however, a very clear example of the definition of a normal quality of a spell, it's that which is printed for it, and not that quality after it's been modified by a metamagic feat. If a spell's 'normal' casting time is what's printed for a spell and not what a metamagic feat changed the casting time into, then a spell's 'normal' duration would likewise be what's printed for a spell and not what a metamagic feat changed the duration into. The interaction between metamagic casting times of spontaneous spells and Quicken Spell is the clearest RAW definition we have of a spell's 'normal' quality, so it can be applied to the wording of Extend Spell. As it just so happens, the result of this coincides with the given examples of the interaction of multiple metamagic feats, indicating that his is not only correct by RAW, but that it's also correct by RAI.
We know from this a spell's normal quality with regard to casting time, just as we know how metamagic works with regard to those two cases. Neither is a general case.

[Chronos]

I would argue that we do have a general rule for how multiple metamagic feats interact: Effects are applied in whatever order is most beneficial for the creature applying them. Other than with the specific case of Maximize and Empower, metamagic feats do not provide an exception to this. Mind you, I think it would be better to rule that all metamagic feats apply only to the base, un-meta-ed spell, but so far as I can tell that would be a houserule.

[OldTrees1]

I would argue that we do have a general rule for how multiple metamagic feats interact: Effects are applied in whatever order is most beneficial for the creature applying them. Other than with the specific case of Maximize and Empower, metamagic feats do not provide an exception to this. Mind you, I think it would be better to rule that all metamagic feats apply only to the base, un-meta-ed spell, but so far as I can tell that would be a houserule.

The order the effects are applied has no impact over whether the effects are considered part of "normal". If the effects are not considered part of "normal" then switching the order the effects are applied will not change the end result.

Extend then Persist with metamagic not being "normal"
Base Duration => Base Duration + Base Duration => 24hrs + Base Duration
Persist then Extend with metamagic not being "normal"
Base Duration => 24hrs Duration => 24hrs + Base Duration

Extend then Persist with metamagic being "normal"
Base Duration => 2x Base Duration => 24hr Duration
Persist then Extend with metamagic being "normal"
Base Duration => 24hr Duration => 48hr duration

Beneficial order would imply Persist then Extend but would not imply 48hr Duration over 24+Base Duration