New find: age old debate about persistent touch spells.

[Yogibear41]

There has always been the age old debate about where Range: Touch spells can be persisted, while looking through the Elder Evils book, I found a stat block for a high level cleric (Page 117) that lists a Persisted Bear's Endurance prepared in an 8th level slot. Figured I would share this find as evidence that touch spells can in fact be persisted by RAW.

[Florian]

There has always been the age old debate about where Range: Touch spells can be persisted, while looking through the Elder Evils book, I found a stat block for a high level cleric (Page 117) that lists a Persisted Bear's Endurance prepared in an 8th level slot. Figured I would share this find as evidence that touch spells can in fact be persisted by RAW.

Stat blocks are nor RAW (they're an application of RAW, nothing else) and WotC stat blocks are famous for either not being legit or just brimming with failures.

[heavyfuel]

Then you could make the argument that Skill Points are retroactive with Int since a lot of stat blocks for creatures with increased Int due to HD are like that.

[Crake]

I don't understand why people think touch spells can't be persisted. The whole "touch range is variable because reach" is such a willfully ignorant reading. The range is "touch" not "your reach". Your reach simply determines how far away you can touch something, but either way, the range of the spell is "touch", nothing variable about it.

[Mike Miller]

I don't trust WotC stat blocks, but that is a good find regardless.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Thanks for pointing that out, Yogi. I'm always happy to see a tidbit like that. As Florian said, statblocks are questionable from a RAW perspective, but it's definitely something to bring up in debates about Persistent Spell.


I don't understand why people think touch spells can't be persisted. The whole "touch range is variable because reach" is such a willfully ignorant reading. The range is "touch" not "your reach". Your reach simply determines how far away you can touch something, but either way, the range of the spell is "touch", nothing variable about it.
Persistent Spell requires a "fixed or personal range".
If you look at PH 174 on spell ranges, there are several categories: personal, touch, close, medium, long, unlimited, range expressed in feet.
When figuring out what Persistent Spell means, we first identify "personal" in both rules with eachother. That's the clear-cut part.
That leaves us with "fixed". Interpretations may vary, but I think "fixed range" means "range of a set distance", and a crucial part of distance is that it's expressed in feet, which "touch" is not.

This reading has the advantage of corresponding the two categories in the Persistent Spell rules with two categories in the Spell Range rules. That's an elegance bonus right there, and a sign that it's what the author intended, if we care about that.

[Florian]

I don't understand why people think touch spells can't be persisted. The whole "touch range is variable because reach" is such a willfully ignorant reading. The range is "touch" not "your reach". Your reach simply determines how far away you can touch something, but either way, the range of the spell is "touch", nothing variable about it.

Reach doesn´t have anything to do with it. Persist wants either personal or fixed range. Fixed range could be something like "10ft. emanation centered on you". Range: Touch doesn't qualify for any of those two requirements, as it is neither clearly "personal", nor comes with a fixed range. (And just because you can touch yourself, doesn't make it personal :P)

[Sleven]

While stat blocks do tend to get the least editorial oversight, there is plenty of other evidence suggesting that touch spells are persist-able. Namely, the fact that touch spells were never mentioned in any version of the feat except the one in the FRCS. All other 3.0 versions of the feat had no such clause, and the 3.5 updated version of the feat also did not include a touch range clause (even in the PGtF). Which shows that the FRCS had goofed and stood to be corrected (otherwise why not continue to use that language going forward?).

I don’t mind DMs ruling either way, but the circumstantial evidence points pretty clearly in one direction.

[Crake]

Reach doesn´t have anything to do with it. Persist wants either personal or fixed range. Fixed range could be something like "10ft. emanation centered on you". Range: Touch doesn't qualify for any of those two requirements, as it is neither clearly "personal", nor comes with a fixed range. (And just because you can touch yourself, doesn't make it personal :P)

I disagree, the range of touch seems quite fixed to me, it's unchanging, quite matching of the definition. Also I have seen people argue that because reach is variable, that means range touch is variable.


Persistent Spell requires a "fixed or personal range".
If you look at PH 174 on spell ranges, there are several categories: personal, touch, close, medium, long, unlimited, range expressed in feet.
When figuring out what Persistent Spell means, we first identify "personal" in both rules with eachother. That's the clear-cut part.
That leaves us with "fixed". Interpretations may vary, but I think "fixed range" means "range of a set distance", and a crucial part of distance is that it's expressed in feet, which "touch" is not.

This reading has the advantage of corresponding the two categories in the Persistent Spell rules with two categories in the Spell Range rules. That's an elegance bonus right there, and a sign that it's what the author intended, if we care about that.

This explanation helps me understand a bit better, though I still disagree. Touch range to me seems quite fixed, sure you could argue that it was intending to mean those two specific categories, but if you want to talk about intent, I think the following is the biggest pointer to the intent that touch spells are supposed to work with it:

In the forgotten realms campaign setting version of the feat, it had the same requirements, personal or fixed range, but then went on specifically to say that touch spells could not be affected. However, this line was removed in every subsequent version of the feat. Perhaps initially they intended for touch spells to not work with it, but then they removed that restriction, and just left the initial wording the same.

[RoboEmperor]

There has always been the age old debate about where Range: Touch spells can be persisted, while looking through the Elder Evils book, I found a stat block for a high level cleric (Page 117) that lists a Persisted Bear's Endurance prepared in an 8th level slot. Figured I would share this find as evidence that touch spells can in fact be persisted by RAW.

Hahahahahahahahaha

NICE FIND! WOW!

But yeah, stat blocks are wrong a LOT. One example, p.66 of Complete Divine has a Chaotic Neutral cleric with the Evil Domain.


This explanation helps me understand a bit better, though I still disagree. Touch range to me seems quite fixed, sure you could argue that it was intending to mean those two specific categories, but if you want to talk about intent, I think the following is the biggest pointer to the intent that touch spells are supposed to work with it:

In the forgotten realms campaign setting version of the feat, it had the same requirements, personal or fixed range, but then went on specifically to say that touch spells could not be affected. However, this line was removed in every subsequent version of the feat. Perhaps initially they intended for touch spells to not work with it, but then they removed that restriction, and just left the initial wording the same.

I think your point about that line being removed and the above quote work together to definitively prove touch spells can be persisted. They must have removed that line about touch spells for a reason right?

[Goaty14]

If touch range isn't fixed because the user's size can change how far it goes, then personal range also isn't fixed because a 4th level Spellguard of Silverymoon can change how far it goes.


But yeah, stat blocks are wrong a LOT. One example, p.66 of Complete Divine has a Chaotic Neutral cleric with the Evil Domain.

The one half-fiend PrC in HoH sample statblock does not have enough skill points to qualify for the PrC. Forget the name of the PrC in question though.

[Yogibear41]

Just a Thought:

I have a 5 foot reach. I touch you with my Hand to cast a melee touch spell.


I have a 25 foot reach. I touch you with my hand to cast a melee touch spell.


The distance between my hand and you is the same in both examples. One might even say its "Fixed"

[RoboEmperor]

Just a Thought:

I have a 5 foot reach. I touch you with my Hand to cast a melee touch spell.


I have a 25 foot reach. I touch you with my hand to cast a melee touch spell.


The distance between my hand and you is the same in both examples. One might even say its "Fixed"

Originally Persistent Spell only applied to personal and aura spells. Hence the "fixed range" thing and no touch spells. At the time all fixed range spells were aura spells and "aura spells" was not an in game term. WotC's refusal to coin the term "aura" messed this metamagic feat up.

In any case an aura of fixed range doesnt change how close your opponent is to you. A negative energy aura will always be a 10ft emanation from you. With touch spells, the range ranges from 0ft to your reach. Same with Rays. Ray's range changes depending on the distance between you and the target.

[Florian]

I think your point about that line being removed and the above quote work together to definitively prove touch spells can be persisted. They must have removed that line about touch spells for a reason right?

We're talking about 3.5E, which was basically done by freelancers on both side of the fence, writing and editing, an edition which continually broke its own red lines in the sand because of that. So, no, I would never assume "reason" when it comes to WotC.

[Necroticplague]

In the forgotten realms campaign setting version of the feat, it had the same requirements, personal or fixed range, but then went on specifically to say that touch spells could not be affected. However, this line was removed in every subsequent version of the feat. Perhaps initially they intended for touch spells to not work with it, but then they removed that restriction, and just left the initial wording the same.


I think your point about that line being removed and the above quote work together to definitively prove touch spells can be persisted. They must have removed that line about touch spells for a reason right?

Or, y'know, they realized it wasn't needed, and removed it. Just like how they don't reiterate that DR affects it for every weapon, because that's intrinsic to how DR works, and doesn't need reiterated.

[RoboEmperor]

Or, y'know, they realized it wasn't needed, and removed it. Just like how they don't reiterate that DR affects it for every weapon, because that's intrinsic to how DR works, and doesn't need reiterated.

Considering how this is a very unclear rule and considering how in the stat block other spells were persisted too like protection from evil and shield of faith, I doubt it.

All we know is
1. Nothing in 3.5 says touch spells can't be persisted.
2. We got an official example of several touch spells being persisted.

Your argument is
1. They didn't think they needed to clarify touch spells aren't fixed range because it's mentioned... nowhere. It was only mentioned in the 3.0 feat and was removed.
2. The three touch spells being persisted is an oversight.

[gkathellar]

Despite the best efforts of people on either side of this argument, there is no RAW answer to this question, because "fixed range" is not a defined term.

[heavyfuel]

Despite the best efforts of people on either side of this argument, there is no RAW answer to this question, because "fixed range" is not a defined term.

Yup.

This argument is completely pointless because ultimately this question falls into "Ask your DM" territory

[Cosi]

Or, y'know, they realized it wasn't needed, and removed it. Just like how they don't reiterate that DR affects it for every weapon, because that's intrinsic to how DR works, and doesn't need reiterated.

DR has general rules written down somewhere because it is a defined game term. "Fixed Range" is not. They removed it. The notion that removing it somehow means it definitely applies more than ever is simply absurd.

And really, it's not like this debate matters very much. Ocular Spell into Persistent Spell works no matter how you think Touch spells work with Persistent Spell normally.

[RoboEmperor]

Despite the best efforts of people on either side of this argument, there is no RAW answer to this question, because "fixed range" is not a defined term.

We have RAW now though thanks to yogibear.


Yup.

This argument is completely pointless because ultimately this question falls into "Ask your DM" territory

Nope, official example makes it RAW. They removed the no touch clause and had a spellcaster use it on touch spells. Your side has nothing.


And really, it's not like this debate matters very much. Ocular Spell into Persistent Spell works no matter how you think Touch spells work with Persistent Spell normally.

That requires heavy feat and skill investment especially for PCs that don't have knowledge dungeoneering as a class skill.

Before yogibear's quote I still would've ruled Ocular Spell did not make spells legal to persist because as I mentioned before, ray spell's range changes depending on the distance between you and the target (which is the same argument why touch spells aren't fixed range) therefore only emanation spells qualify as "fixed range", but hey, glad I was proven wrong. Real glad. Extended Persistent Girallon's Blessing here I come!

I'm gonna shove yogibear's and Crake's quote in everyone's faces every single time this argument pops up again on this forum.

[Necroticplague]

All we know is
1. Nothing in 3.5 says touch spells can't be persisted.

The rules don’t say humans don’t have an insta-death eye beam attack either, because rules don’t say what you can’t do, they say what you can do.

[Pleh]

We have RAW now though thanks to yogibear.

The FAQ is technically RAW if you just give anything officially published the canonicity of RAW.

Likewise, it was mentioned upthread that some monster statblocks have examples where the monster didn't meet the prereqs for a PrC they took.

Your logic would suggest that the prereqs for the PrC are wrong, as opposed to the more rational explanation that statblocks are unreliable and shouldn't be mistaken for RAW.

You can post the quotes if you like, bug it doesn't make you right and it's unlikely to be very much convincing (nor should it be).

[RedMage125]

Hahahahahahahahaha

NICE FIND! WOW!

But yeah, stat blocks are wrong a LOT. One example, p.66 of Complete Divine has a Chaotic Neutral cleric with the Evil Domain.

Complete Divine has a LOT of errors in it. The editors need to be stabbed in the neck with a "check toee", which is what the Complete Divine lists as the favored weapon of Tharizdun.

[AnonymousPepper]

Okay, but consider this idea about range: touch.

The range is fixed regardless of reach, because a spell with a range of touch is, in practical terms, just a 5ft-range instantaneous emanation from the end of your hand/relevant appendage (i.e. the square it's in), blockable by things that block line of effect, such as a wall. Having reach just means you get to choose a square other than the square your body is in for the emanation to begin at. After all, you can't transfer a touch spell by having somebody bodyslam you without taking an instantaneous action to touch them, can you?

Thoughts?

[heavyfuel]

Nope, official example makes it RAW. They removed the no touch clause and had a spellcaster use it on touch spells. Your side has nothing

What side, buddy? I allow touch spells to be persisted in my games. What I said is that Stat blocks don't mean squat, otherwise you have to accept a bunch of nonsense.

You always have a very aggressive tone to your messages which I think you should reconsider.

[NineInchNall]

The historical answer for the consensus position that touch spells are not included under the umbrella of "fixed range" is that we got official clarification on it way back before the boards1.wizards.com->gleemax.com changeover.

Like so many of the things that get argued about on this board.

Now would you kids kindly get off my lawn. :smallwink:

EDIT: It was also a carryover of intent from the FRCS errata:

p. 37, Persistent Spell:
Second sentence Change: “Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged.”
To “Spells of instantaneous duration, spells with a range of touch, and spells whose effects are discharged cannot be affected by this
feat.”

[Necroticplague]

I don't understand why people think touch spells can't be persisted. The whole "touch range is variable because reach" is such a willfully ignorant reading. The range is "touch" not "your reach". Your reach simply determines how far away you can touch something, but either way, the range of the spell is "touch", nothing variable about it.

By that logic, all spells are fixed range. A fireball always has the same range, Long, after all.

[Mike Miller]

Complete Divine has a LOT of errors in it. The editors need to be stabbed in the neck with a "check toee", which is what the Complete Divine lists as the favored weapon of Tharizdun.

That is awesome. I believe this is my new favorite WotC error.

[RoboEmperor]

The rules don’t say humans don’t have an insta-death eye beam attack either, because rules don’t say what you can’t do, they say what you can do.

Rules say you can persist fixed range spells
Is touch range fixed range? Yes? No? Maybe?
We have an official example that says yes.

I mean I totally understand your argument. I wondered before if multiple castings of Animate Objects can animate a colossal object. Warp Wood says it can affect colossal objects with multiple castings, Animate Object lacks such language, so no, you can't animate colossal objects with multiple castings. But that's not the case here.


The FAQ is technically RAW if you just give anything officially published the canonicity of RAW.

Likewise, it was mentioned upthread that some monster statblocks have examples where the monster didn't meet the prereqs for a PrC they took.

Your logic would suggest that the prereqs for the PrC are wrong, as opposed to the more rational explanation that statblocks are unreliable and shouldn't be mistaken for RAW.

You can post the quotes if you like, bug it doesn't make you right and it's unlikely to be very much convincing (nor should it be).

Lets say statblocks have a 50% chance of being right and 50% chance of being wrong. You're right, by itself the stat block doesn't prove anything, but as Crake pointed out the Persistent Spell had its "no touch spells" clause removed in its description. This IMO says the statblock is correct.

If you want a more accurate statistic, we need to check every single stat block in all of 3.5 and count how many are right and how many are wrong. Pretty sure more than half of the stat blocks are correct.

Or check how many stat blocks are wrong in Elder Evils. If the answer is 0 then the RAW is undeniable.

Just because a few stat blocks in a different book is wrong doesn't make all stat blocks wrong just like a typo in the rules doesn't make every rule in every book wrong.


The historical answer for the consensus position that touch spells are not included under the umbrella of "fixed range" is that we got official clarification on it way back before the boards1.wizards.com->gleemax.com changeover.

Like so many of the things that get argued about on this board.

Now would you kids kindly get off my lawn. :smallwink:

EDIT: It was also a carryover of intent from the FRCS errata:

That's a 3.0 errata so it doesn't apply. Persistent Spell was changed drastically in 3.5. most notably it is now a +6 metamagic instead of a +4 metamagic.


You always have a very aggressive tone to your messages which I think you should reconsider.

I'm working on it. I really am.

[Crake]

The rules don’t say humans don’t have an insta-death eye beam attack either, because rules don’t say what you can’t do, they say what you can do.

That fallacy doesn't apply here, because persistent spell applies to X, touch spells fall within X, but you're claiming they don't. Saying that "nothing says you can't apply persistent spell to touch spells" is a perfectly valid thing to say. Here, let me show you how the logic works:

1) Persistent spell is a metamagic feat
2) Metamagic feats can be applied to spells
3) Spells with touch range are, by their nature, spells
4) Persistent spell doesn't say touch spells can't be persisted

And you're actually wrong, the rules do say, on many occasions, what you can't do. For example, you can't persist a spell with variable range, as explicitly defined by the feat itself.


By that logic, all spells are fixed range. A fireball always has the same range, Long, after all.

Yogi already covered that:


Just a Thought:

I have a 5 foot reach. I touch you with my Hand to cast a melee touch spell.


I have a 25 foot reach. I touch you with my hand to cast a melee touch spell.


The distance between my hand and you is the same in both examples. One might even say its "Fixed"

A fireball on the other hand has a range that changes based on circumstance (in fireball's case, the CL of the spell).

[Pleh]

You're right, by itself the stat block doesn't prove anything, but as Crake pointed out the Persistent Spell had its "no touch spells" clause removed in its description. This IMO says the statblock is correct.

This argumentation has unjustified assumptions. The key phrasing you're relying on was clearly omitted, but it is not clear the intent behind the omission. You are assuming they were copy pasting text and that they had to actively delete the phrase consciously for it to be omitted, but there are a good number of other reasons it might have been omitted.

Sometimes when you copy paste,
the formatting you get ends up all
choppy. You spend more of your
time cleaning up the broken for-
matting than it would have taken
to just copy it by hand. In these
cases, you often look for extran-
eous phrases that can be safely
omitted.

One of them can be sloppy editting, which there is so much evidence for that it really is more believable than a conscious rule change. They could also have simply decided that they didn't need the extra words on the page, since it had been printed before (so the player community already knew how it worked) and the extra words would make an awkward, short carryover onto the next page (i.e. they were summing up). They might have deemed the words unnecessary in the incorrect belief that the rest of their RAW made the key phrase redundant.

There is no corroborating evidence provided that supports your interpretation of their intent behind the omission. That assumption is quite poorly justified.


If you want a more accurate statistic, we need to check every single stat block in all of 3.5 and count how many are right and how many are wrong. Pretty sure more than half of the stat blocks are correct.

For one thing,


Complete Divine has a LOT of errors in it. The editors need to be stabbed in the neck with a "check toee", which is what the Complete Divine lists as the favored weapon of Tharizdun.

Problem is that example blocks are intrinsically not RAW. At best, they might represent RAI, but they are not RAW. Example stat blocks don't list rules, they attempt to demonstrate them. That is an expression of ruling, not of rule.

And as has been expressed before, the content creators were clearly not perfectly of one mind when working on stuff. The fact that whoever created this particular statblock wasn't on the same page with the other creators doesn't make it RAW. You haven't met your burden of proof, because anyone can argue back the evidence that other creators resisted this interpretation, so we have self contradictory RAW if the intent of individual creators is all Canon. Better to let RAW be independent of individual intentions and read it exactly as it is ("as written"), not how one author mistakenly or absent mindedly portrayed it in an example they might have been cranking out at the last minute because they needed a paycheck.


Or check how many stat blocks are wrong in Elder Evils. If the answer is 0 then the RAW is undeniable.

Your argument is begging for circular logic basis in evidence. "None of these are wrong, so this one as a set of these is also not wrong."

And again, statblocks don't even contain rules, so they can't be RAW. At best, they can establish canonical RAI, but you are still opening a discussion on Intent, not how the rules are written. The RAW on the matter is still in the Persistent Spell feat description and not amy statblock.


Just because a few stat blocks in a different book is wrong doesn't make all stat blocks wrong just like a typo in the rules doesn't make every rule in every book wrong.

Irrelevant as statblocks are not the foundation for RAW; the feat description is.


That's a 3.0 errata so it doesn't apply. Persistent Spell was changed drastically in 3.5. most notably it is now a +6 metamagic instead of a +4 metamagic.

I looked up the two feats and I really only see the one changed you described. It costs more, now and that seems the only effective difference. They cleared up the wording, but it seems to function exactly the same way.

If the intent for the two was identical function, then errata for one will explain both.

[gogogome]

snip

3.0 errata for FRCS does not apply to the 3.5 Complete Arcane feat. There is absolutely no way it can apply. Are you saying an errata for a different book in a previous edition specific to one setting has the ability rewrite and alter a more recent setting neutral 3.5 book?

You just admitted the statblocks are RAI. Fixed Range is not defined anywhere. Touch Range is arguably fixed range. Persistent Spell no longer forbids touch ranged spells from being persisted. And we got a RAI example that says you can. I think it's pretty clear that WotC decided to remove the touch spell restriction since both RAW and RAI in 3.5 says you can persist touch spells.

Unless you find a direct RAW that says touch spells are not fixed range you are incorrect.

[RoboEmperor]

If the intent for the two was identical function, then errata for one will explain both.

I think is incredibly hypocritical of you to say this after ranting about RAW.

Complete Arcane is the primary source for Persistent Spell for 3.5. So RAW says who wins in a fight? FRCS errata or Complete Arcane's feat description?

First you say stat blocks are irrelevant because they are RAI not RAW. And then you say RAI of persistent spell is to not apply to touch and then you say RAI (not RAW) is to apply the FRCS errata to Complete Arcane. And now you're saying the RAI of FRCS errata beats the RAI of Elder Evils. So now we have a super RAI whose name is FRCS errata that beats Primary Source RAW, Complete Arcane RAW, and Elder Evils RAI. Wow... that is some powerful RAI.


3.0 errata for FRCS does not apply to the 3.5 Complete Arcane feat. There is absolutely no way it can apply. Are you saying an errata for a different book in a previous edition specific to one setting has the ability rewrite and alter a more recent setting neutral 3.5 book?

You just admitted the statblocks are RAI. Fixed Range is not defined anywhere. Touch Range is arguably fixed range. Persistent Spell no longer forbids touch ranged spells from being persisted. And we got a RAI example that says you can. I think it's pretty clear that WotC decided to remove the touch spell restriction since both RAW and RAI in 3.5 says you can persist touch spells.

Unless you find a direct RAW that says touch spells are not fixed range you are incorrect.

I agree completely.

[Necroticplague]

That fallacy doesn't apply here, because persistent spell applies to X, touch spells fall within X, but you're claiming they don't. Saying that "nothing says you can't apply persistent spell to touch spells" is a perfectly valid thing to say. Here, let me show you how the logic works:

1) Persistent spell is a metamagic feat
2) Metamagic feats can be applied to spells
3) Spells with touch range are, by their nature, spells
4) Persistent spell doesn't say touch spells can't be persisted
Except you're missing that persistent spell doesn't have a general ability to apply to any spell. The metamagic itself has inherent restriction on what it can apply to, just like Energy Substitution. It's not written 'can't apply to non-fixed/personal spells', it's 'can only apply to fixed/personal'. So in order for touch spells to fall under it, it must be shown that they fall under the fixed range or personal categories of spells. Thus, arguing that touch spells should be possible should still logically be a positive argument, not a negative one.


And you're actually wrong, the rules do say, on many occasions, what you can't do. For example, you can't persist a spell with variable range, as explicitly defined by the feat itself.
In such instances when the rules specify what you can't do, they are laying down caveats to more general rules that allow you to do things.

For example, in this case, metamagic can generally apply to any spell. However, Persistent Spell is creating a caveat in that generality that this one can only be applied to two kinds of spells (must have a personal range or a fixed range).




Yogi already covered that:



A fireball on the other hand has a range that changes based on circumstance (in fireball's case, the CL of the spell).And a touch spell has a reach that also changes range based on the circumstances (in this case, your reach). If we're saying 'your CL' counts as a variable for determining range, thus making them variable range, what's so special about 'your reach' that makes it not count as a variable for determining range? Yes, yogi has a rather cute analogy, but it doesn't really hold much weight considering that you don't physically exist within your reach (thus, why an enemy can't AoO you if you touch someone withing their reach if they can't reach your space), so, for every single intent and purpose, there is a difference in distance between you and your target, despite his conclusion.

[Pleh]

3.0 errata for FRCS does not apply to the 3.5 Complete Arcane feat. There is absolutely no way it can apply.

This is incorrect. It is the same feat updated, so it would make sense that the intent in both "editions" would be comparable, especially if the wording is clearly close.

The only meaningful distinction I see is the increased metamagic price, so I don't see much reason to assume the intent was changed as much as the "new edition" recalibrated the potency of the feat.

I could see an argument for, "they increased the Metamagic cost to offset the increase in power that came from removing language that barred Touch spells." But that hasn't been what anyone has argued yet.


Are you saying an errata for a different book in a previous edition specific to one setting has the ability rewrite and alter a more recent setting neutral 3.5 book?

Persistent Spell 3.0 also showed up in Deities and Demigods as 3.0 material, so the No Touch Persist wasn't setting specific.

And I really don't consider 3.0 and 3.5 to be truly separate entities. It's bad form to mix them without permission, but they essentially plug and play without any conversions. It's not fair to compare their relationship like comparing AD&D to 4e.


You just admitted the statblocks are RAI. Fixed Range is not defined anywhere. Touch Range is arguably fixed range. Persistent Spell no longer forbids touch ranged spells from being persisted. And we got a RAI example that says you can. I think it's pretty clear that WotC decided to remove the touch spell restriction since both RAW and RAI in 3.5 says you can persist touch spells.

RAW does not say you can persist touch spells in 3.5. The point of our argument is that it doesn't say enough to declare.

Burden of proof is on the other side of the argument. The statblock from the OP counts towards RAI, but since it conflicts with other other authors RAI, it isn't even that strong of RAI.

Leaves it strongly in the DM fiat area of what is or isn't RAW

[Nifft]

Hmm.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell


A persistent spell has a duration of 24 hours. The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You need not concentrate on spells such as detect magic or detect thoughts to be aware of the mere presence of absence of the things detected, but you must still concentrate to gain additional information as normal. Concentration on such a spell is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell’s actual level.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#holdingtheCharge


Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks
Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

Holding the Charge
If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.


It looks like Touch spells are discharged, and this disqualifies them from participating in Persist-o-mancy.

[RoboEmperor]

Hmm.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#holdingtheCharge


It looks like Touch spells are discharged, and this disqualifies them from participating in Persist-o-mancy.

Oh I remember this argument. This was one of the arguments that made me rule touch spells could not be persisted. Stat block v.s. general rule, general rule wins. How did I forget it.

AFAIK there is no difference between a melee touch attack and a harmless melee touch.

Which reminds me, can you coup de grace cure light wounds? I'm a ask in the RAW thread.

[Nifft]

Oh I remember this argument. This was one of the arguments that made me rule touch spells could not be persisted. Stat block v.s. general rule, general rule wins. How did I forget it. In the excitement of looking at a deceptive close-reading, you lost sight of the bigger picture. Happens to everyone.


AFAIK there is no difference between a melee touch attack and a harmless melee touch. You provoke an AoO when attempting a harmless melee touch. They are different in at least that way, possibly other ways too.


Which reminds me, can you coup de grace cure light wounds? I'm a ask in the RAW thread. I don't think the creatures which are harmed by CLW are subject to C-d-G, but there's probably an exception somewhere.

[Florian]

Which reminds me, can you coup de grace cure light wounds? I'm a ask in the RAW thread.

What do you exactly mean?
1) Crit healing someone who is down.
2) Using CLW as weapon as part of a CdG against something that can be hurt be CLW.

Basically, the whole chain of events must happens so the CdG rules apply. It must be damage and the damage cause, if survived, will set the DC for the death save. Ergo, you deal no damage, no DC could be calculated, it is no CdG.

[gogogome]

This is incorrect. It is the same feat updated, so it would make sense that the intent in both "editions" would be comparable, especially if the wording is clearly close.

The only meaningful distinction I see is the increased metamagic price, so I don't see much reason to assume the intent was changed as much as the "new edition" recalibrated the potency of the feat.

That's not how it works.


Choose one type of energy: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. You can modify any spell with an energy designator to use the chosen type of energy instead. A substituted spell works normally in all respects, except that the type of damage dealt changes. For example, an acidic fireball still deals damage in a 20-foot spread, except that it is acid damage instead of fire damage. If a spell has a secondary effect, the altered spell still has that effect. For example, a shout spell can deafen creatures and deals extra damage to crystalline creatures; if fire is substituted for sonic energy in a shout spell, creatures can still be deafened and crystalline creatures still suffer extra damage. Sometimes a spell's minor effects are directly related to the spell's energy, for example, a flaming sphere can set items afire, but a purely sonic or acidic flaming sphere does not. When a spell deals some damage that does not come from energy, Energy Substitution does not affect that portion of the spell. For example, ice storm deals 3d6 points of impact damage and 2d6 points of cold damage. An electrical ice storm deals 3d6 points of impact damage and 2d6 points of electricity damage. A substituted spell uses a spell slot zero levels higher than (the same as) the spell's actual level.


Choose one type of energy (acid, cold, electricity, or fire). You can then modify any spell with an energy descriptor to use the chosen type of energy instead. An energy substituted spell uses a spell slot of the spell's normal level. The spell's descriptor changes to the new energy type—for example, a fireball composed of cold energy is an evocation [cold] spell.

"The original intention of the 3.0 version of Energy Substitution allowed conversion to Sonic. The text is similar to the Complete Arcane version which means the Sonic part was lost in the copy and paste. The intention of 3.0 version allowed Sonic energy so that's why I can add Sonic to the Complete Arcane version of the feat because it's RAI, the text is similar enough, and the exclusion of sonic was a mistake caused by multiple freelance writers not communicating with each other."

You cannot pick and choose or cut and paste some parts of 3.0 and some parts of 3.5 and call that RAI and RAW. You look at the latest version exclusively and completely forget the existence of the previous version because that is what an update is. If you don't like what the update did like being limited to only 1 Astral construct at a time, too bad. If you think the update was a mistake, typo, or whatever, too bad, that thing will forever be broken and can only be usable with house rules.

[RoboEmperor]

What do you exactly mean?
1) Crit healing someone who is down.
2) Using CLW as weapon as part of a CdG against something that can be hurt be CLW.

Basically, the whole chain of events must happens so the CdG rules apply. It must be damage and the damage cause, if survived, will set the DC for the death save. Ergo, you deal no damage, no DC could be calculated, it is no CdG.

Thanks. That's solid reasoning.

[RedMage125]

That is awesome. I believe this is my new favorite WotC error.

Thanks! Back on the old WotC boards, someone once said that a "check toee" is an exotic weapon that deals 2d12 damage, with an additional 5d6 to creatures of the "editor" subtype. Lol.

In case you'd like more info on this detail, btw, "check toee" was a note to the writers to check the Temple Of Elemental Evil module for Tharizdun's favored weapon. Which is, by the way, a dagger.

[Pleh]

You cannot pick and choose or cut and paste some parts of 3.0 and some parts of 3.5 and call that RAI and RAW.

Isn't that precisely what the Pro Persistent Touch Spells debaters (for lack of better term) were doing? They were looking at the "removal" of the specific exclusion of touch spells as indicating that the exclusion was also meant to be removed. That is deriving RAW/RAI by comparing the two editions that you say we ought not do, yes?

But regardless, it looks like the matter has been largely settled on the "discharge" clause. Whether my arguments worked or not seem irrelevant since there's a more effective argument on the table.

[Crake]

Hmm.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#persistentSpell


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#holdingtheCharge


It looks like Touch spells are discharged, and this disqualifies them from participating in Persist-o-mancy.

You'll note that it's actually two different things being referenced here. With touch spells, the spell is being discharged, as opposed to the spell's effect. Examples of effects being discharged include surge of fortune and true strike, but not bears endurance. Discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect.

[RoboEmperor]

You'll note that it's actually two different things being referenced here. With touch spells, the spell is being discharged, as opposed to the spell's effect. Examples of effects being discharged include surge of fortune and true strike, but not bears endurance. Discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect.

One could argue the spell's effect is discharged onto the guy. I guess there is enough wiggle room here and the stat block really helps you, but whatever. My motto is avoid the problem altogether. It's not like touch spells are good spells to persist because one dispel magic and POOF they're gone. Aura spells however can only be dispelled if they have line of effect to you which is impossible if you're inside a backpack.

If every other stat block in Elder Evils is completely error free I will proclaim that you are 100% right and touch spells can be persisted. If even one stat block has one tiny error then I'm a avoid the issue and be content with un-dispellable buffs over extended persistent girallon's blessing.

Too lazy to go over the stat blocks. But then again... I can just lie to all of you that I did, and and say there was no error, and say therefore Elder Evils is legit and Pleh can actually check the stat blocks himself to prove me wrong :P

[Crake]

One could argue the spell's effect is discharged onto the guy. I guess there is enough wiggle room here and the stat block really helps you, but whatever. My motto is avoid the problem altogether. It's not like touch spells are good spells to persist because one dispel magic and POOF they're gone. Aura spells however can only be dispelled if they have line of effect to you which is impossible if you're inside a backpack.

If every other stat block in Elder Evils is completely error free I will proclaim that you are 100% right and touch spells can be persisted. If even one stat block has one tiny error then I'm a avoid the issue and be content with un-dispellable buffs over extended persistent girallon's blessing.

Too lazy to go over the stat blocks. But then again... I can just lie to all of you that I did, and and say there was no error, and say therefore Elder Evils is legit and Pleh can actually check the stat blocks himself to prove me wrong :P

Aura spells also require line of effect to emanate out, so if you don't have line of effect to anyone, they don't have it to you either, so your aura does nothing? Whether or not something is worth it due to dispel being a thing is a different argument, but either way, "the spell's effect is discharged onto the guy" isn't correct. The spell is being discharged onto the guy, producing the spell's effect. The spell has no effect until it is applied to a target, thus the effect cannot be discharged.

Nice try regarding the touch discharging, but the wording doesn't support that.

[RoboEmperor]

Aura spells also require line of effect to emanate out, so if you don't have line of effect to anyone, they don't have it to you either, so your aura does nothing? Whether or not something is worth it due to dispel being a thing is a different argument, but either way, "the spell's effect is discharged onto the guy" isn't correct. The spell is being discharged onto the guy, producing the spell's effect. The spell has no effect until it is applied to a target, thus the effect cannot be discharged.

Nice try regarding the touch discharging, but the wording doesn't support that.

There's a 1ftx1ft hole in the backpack between me and the minion i'm buffing so the only guy who has line of effect to me and vice versa is my minion.

I think you're in the right here, I do, but I'm too biased atm for the persistent touch spells to see if it's really correct or not so I'll let you do all the arguing. If there is any.

[Crake]

There's a 1ftx1ft hole in the backpack between me and the minion i'm buffing so the only guy who has line of effect to me and vice versa is my minion.

Until the backpack is sundered :smalltongue:


I think you're in the right here, I do, but I'm too biased atm for the persistent touch spells to see if it's really correct or not so I'll let you do all the arguing. If there is any.

Well, I've yet to see anything to convince me otherwise. Honestly, it's not an argument I'm particularly passionate about, and I couldn't really care less what other people do at their tables. Most people seem rather set in their ways about it all, so whatever. The only argument that I find particularly irking is the "Reach is variable, thus touch range isn't fixed". It's such an obnoxious, willfully dense argument.

[Pleh]

Until the backpack is sundered :smalltongue:

You don't usually sunder creatures.

Roboemperor is altered self into a Ravid to animate objects nearby.

[RoboEmperor]

You don't usually sunder creatures.

Roboemperor is altered self into a Ravid to animate objects nearby.

No I'm not. I don't do that anymore. Check out my build to see what I do now and if you have any comments feel free to post something in that thread :)

[Nifft]

You'll note that it's actually two different things being referenced here. With touch spells, the spell is being discharged, as opposed to the spell's effect. Examples of effects being discharged include surge of fortune and true strike, but not bears endurance. Discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect.

That's a distinction without a difference, since a Touch spell's effect is also discharged.

When the spell discharges, you can either discharge the effect simultaneously -- or you can hold the discharge, which is also holding the charge, because the spell's discharge is the effect's charge, and when you make an attack while holding the charge then the effect is discharged.

Spell -> discharges into effect charge (can be held) -> discharges into whatever the spell does (to target).

So sure, discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect -- but the fact that Touch spells always discharge both spell and effect means that Touch spells can never be Persisted.

[Doctor Awkward]

There are seven possible ranges of spells in 3.5 D&D:

-Personal
-Touch
-Close
-Medium
-Long
-Unlimited
-Other

Persistent Spell applies only to spells with a "fixed or personal range".

Personal is personal.
Close, Medium, and Long all are clearly variable ranges.
"Other" is as the spell description, but is usually a set number expressed in feet. Those can all be persisted.

"Touch" is defined as the maximum length of your reach. The specific length of your reach can change with size. The definition of "touch" does not. It is fixed at all times at the maximum length of your reach.

Touch spells can be persisted.


That's a distinction without a difference, since a Touch spell's effect is also discharged.

That is not what "effects that can be discharged" is referring to.
A discharge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)-able spell refers to the duration. Spells that have effects which can be discharged are noted as such there. These include things like Protection from Energy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEnergy.htm), Protection from Arrows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm), Stoneskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneskin.htm), or Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm).

None of these effects can be persisted on account of having effects that can be discharged. Assuming it is referring to the "Holding the Charge" rule on certain touch spells (which does not, incidentally, apply to all touch spells universally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#touchSpellsandHoldingtheChar ge)) is a willful misreading of RAW.

[Crake]

That's a distinction without a difference, since a Touch spell's effect is also discharged.

Since I cannot actually think of a better analogy, I will use this one: Discharging the spell onto someone is like strapping a suicide vest on them. Discharging the effect is like actually blowing it up.

It is not a distinction without a difference.

[fallensavior]

I don't understand why people think touch spells can't be persisted. The whole "touch range is variable because reach" is such a willfully ignorant reading. The range is "touch" not "your reach". Your reach simply determines how far away you can touch something, but either way, the range of the spell is "touch", nothing variable about it.


You'll note that it's actually two different things being referenced here. With touch spells, the spell is being discharged, as opposed to the spell's effect. Examples of effects being discharged include surge of fortune and true strike, but not bears endurance. Discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect.

This is very well said. I think you win the thread.

[Nifft]

That's a distinction without a difference, since a Touch spell's effect is also discharged.

When the spell discharges, you can either discharge the effect simultaneously -- or you can hold the discharge, which is also holding the charge, because the spell's discharge is the effect's charge, and when you make an attack while holding the charge then the effect is discharged.

Spell -> discharges into effect charge (can be held) -> discharges into whatever the spell does (to target).

So sure, discharging a spell does not equate discharging an effect -- but the fact that Touch spells always discharge both spell and effect means that Touch spells can never be Persisted.


Since I cannot actually think of a better analogy, I will use this one: Discharging the spell onto someone is like strapping a suicide vest on them. Discharging the effect is like actually blowing it up.

It is not a distinction without a difference.

It looks like you are repeating something I said, and acting like that's a refutation.

In the case of Touch spells, you discharge the spell when you complete the casting action; you discharge the effect when you Touch a target. That means the effect is discharged.

You can only "hold the charge" after discharging the spell because the effect you hold is discharged.

Completing the Touch portion discharges the effect of a Touch spell.


It's true that "discharge" is also used in other ways, and I guess it's possible to confirmation-bias your way into ignoring some of the rules by focusing on others, but that's not really a useful position.

[RoboEmperor]

It looks like you are repeating something I said, and acting like that's a refutation.

In the case of Touch spells, you discharge the spell when you complete the casting action; you discharge the effect when you Touch a target. That means the effect is discharged.

You can only "hold the charge" after discharging the spell because the effect you hold is discharged.

Completing the Touch portion discharges the effect of a Touch spell.


It's true that "discharge" is also used in other ways, and I guess it's possible to confirmation-bias your way into ignoring some of the rules by focusing on others, but that's not really a useful position.

Let's just put everything together.
1. Persistent Spell says you can't persist spells whose effects are discharged
2. The touch spell rule says you can hold the spell and discharge the spell.
3. Does discharging the spell = spell's effects discharging?

Crake: A spell and a spell's effect are two different things. A spell's effect is the text. Bull's strength has no mention of discharge so the spell's effect does not discharge. You discharge the spell onto the target and the spell's effect gives it +4 str.
Nifft: The spell and spell's effects are one package and if you discharge the spell on a guy, the effects are discharged are onto the guy as well. So you are discharging the +4 str onto the guy.

But here's the problem. +4 str is the effect. +4 str does not discharge. It doesn't matter if you "discharge" the +4 str onto a guy, the +4 str itself does not discharge and +4 str is the effect therefore the spell's effect does not discharge.

I'm gonna have to agree with Crake here.

Why don't you use bull's strength as an example and walk us through how exactly the +4 str is an effect that discharges? You hold the +4 str on your hand, you discharge the +4 str onto a guy, so how does that make +4 str an effect that discharges? Discharging an effect onto a guy =/= an effect that discharges.

[gogogome]

Let's just put everything together.
1. Persistent Spell says you can't persist spells whose effects are discharged
2. The touch spell rule says you can hold the spell and discharge the spell.
3. Does discharging the spell = spell's effects discharging?

Crake: A spell and a spell's effect are two different things. A spell's effect is the text. Bull's strength has no mention of discharge so the spell's effect does not discharge. You discharge the spell onto the target and the spell's effect gives it +4 str.
Nifft: The spell and spell's effects are one package and if you discharge the spell on a guy, the effects are discharged are onto the guy as well. So you are discharging the +4 str onto the guy.

But here's the problem. +4 str is the effect. +4 str does not discharge. It doesn't matter if you "discharge" the +4 str onto a guy, the +4 str itself does not discharge and +4 str is the effect therefore the spell's effect does not discharge.

I'm gonna have to agree with Crake here.

Why don't you use bull's strength as an example and walk us through how exactly the +4 str is an effect that discharges? You hold the +4 str on your hand, you discharge the +4 str onto a guy, so how does that make +4 str an effect that discharges? Discharging an effect onto a guy =/= an effect that discharges.

"effects are discharge" means either the effects are discharged onto a guy, or that the effect is a discharging effect. Nifft is claiming the former, Crake is claiming the latter. So a +4 str is not an effect that is discharged but it is an effect that is discharged onto a guy.

I'm inclined to side with Crake because a spell being discharged does not mean its effects are being discharged and especially because of the stat block.

[Nifft]

"effects are discharge" means either the effects are discharged onto a guy, or that the effect is a discharging effect. Nifft is claiming the former, Crake is claiming the latter. So a +4 str is not an effect that is discharged but it is an effect that is discharged onto a guy.

I'm inclined to side with Crake because a spell being discharged does not mean its effects are being discharged and especially because of the stat block.

Crake's claim is: because "or until discharged" spells are discharged, no other spells can be discharged. The italics part of his claim is incorrect.


The non-italics part of his claim -- that "or until discharged" spells are discharged -- is accurate, but the text about Touch spells clearly says that a Touch spell's effect is discharged through the associated touch attack(s).

In fact that text uses "discharge" in two distinct ways, neither of which is the Crake way.

[Crake]

Crake's claim is: because "or until discharged" spells are discharged, no other spells can be discharged. The italics part of his claim is incorrect.


The non-italics part of his claim -- that "or until discharged" spells are discharged -- is accurate, but the text about Touch spells clearly says that a Touch spell's effect is discharged through the associated touch attack(s).

In fact that text uses "discharge" in two distinct ways, neither of which is the Crake way.

Honestly nifft, I'm not trying to convince you. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people who have convinced themselves things work one way, you and I are just entering a circular logic debate, nothing new is being presented. My arguments have been laid out, those who read them and see the logic and are convinced, that's who it's written for. People who refuse to see the logic because they don't want to, because it means having to change the way they play the game, whatever, they can play however they like.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Touch is a dependant variable. As you change one variable another changes, ergo it is not fixed: that is the common definition of the word fixed. At this stage all you, Crake, are doing is launching attacks on anyone who disagrees with your opinion by calling them dense and accusing them of being illogical while simultaneously building an argument that starts with redefining the word fixed.

[Nifft]

Honestly nifft, I'm not trying to convince you. As I said earlier, there are plenty of people who have convinced themselves things work one way, you and I are just entering a circular logic debate, nothing new is being presented. My arguments have been laid out, those who read them and see the logic and are convinced, that's who it's written for. Look, crake, your argument has flaws.

I've laid out some of the more obvious flaws. I was trying to convince you, since you had presented a veneer of rationality, but apparently it was wasted effort since you're dismissing new arguments as "circular".

I should be playing to the audience, I guess, since you've put yourself somewhere inaccessible to contrary evidence?


People who refuse to see the logic because they don't want to, because it means having to change the way they play the game, whatever, they can play however they like.

Of course you can, crake. But people like you who refuse to look at the evidence, who view disagreement as justification for nuking the conversation by attacking others, you are not the majority. You're free to take your ball and go home, and you can tell yourself that you won the conversation while the rest of us continue in your absence.


-- -- --

Anyway, back on topic.

"Discharge" appears in many places in the Core rules, and most of them are not congruent with the alleged technical meaning that crake's argument requires.

Here is another:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm


Touch Spells and Holding the Charge

In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.

Some touch spells allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Discharge

Occasionally a spells lasts for a set duration or until triggered or discharged.
If crake were correct, only the last usage of discharge would appear on this page. The preceding uses indicate that he's wrong.


-- -- --

Just as an aside, I've also got an RAI interpretation of Persistent Spell which make the "fixed range" thing a lot cleaner, but that's not the topic here so I'm going to leave it for some future thread.

[Doctor Awkward]

Anyway, back on topic.

"Discharge" appears in many places in the Core rules, and most of them are not congruent with the alleged technical meaning that crake's argument requires.

Here is another:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm
If crake were correct, only the last usage of discharge would appear on this page. The preceding uses indicate that he's wrong.


-- -- --

Just as an aside, I've also got an RAI interpretation of Persistent Spell which make the "fixed range" thing a lot cleaner, but that's not the topic here so I'm going to leave it for some future thread.
..........


That is not what "effects that can be discharged" is referring to.
A discharge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#duration)-able spell refers to the duration. Spells that have effects which can be discharged are noted as such there. These include things like Protection from Energy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEnergy.htm), Protection from Arrows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromArrows.htm), Stoneskin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/stoneskin.htm), or Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm).

None of these effects can be persisted on account of having effects that can be discharged. Assuming it is referring to the "Holding the Charge" rule on certain touch spells (which does not, incidentally, apply to all touch spells universally (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#touchSpellsandHoldingtheChar ge)) is a willful misreading of RAW.

[RoboEmperor]

Touch is a dependant variable. As you change one variable another changes, ergo it is not fixed: that is the common definition of the word fixed. At this stage all you, Crake, are doing is launching attacks on anyone who disagrees with your opinion by calling them dense and accusing them of being illogical while simultaneously building an argument that starts with redefining the word fixed.

I disagree. I didn't see him launching any "attacks", I haven't seen him accuse anyone of being dense, and by your logic every single spell in the game is not fixed range because it's dependent on whether widen spell is applied to it or not and therefore not fixed.

[Crake]

Look, crake, your argument has flaws.

I've laid out some of the more obvious flaws. I was trying to convince you, since you had presented a veneer of rationality, but apparently it was wasted effort since you're dismissing new arguments as "circular".

I should be playing to the audience, I guess, since you've put yourself somewhere inaccessible to contrary evidence?

Your argument is that "discharging the spell also discharges the effect", my argument is "discharging the spell does not discharge the effect". You didn't add a new argument, you just repeated your argument again, after i repeated mine. Nothing new was being presented. Circular arguments. If you fundamentally believe that touching someone to actually cast the spell on them is the same as discharging the effect of a spell that's already in effect, then there's nothing I can really do or say that will change your opinion on the matter.

[RoboEmperor]

Actually, when Persistent Spell forbade discharge spells, it was forbidding Instantaneous spells in the same sentence, so I think there is no doubt the feat was banning spells with a duration of discharge, so I think Doctor Awkward hit it right on the money here.

Yup, I think there's no doubt here that touch spells can be persisted.

[Pleh]

Actually, when Persistent Spell forbade discharge spells, it was forbidding Instantaneous spells in the same sentence, so I think there is no doubt the feat was banning spells with a duration of discharge, so I think Doctor Awkward hit it right on the money here.

Yup, I think there's no doubt here that touch spells can be persisted.

But not just any touch spell by virtue of being a touch spell.

Ultimately, the conclusion ends up being, "some touch spells can and others can't." Shocking Grasp has instantaneous duration.

I think if we haphazardly say, "touch spells can be persisted," it's going to invite debate, because it's phrased in an ambiguous manner that could (and will) be misinterpreted to be more general than the claim was intended to be.

The turning point for me was seeing that some touch spells have effects that discharge under certain conditions and others that don't.

[Doctor Awkward]

But not just any touch spell by virtue of being a touch spell.

Ultimately, the conclusion ends up being, "some touch spells can and others can't." Shocking Grasp has instantaneous duration.

I think if we haphazardly say, "touch spells can be persisted," it's going to invite debate, because it's phrased in an ambiguous manner that could (and will) be misinterpreted to be more general than the claim was intended to be.

The turning point for me was seeing that some touch spells have effects that discharge under certain conditions and others that don't.


The same goes for Personal range spells. There some that cannot be persisted on account of violating one of the other restrictions. Moment of Prescience is one such spell, as it violates the discharge clause.

The point is, Persistent Spell was never a blank check. You were always checking more than one feature of each spell for validity.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I disagree. I didn't see him launching any "attacks", I haven't seen him accuse anyone of being dense, and by your logic every single spell in the game is not fixed range because it's dependent on whether widen spell is applied to it or not and therefore not fixed.


The only argument that I find particularly irking is the "Reach is variable, thus touch range isn't fixed". It's such an obnoxious, willfully dense argument.
and

My arguments have been laid out, those who read them and see the logic and are convinced, that's who it's written for. People who refuse to see the logic because they don't want to, because it means having to change the way they play the game, whatever, they can play however they like.
There are both attacks.

I expected someone to counter with "but widen spell" but at that point you have just created added another variable. The constant is still constant. The sixty foot range is still sixty. The widen spell variable would just be a variable that could be only 1 or 1.5, much like the paralysis modifier of capture in Pokemon. This would be another independent variable. This simple answer is: there is NO answer in DnD since does not adequately define "fixed" for these purposes and there is no explicit process for resolving these disputes and the best thing would be for both sides to lay out their arguments as to why their COULD be a correct answer. The assertion that their answer is right is neither appropriate nor correct.

[ExLibrisMortis]

[...] by your logic every single spell in the game is not fixed range because it's dependent on whether widen spell is applied to it or not and therefore not fixed.
Widen Spell affects area, not range.
Enlarge Spell affects range, but can't be applied to fixed-range spells. It must be applied to spells with Close, Medium, or Long range.

For cases that do work (Ocular Spell, perhaps), Zamiel's got you covered.

[RoboEmperor]

Widen Spell affects area, not range.
Enlarge Spell affects range, but can't be applied to fixed-range spells. It must be applied to spells with Close, Medium, or Long range.

For cases that do work (Ocular Spell, perhaps), Zamiel's got you covered.

Widen Spell affects emanation spells which are persistable.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Widen Spell affects emanation spells which are persistable.
...Which is irrelevant, because "emanation" is a type of area, not a range.

[RoboEmperor]

...Which is irrelevant, because "emanation" is a type of area, not a range.

Huh, you're right, I must've confused the area with the range entry. how embarrassing.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Huh, you're right, I must've confused the area with the range entry. how embarrassing.
It's bound to happen to everyone sooner or later :smalltongue:.

[Florian]

The point is, Persistent Spell was never a blank check. You were always checking more than one feature of each spell for validity.

Looking at Permanency is quite informative. Instead of trying some formula, they opted for a fixed list and added permanency information to later spells.

Personally, that showcases one of the ugliest flaws of 3E, how they botched at the systematic approach of creating a system* and actually shows that the whole keywords thingie is not that bad. (Persist), (Permanency) and such keyword on the spell stat block would really be more than clear.

* I guess it would have been easier to first create a coherent core system, then update the AD&D system to it, instead of a direct transition from AD&D 2nd to AD&D 3rd (What 3E actually is).

[Nifft]

Your argument is that "discharging the spell also discharges the effect", my argument is "discharging the spell does not discharge the effect". Your argument is wrong, because Touch spells do discharge their effect.

The fact that the spell can discharge separately from the effect's discharge is not a counter-argument -- the effect is always discharged (by completing the Touch attack, or by touching anything else), and this means the effect also discharges, and this disqualifies Touch spells from Persist-o-mancy.

You are saying one true thing (spell discharge isn't the same as effect discharge), but you are wrong about using that thing to support your argument -- every Touch spell's effect also discharges, and that's the criteria which matters. Period.

It's also true that some spells have discharge clauses in their durations. Those spells are also disqualified from Persist-o-mancy.

What I've been doing is finding the fatal flaw in your argument, and exposing the flaw using reason and rules citations.

You can run, but you can't smokescreen your way out of this.



and

There are both attacks. Yeah there's a bit too much "here's my unfounded opinion and if you disagree you are willfully misreading so I don't need to engage in honest discussion".

It's provocative but I guess that's the point -- if the thread goes down in flames, they can pretend they didn't lose the conversation.

Cheers all around for resisting the provocation.



Looking at Permanency is quite informative. Instead of trying some formula, they opted for a fixed list and added permanency information to later spells.

Personally, that showcases one of the ugliest flaws of 3E, how they botched at the systematic approach of creating a system* and actually shows that the whole keywords thingie is not that bad. (Persist), (Permanency) and such keyword on the spell stat block would really be more than clear.

* I guess it would have been easier to first create a coherent core system, then update the AD&D system to it, instead of a direct transition from AD&D 2nd to AD&D 3rd (What 3E actually is). Good call.

Permanency is also part of how I looked at my homebrew RAI interpretation for Persistent Spell.

Personally I think that stuff which can be Permanency'd might be fair to also be Persist'd -- so you can totally use Persistent enlarge person, but not just any Touch spells.


I think the "fixed-range" clause was intended to include spells that could have been written as Personal (e.g. detect thoughts, detect magic, comprehend languages, deathwatch, etc.) -- the Core spells with fixed range seem to be mostly information spells that somewhat misuse the range line.

Later splatbooks tended to break this categorization, but anything broken can be fixed by a well-motivated DM.

Sufficiently advanced houserules are indistinguishable from a well-written game.

[fallensavior]

Your argument is wrong, because Touch spells do discharge their effect.

The fact that the spell can discharge separately from the effect's discharge is not a counter-argument -- the effect is always discharged (by completing the Touch attack, or by touching anything else), and this means the effect also discharges, and this disqualifies Touch spells from Persist-o-mancy.

You are saying one true thing (spell discharge isn't the same as effect discharge), but you are wrong about using that thing to support your argument -- every Touch spell's effect also discharges, and that's the criteria which matters. Period.

It's also true that some spells have discharge clauses in their durations. Those spells are also disqualified from Persist-o-mancy.

What I've been doing is finding the fatal flaw in your argument, and exposing the flaw using reason and rules citations.

You can run, but you can't smokescreen your way out of this.


"Spells whose effects are discharged" is obviously intended to refer to the end of a spell, not the beginning. If it meant the beginning, then it would talk about you (the caster) actively discharging the spell/spell effect. Instead the text goes out of its way to use the passive voice, because it's only talking about when the effect discharges itself.

...

One could also argue that the "holding the charge" rules do not discharge spell effects in the first place. That text uses the word effect zero times. Because you are discharging the spell, not the effect.


In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely.

The effect does not exist until after you successfully discharge your spell.

[Nifft]

"Spells whose effects are discharged" is obviously intended to refer to the end of a spell, not the beginning. If it meant the beginning, then it would talk about you (the caster) actively discharging the spell/spell effect. Instead the text goes out of its way to use the passive voice, because it's only talking about when the effect discharges itself.
Incorrect. As trivial proof: a Fire Trap spell's effect begins when the spell is discharged.

Citation: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm


Similarly, the effect of Contingency begins when it is discharged.

Citation: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/contingency.htm

You're thinking of spells like protection from arrows which stop being effective when discharged, and that's the same mistake crake had made -- you saw one use for the word and assumed it was the ~only~ use for that word.



One could also argue that the "holding the charge" rules do not discharge spell effects in the first place. That text uses the word effect zero times. Because you are discharging the spell, not the effect. The Discharge duration description also uses the word "effect" zero times, so if you were right about this, you'd nuke your own argument as well.

Luckily for your own side, you are wrong.



The effect does not exist until after you successfully discharge your spell.

Incorrect. You can simultaneously discharge the effect and the spell, and in fact this is the default -- not holding the charge means you've done both at the same time, and that's the normal case. Holding the charge is an exception.

[Pleh]

Your argument is wrong, because Touch spells do discharge their effect.

I feel like the devil continues to lie in the details even past this point.

I'll take a crack at it. Let's take a closer look at the use of the word Discharge. I think Crake used the example of strapping a bomb to someone vs setting it off.

How about a mechanically simpler example. Firing a gun can be described as Discharging the weapon to a similar effect as casting a spell. As you pointed out earlier, Touch spell rules say that once you cast a Touch Spell, you can then hold the charge until you touch a valid target of the spell. Going back to the metaphor, this would be like taking the safety off, chambering the round, and any other steps in preparing to fire so that all that remains is the action of pulling the trigger.

When the trigger is pulled, the "Spell" is discharged, but one could argue that its "effects" aren't discharged until the bullet reaches its destination. The effect of this spell would be dealing physical damage.

Now, this example is flawed because it also describes a "spell" with an instantaneous duration (meaning that the spell's effects are automatically discharged after the moment they are first applied).

So let's shift to a similar metaphor that uses the same mechanics, but doesn't necessarily describe an instantaneous duration. Consider a syringe. You load it much like loading a gun and you discharge it by emptying its contents into the target.

But unlike a bullet, the contents of a syringe might affect the target gradually over time (either positively or negatively affecting them). The Syringe "spell" is fully discharged, but the effects linger, meaning they have not been discharged.

This is where I think the semantics have been breaking down between Nifft amd Crake. For Crake, if the effects are ongoing, they haven't been discharged. For Nifft, if the effects have been transferred completely from the caster to the target, then they have been fully discharged.

But the reason I think I would side with Crake on his interpretation is that there are some spells (examples have been given) whose effects DO end early in a manner described as being Discharged from the target they are affecting. Other touch spells have no special conditions that cause their effect to end prematurely.

Ergo, the purpose of the limitation on the Persistent Spell feat is to say you can't make a spell's effects extend past the point a special condition would force the effects to discharge. But if the spell effect's duration are only limited by time and no other conditions, then they are legal to make persistent.

[Crake]

Incorrect. As trivial proof: a Fire Trap spell's effect begins when the spell is discharged.

Citation: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireTrap.htm

Incorrect. Fire trap's effect is "create a trap", which begins as soon as the spell is finished being cast. That effect can then be discharged to create a fiery explosion.

[fallensavior]

Incorrect. You can simultaneously discharge the effect and the spell, and in fact this is the default -- not holding the charge means you've done both at the same time, and that's the normal case. Holding the charge is an exception.

You've proved too much. If every spell ever discharges its effect in the way meant by Persistent Spell, then Persistent Spell can be applied to zero spells. So you are arguing that a metamagic feat was designed that is inherently not allowed to be applied to any spell. Faced with that absurdity, perhaps it is time to reconsider your premises.

[Snowbluff]

So you're saying the range isn't fixed because there is hypothetically an effect that would be able to change your reach.

All spells are of variable range, because you can take ocular spell to make it 60 feet. Or Imbue Arrow. Or Enlarge Spell. There, it was varied. Persistent spell does nothing.

[Nifft]

I feel like the devil continues to lie in the details even past this point.

I'll take a crack at it. Let's take a closer look at the use of the word Discharge. I think Crake used the example of strapping a bomb to someone vs setting it off. I mean, the fact that his analogy is bad doesn't somehow counteract his incorrect argument.

An analogy can help explain something, but if the thing you're explaining is wrong then the analogy just serves to confuse.


How about a mechanically simpler example. Firing a gun can be described as Discharging the weapon to a similar effect as casting a spell. The word "discharge" can be applied to real-life firearms, but not as a D&D term of art.

The D&D gun rules don't use that word, so the Persistent Spell rules text can't apply to guns.


As you pointed out earlier, Touch spell rules say that once you cast a Touch Spell, you can then hold the charge until you touch a valid target of the spell. Going back to the metaphor, this would be like taking the safety off, chambering the round, and any other steps in preparing to fire so that all that remains is the action of pulling the trigger. No, I'm not trying to make a rule via metaphor. I'm literally finding the word discharge used as a technical term in the rules for Touch spells. There is no other justification -- not analogy, not circumstantial similarity, not semantic quibbling.

The word discharge is used in Touch spell mechanics. That's why I think Touch spells are counted among spells that get discharged. It's pretty clear-cut.



This is where I think the semantics have been breaking down between Nifft amd Crake. For Crake, if the effects are ongoing, they haven't been discharged. For Nifft, if the effects have been transferred completely from the caster to the target, then they have been fully discharged. Actually for me it's because the mechanics use the word discharge as a technical term.


But the reason I think I would side with Crake on his interpretation is that there are some spells (examples have been given) whose effects DO end early in a manner described as being Discharged from the target they are affecting. Other touch spells have no special conditions that cause their effect to end prematurely. Those spells are also discharged. They are also (not exclusively but also) prohibited from Persist-o-mancy.

But this is an argument that because you found one, therefore no others can exist -- it's the logical equivalent of the One Steve Rule, which may sometimes be valid in narrative construction, but which would be completely insane if applied to real life.


tl;dr - Spells with either "Duration: until discharged" or "Range: touch" are prohibited from Persistent Spell, for the same reason.




Incorrect. Fire trap's effect is "create a trap", which begins as soon as the spell is finished being cast. That effect can then be discharged to create a fiery explosion. Wrong, and here's some free education for you:



Saving Throw

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow

Saving throws apply to spell effects.



Fire Trap
Abjuration [Fire]
Level: Drd 2, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 10 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: Object touched
Duration: Permanent until discharged (D)
Saving Throw: Reflex half; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes

Fire trap creates a fiery explosion when an intruder opens the item that the trap protects. A fire trap can ward any object that can be opened and closed.
Fire Trap offers a Reflex saving throw against its effect, which is a fiery explosion. There is no saving throw when the trap is created.

The non-explosion portion of the fire trap spell cannot be what the mechanics consider to be the effect. Perhaps the trap is merely a delivery mechanism rather than an effect? Dunno, that's not made clear.

What is clear is that the explosion -- against which a target may make a Reflex saving throw -- is the spell's effect.

The explosion begins when the spell is discharged.

You are wrong.



You've proved too much. If every spell ever discharges its effect in the way meant by Persistent Spell, then Persistent Spell can be applied to zero spells. So you are arguing that a metamagic feat was designed that is inherently not allowed to be applied to any spell. Faced with that absurdity, perhaps it is time to reconsider your premises. Nope.

Only two categories of spells have the mechanical designation discharged: spells with "touch" as their range, and spells with "until discharged" in their duration. Those two categories would be considered effects that can be discharged, and thus excluded from Persistent Spell.

If you get what I'm saying, you'll see there are quite a lot of valid spells for which Persistent Spell can apply.


That said, your main point of logic -- that every rule must be valid somehow, and no mechanical dysfunctions can exist -- is deeply wrong, and you're going to get in trouble if you continue to apply it to this game.

There are rules which have no valid function. We've got threads about them. The threads are fun. The game's writers are imperfect, and they certainly have written absurdities into the rules.

This feat isn't an absurdity, it's just not as applicable as some would have hoped.

[Pleh]

I mean, the fact that his analogy is bad doesn't somehow counteract his incorrect argument.

An analogy can help explain something, but if the thing you're explaining is wrong then the analogy just serves to confuse.

The word "discharge" can be applied to real-life firearms, but not as a D&D term of art.

The D&D gun rules don't use that word, so the Persistent Spell rules text can't apply to guns.

No, I'm not trying to make a rule via metaphor. I'm literally finding the word discharge used as a technical term in the rules for Touch spells. There is no other justification -- not analogy, not circumstantial similarity, not semantic quibbling.

The word discharge is used in Touch spell mechanics. That's why I think Touch spells are counted among spells that get discharged. It's pretty clear-cut.


Actually for me it's because the mechanics use the word discharge as a technical term.

TL;DR, Persistent Spell doesn't prohibit "Spells That Are Discharged". It prohibits "Spells Whose EFFECTS Are Discharged."

I disagree that Spell Duration: until Discharged means the same as Discharging a Touch Spell. I agree that it's confusing for the game makers to use the word two different ways, but considering how subtle the distinction, I'm not sure they were aware (at least until it wasn't worth devoting resources to fix).

Take Bear's Endurance.

It's range is Touch, so the Spell is discharged upon touch (as per the touch spell rules), BUT the Spell Effects have a duration AFTER the Spell's Discharge of 1 minute per level.

Now we compare with Protection Against Energy.

The spell has Duration: until Discharged, which is triggered by the spell negating an amount of energy damage. The text says the Spell is Discharged (which ends it's effects).

So, we have Bear's Endurance, whose effects do not end when the spell is discharged. That is when the effects begin. The effects are never discharged, they just persist until the end of the Spell's duration.

Then we have Protection From Energy, whose effects are discharged some time after the spell is discharged upon the set amount of energy damage is negated (assuming it's before the time duration of the spell).

But Persistent Spell prohibits Spells Whose EFFECTS Are Discharged. The rules for Discharging Touch Spells says the Spell is discharged, not its Effects. If that were the case, the spell would end immediately with no effect. Discharging the Touch Spell means releasing its power into an active state. Discharging its Effects means the spell ends.

Ergo, Persistent Spell seems to be trying to convey that it does not help you Persist spells that would normally end because of special conditions.

Bear's Endurance is Discharged upon Touch, after which its Effects Persist for the Spell's Duration and the Effects are never Discharged (they can be Counterspelled, Dispelled, Suppressed, etc, but nothing will cause them to Discharge).

The Touch Spell Rules clearly outline how Spell Effects are Delivered to a Target (Discharged). Duration: until Discharged clearly defines Spell Effects that are Ended under special conditions (Discharged).

If somehow the authors intended both meanings simultaneously, I'd have to agree that this was some extremely poor writing, because the RAW does not seem to reflect that RAI.

In many cases I might agree with you that in cases of ambiguity, the right thing might be to presume both intended meanings, but the specificity of Persistent Spell to indicate the Discharge of Spell Effects and not the Spell itself would create an implication to the contrary.

If Persistent Spell were to prohibit Spells that are Discharged, I think the language would support your interpretation better.

[Nifft]

I disagree that Spell Duration: until Discharged means the same as Discharging a Touch Spell. That's not an assertion which I make, so you can't disagree with me about it.



The Touch Spell Rules clearly outline how Spell Effects are Delivered to a Target (Discharged). Duration: until Discharged clearly defines Spell Effects that are Ended under special conditions (Discharged).

If somehow the authors intended both meanings simultaneously, I'd have to agree that this was some extremely poor writing, because the RAW does not seem to reflect that RAI. What the authors intended is probably an interesting discussion.

When I look at the examples they use in the feat:


A persistent spell has a duration of 24 hours. The persistent spell must have a personal or a fixed range (for example, comprehend languages or detect magic). Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effect is discharged. You need not concentrate on spells such as detect magic and detect thoughts to be aware of the mere presence or absence of the thing detected, but you must still concentrate to gain additional information as normal. Concentration on such a spell is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
... what I see are spells which could have been Personal range, but weren't written as Personal for some reason.

I think the intent behind the feat's selection criteria is to include spells that work on you, and they added "fixed range" to compensate for a few poor writing decisions early in the edition (like the decision to make detect magic not Personal).


This meaning for "fixed range" -- implied by 2/3 of the example spells, which is admittedly a small sample size -- would also exclude Touch spells.

If I were to judge by designer intent, then Touch spells would be excluded for at least these two reasons.

There's a 3rd possible reason, too: when a significant change happens across editions, that change is often spelled out (not merely inferred by what was omitted). If the designers intended to drop the 3.0e Touch spell exclusion, I think they would have talked about it somewhere. As far as I know, there is no such designer commentary, which is unfortunate because it would have been illustrative.

Anyway, if you would prefer to discuss intent rather than RAW, that's cool too -- but that's a different discussion than what's been going on so far in this thread.

RAW would seem to prohibit Touch spells.

RAI also might prohibit Touch spells, but for different reasons. :smallcool:

[Doctor Awkward]

There's a 3rd possible reason, too: when a significant change happens across editions, that change is often spelled out (not merely inferred by what was omitted). If the designers intended to drop the 3.0e Touch spell exclusion, I think they would have talked about it somewhere. As far as I know, there is no such designer commentary, which is unfortunate because it would have been illustrative.

Or they dropped it because in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 there were one or more "personal or fixed" range spells that were made into touch, and they didn't want to exclude those from being persisted.

[Nifft]

Or they dropped it because in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 there were one or more "personal or fixed" range spells that were made into touch, and they didn't want to exclude those from being persisted.

There are a few spells which are "Personal or Touch" range, and those aren't excluded from Persist-o-mancy.

There are several such spells in Core:
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomOfMovement.htm
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/findThePath.htm
- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/foresight.htm

That can't be the reason.

[Crake]

Wrong, and here's some free education for you:


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#savingThrow

Saving throws apply to spell effects.

Fire Trap offers a Reflex saving throw against its effect, which is a fiery explosion. There is no saving throw when the trap is created.

The non-explosion portion of the fire trap spell cannot be what the mechanics consider to be the effect. Perhaps the trap is merely a delivery mechanism rather than an effect? Dunno, that's not made clear.

What is clear is that the explosion -- against which a target may make a Reflex saving throw -- is the spell's effect.

The explosion begins when the spell is discharged.

You are wrong.

You'll note that the first part you quoted says the saving throw applies to "some or all of the effect". You conveniently ignored the first word there. Some of the effect. The exploding trap is the entire effect, the trap is discharged to produce the fiery explosion. Spells can have multiple portions to their effects, some of which may or may not allow a save, and you are willfully ignoring that to solidify your point, not cool.

[Pleh]

That's not an assertion which I make, so you can't disagree with me about it.

Well, I can disagree with you about anything arbitrarily, but that's neither here nor there. I do disagree with your conclusions because your current exposition on RAW's use of the term Discharge seems to only cover how Touch Spells are Discharged through a touch.

However, I just proved that this does not mean that the Spell's Effects are Discharged, which is the only legal limitation of Persistent Spell. In short, by the argument you've presented, the Range of Touch is not intrinsically disqualified from Persistent Spell by virtue that it is cast through Discharging, because that does not intrinsically cause the Spell's Effects to be Discharged.

Once more, suppose we cast Protection from Energy. It is a Touch Spell, so by your insistence about this mythical "one meaning" of the Discharge term, the Spell is Discharged upon Casting. However, its Spell Effects then Persist for the Duration and these Spell Effects (by RAW) can be Discharged (the second meaning you keep ignoring) if the Spell negates the maximum set amount of Energy Damage.

---

Side note for everyone. I think I've found the source of the double meaning in Discharge.

In Persistent Spell, there are two categories of limitation: Range and Duration.

The Range Restrictions are: Only Personal and "Fixed Range" (clearly referencing at least the Detect line of spells)

The Duration Restrictions are: Not Instantaneous, and Not *.Until Discharged

The rules for Discharging a Touch Spell through a touch pertain to the Range of the Spell and have no effect on the Duration. But the limit on Discharge is for Discharge of the Duration, not for Range of Discharge.

That puts the argument back into the field of "what is Fixed Area" because the Discharging Range of Touch Spells is not the same as Discharging Duration of some particular spells.

[Malphegor]

I think it’s wibbly enough it could go either way, DM’s discretion. Without errata released or WoTC support ruling, it’s going to be argued forever.

[RoboEmperor]

I think it’s wibbly enough it could go either way, DM’s discretion. Without errata released or WoTC support ruling, it’s going to be argued forever.

Nah, we got an official stat block saying you can persist touch spells. So it's definitive.

[Nifft]

Incorrect. Fire trap's effect is "create a trap", which begins as soon as the spell is finished being cast. That effect can then be discharged to create a fiery explosion. In this post you claim a thing. It's not fuzzy or ambiguous. You claim the explosion is not the spell's effect. You were wrong about that, obviously.


You'll note that the first part you quoted says the saving throw applies to "some or all of the effect". You conveniently ignored the first word there. Some of the effect. The exploding trap is the entire effect, the trap is discharged to produce the fiery explosion. Spells can have multiple portions to their effects, some of which may or may not allow a save, and you are willfully ignoring that to solidify your point, not cool.

Man look at this guy. You had said that the explosion was not the effect, and you were wrong about that, and you're willfully ignoring the error in your own posts just to score a personal slight. You're trying to pretend that the word "some of" would salvage your previous argument -- it won't, since you claimed the explosion was not the effect.

Have a shred of integrity crake, you're doing exactly the slimy thing you accuse me of doing (and you're actually doing it, unlike me).



Well, I can disagree with you about anything arbitrarily, but that's neither here nor there. You can't disagree with me about something I didn't say, because you'd be doing two things:
- Lying about what what I said.
- Disagreeing with your own lie.

That's essentially a strawman attack, and it's not okay to do.

Just in case you feel like there's wiggle room or ambiguity: I did not say the thing that you were trying to disagree with me about.



However, I just proved that this does not mean that the Spell's Effects are Discharged, which is the only legal limitation of Persistent Spell. You did no such thing, and there are several limitations on Persistent Spell -- at least two inclusive, and two exclusive.


Once more, suppose we cast Protection from Energy. It is a Touch Spell, so by your insistence about this mythical "one meaning" of the Discharge term, the Spell is Discharged upon Casting. That's another thing I never said -- and the only place the text "one meaning" appears on this page is your own post, this one which I just quoted, so this is a weird argument.

I'm the one who pointed out that discharge is ambiguous, since it means at least two things in the Core rules, and might mean more if we look further into the rules.

Part of my argument is that "discharge" means at least two things, and both of those things are prohibited from interacting with Persistent Spell.



Side note for everyone. I think I've found the source of the double meaning in Discharge.

In Persistent Spell, there are two categories of limitation: Range and Duration.

The Range Restrictions are: Only Personal and "Fixed Range" (clearly referencing at least the Detect line of spells)

The Duration Restrictions are: Not Instantaneous, and Not *.Until Discharged Incorrect. Here's the text:


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

Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged.

The two sections are inclusion and prohibition.

Inclusion: spells with a fixed or personal range.

Exclusion: spells of instantaneous duration; spells whose effects are discharged.

Both inclusion criteria are range-related, but nothing requires that both exclusions be duration-related.

Ah, but maybe that is the source of confusion. Maybe some people are confused about Discharge being duration because they assume both exclusions must be duration-related.



Nah, we got an official stat block saying you can persist touch spells. So it's definitive.
That's wrong, as a bunch of people have pointed out before -- stat blocks are chock full of errors, and never have authority to change the actual rules.

But maybe it'd be fun to have a thread about what the rules would look like if example stat blocks were definitive.

[Pleh]

You can't disagree with me about something I didn't say,

I did not say the thing that you were trying to disagree with me about.

You know what? I think there's been some miscommunication and our dialogue has gotten into a needlessly aggressive state. I'll start by apologizing if I've been less than charitable in how I listen to your points or in how I've been making mine.

I honestly think we've just been talking past each other somehow.


You did no such thing,

I felt my argument was conclusive (of course I did, or I wouldn't have made it), but your rebuttal didn't seem to possess much any counter argument to the points I was actually making. You didn't address how Bear's Endurance does NOT have its Spell Effects Discharged or the implications that might have for its qualifications for Persistent Spell.

This lead me to feel that you didn't have a response to my argument, which is typically a point in its favor. But I shouldn't make such assumptions, I should rather reiterate that I don't feel you've addressed my arguments (or I haven't seen how your comments have done so).


That's another thing I never said -- and the only place the text "one meaning" appears on this page is your own post, this one which I just quoted, so this is a weird argument.

I'm the one who pointed out that discharge is ambiguous, since it means at least two things in the Core rules, and might mean more if we look further into the rules.

Part of my argument is that "discharge" means at least two things, and both of those things are prohibited from interacting with Persistent Spell.

Okay, then that is a place that I did misunderstand. You had made a big deal about using the RAW for Discharge


No, I'm not trying to make a rule via metaphor. I'm literally finding the word discharge used as a technical term in the rules for Touch spells. There is no other justification -- not analogy, not circumstantial similarity, not semantic quibbling.

The word discharge is used in Touch spell mechanics. That's why I think Touch spells are counted among spells that get discharged. It's pretty clear-cut.


Actually for me it's because the mechanics use the word discharge as a technical term.

Those spells are also discharged. They are also (not exclusively but also) prohibited from Persist-o-mancy.

I apologize. I thought you meant that this was, in your estimation, the definitive RAW meaning of the term Discharge and that lead me to wrongly believe you were stating it to be an exclusive definition.

So I now see that you were indeed arguing (as I had speculated that you might) that in light of the Ambiguity of the term, that both possible interpretations should be taken as RAW. Let's come back to that after we add the rest of your comments to see the argument more in whole.


The two sections are inclusion and prohibition.

Inclusion: spells with a fixed or personal range.

Exclusion: spells of instantaneous duration; spells whose effects are discharged.

Both inclusion criteria are range-related, but nothing requires that both exclusions be duration-related.

Ah, but maybe that is the source of confusion. Maybe some people are confused about Discharge being duration because they assume both exclusions must be duration-related.

Indeed, I think the Paragraphical proximity is playing an influencing role, but you're right that it may be an illusory effect.

Now you've argued (correct me if I'm wrong) that in light of the Ambiguity about Persistent Spell's intent about the word "Discharge" that we ought to assume both meanings to be the intent of the Exclusion (by Intent, I don't mean RAI, I mean "the correct reading of RAW"). Both Spells that are Discharged in Casting and Spells whose Effects are Discharged under Special Conditions are illegal to Persist, because both are valid interpretations of the Exclusion.

I understand where that idea is coming from, but you're not so much extracting the essential meaning from the RAW as much as you're just making the Safest Ruling about it that you can. This is Erring on the side of Caution because RAW is being ambiguous.

But shouldn't the answer to any question about RAW ambiguity NECESSARILY be answered by, "you will have to ask your DM"?

The flaw I find in your argument is, you've employed Ambiguity to define RAW. Wouldn't it be better to instead recognize it formally as being RAWfully undefined? Your argument depends on RAW's ambiguity, so we've already just about confessed that we really don't actually know and that RAW doesn't seem to be giving us enough information to know if ALL Touch Spells are disqualified from Persistomancy or if only those with Duration: Until Discharged are.

Ultimately, the thing I found persuasive (and still do) about Crake's and Dr Awkward's arguments about the distinction between Touch Spells of various Durations was the ODDLY specific phrasing, "nor can spells whose effects are discharged." I mean, from a business standpoint, you could save money on ink just removing those two words, but I don't like my prospects making an argument based on WotC's competency in an argument about Ambiguous Feat Descriptions. It does give a very real sense that RAW in the construction of those spells was communicating RAI that the distinction between Discharging a Spell and Discharging a Spell's Effects was VERY meaningful.

Thus, there would be Zero Ambiguity about Discharge's meaning since it clearly points to the Spell's Effects, which is a distinct term from the Spell itself. The difference between spells with Dischargable Duration and others implies the distinction between a Spell being discharged and a Spell's Effect being discharged, removing the ambiguity your argument would be relying on.

[Doctor Awkward]

Here's the text:

The two sections are inclusion and prohibition.

Inclusion: spells with a fixed or personal range.

Exclusion: spells of instantaneous duration; spells whose effects are discharged.

Both inclusion criteria are range-related, but nothing requires that both exclusions be duration-related.

Ah, but maybe that is the source of confusion. Maybe some people are confused about Discharge being duration because they assume both exclusions must be duration-related.

Because they are.

Given the context of the sentence in which the word "discharge" appears, it makes no logical sense to assume it could possibly refer to anything other than text that sometimes appears in a spells duration line.

Assuming that the feat description leaves opens any other possible definition of discharge is a willful misreading of RAW.

[Crake]

In this post you claim a thing. It's not fuzzy or ambiguous. You claim the explosion is not the spell's effect. You were wrong about that, obviously.

When did I make that claim? The fiery explosion is part of the trap is it not? Thus it is included in the effect of "make a trap".


Man look at this guy. You had said that the explosion was not the effect, and you were wrong about that, and you're willfully ignoring the error in your own posts just to score a personal slight. You're trying to pretend that the word "some of" would salvage your previous argument -- it won't, since you claimed the explosion was not the effect.

Have a shred of integrity crake, you're doing exactly the slimy thing you accuse me of doing (and you're actually doing it, unlike me).


You can't disagree with me about something I didn't say, because you'd be doing two things:
- Lying about what what I said.
- Disagreeing with your own lie.

That's essentially a strawman attack, and it's not okay to do.

Just in case you feel like there's wiggle room or ambiguity: I did not say the thing that you were trying to disagree with me about.

Talking about strawman attacks while you yourself are making a strawman? That's ironic. At no point did I say the fiery explosion wasn't part of the effect, you claimed it was the only part of the effect, and that the trap was in fact some sort of carrier for that effect.