Reach+persist question

[Zhepna]

Hi,

I have the feat Reach spell and persistent spell.
Can I cast spell with range: Touch on others player or objects and apply the persistent spell on it?

By exemple, this spell:

Blades of Fire
(Spell Compendium, p. 31)

Conjuration (Creation) [Fire]
Level: Ranger 1, Sorcerer 1, Wizard 1, Consecrated Harrier 1,
Components: V,
Casting Time: 1 swift action
Range: Touch
Target: Up to two melee weapons you are wielding
Duration: 1 round
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

With a word your weapons burst into flame. You feel no heat and the flames merely tickle your skin.
Your melee weapons each deal an extra 1d8 points of fire damage. This damage stacks with any energy damage your weapons already deal.
Thanks and have a nice day.

[Eldariel]

Yes, most probably. Reach Spell has a fixed range so it should be a valid target for Persist. Same with Ocular Spell. Always check with your DM though but by RAW there are no obstacles for this.

[RoboEmperor]

You can persist touch range spells without needing reach spell.

From the 3.0->3.5 Persistent Spell change, they intentionally removed the sentence that forbade you from persisting touch spells.
There's an official wizard in Elder Evils that uses 4 different persisted touch spells.

[ezekielraiden]

This is a very contentious area of rules interaction, so you basically *have* to ask your DM. There is evidence for both sides, and no totally
unambiguous, inarguable answer.

For what it's worth, I think it should work, but I am very careful to avoid pushing it unless it becomes very necessary.

[Zhepna]

You can persist touch range spells without needing reach spell.

From the 3.0->3.5 Persistent Spell change, they intentionally removed the sentence that forbade you from persisting touch spells.
There's an official wizard in Elder Evils that uses 4 different persisted touch spells.

Really? It's the first time I read this. I looked in this book and did not find this wizard. Could someone please confirm this please ? It has a big impact on the build.

[MisterKaws]

You can just touch the weapons while casting and hand them over to whoever.

[Zhepna]

Ok I understand but my question is: can I use persistent spell on a spell with a range:touch without the feat reach or ocular.

Thanks in advance for the information.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

No, Touch range is not fixed, because it varies with natural reach. You cannot use Persistent Spell on a Range: Touch spell.

[ezekielraiden]

Really? It's the first time I read this. I looked in this book and did not find this wizard. Could someone please confirm this please ? It has a big impact on the build.

Like I said, this is very contentious. Some DMs think you can persist touch spells all the time. Some think you need Reach Spell (or an equivalent, like Arcane Reach from Archmage). Some think you cannot ever persist touch spells. You have to ask your DM.

[RoboEmperor]

Really? It's the first time I read this. I looked in this book and did not find this wizard. Could someone please confirm this please ? It has a big impact on the build.
Sorry, it was a Cleric not a Wizard
Elder Evils p.117
The Cleric prepares Persisted Bear's Endurance, Persistent Divine Favor, Persistent Protection from Evil, and Persistent Shield of Faith. 3 of those are touch range.


No, Touch range is not fixed, because it varies with natural reach. You cannot use Persistent Spell on a Range: Touch spell.

Yeah... so do fixed range spells. Mass Lesser Vigor has fixed range, the FAQ says you can persist it, yet if your target is within 5 ft of you, you don't need to move back 25 ft to hit him with it.


Like I said, this is very contentious. Some DMs think you can persist touch spells all the time. Some think you need Reach Spell (or an equivalent, like Arcane Reach from Archmage). Some think you cannot ever persist touch spells. You have to ask your DM.

Contentious or not, RAW is clear. You can persist touch range spells. The above stat block is RAW and the removal of the touch spell restriction during the 3.0->3.5 update in every mention of the feat in the various books is also RAW.

@OP
Present the two pieces of evidence I gave you to the DM. If the DM says "stat blocks often have mistakes in them and this stat block has 3 mistakes in it because I say so" and says the removal of the touch spell restriction text means nothing, then the DM hates persistent spell and there's no chance that you'll be able to do what you want to do at that DM's table.

[ezekielraiden]

Contentious or not, RAW is clear. You can persist touch range spells. The above stat block is RAW and the removal of the touch spell restriction during the 3.0->3.5 update in every mention of the feat in the various books is also RAW.

That is not the opinion of all (not even most) readers. Also, statblocks...


@OP
Present the two pieces of evidence I gave you to the DM. If the DM says "stat blocks often have mistakes in them and this stat block has 3 mistakes in it because I say so" and says the removal of the touch spell restriction text means nothing, then the DM hates persistent spell and there's no chance that you'll be able to do what you want to do at that DM's table.

...if you knew this, why did you act like it was totally noncontroversial.

Statblocks ARE often wrong. The Abjurant Champion is a ready-to-hand example, what with the whole "they depend on mage armor" when mage armor IS NOT an abjuration spell--and yet it benefits from the feature which explicitly only applies to abjuration spells, not conjurations like MA.

[RoboEmperor]

That is not the opinion of all (not even most) readers. Also, statblocks...

I've had my fair share of persistent spell discussions and I disagree. In my rough estimate about 50% of the people I discussed the subject matter said touch spells can be persisted.


Statblocks ARE often wrong. The Abjurant Champion is a ready-to-hand example, what with the whole "they depend on mage armor" when mage armor IS NOT an abjuration spell--and yet it benefits from the feature which explicitly only applies to abjuration spells, not conjurations like MA.

Not only is the mage armor in the stat block, it's also in the class description. By your logic even class descriptions cannot be trusted which means all of d&d is wrong because of this one example.

If the stat block was the only evidence I'd agree it's weak. But we have two: intentional removal of the line that forbids touch range spells in the feat description and the statblock. So there is no question here. The only people who say persistent spells can't be applied to touch range spells are
1. People who played 3.0 and are unaware of the change.
2. People who hate DMM:Persistent Spell with a passion and will do anything to nerf Persistent Spell as hard as they could.

Unlike Mage Armor, there is nothing that can prove this stat block wrong, and there is one thing that does prove the stat block right. So unless the people of the other side of an argument produce a 3.5 material that says you can't persist touch spells, the benefit of the doubt goes to the side with the RAW.

How do YOU explain them removing the line about forbidding touch spells? And don't say because a general rule exists that says touch spells aren't fixed, because not only is there no such rule but WotC often repeats general rules in their feat description to be clear as possible. Them removing this repetition because they want to save money on ink because of the existence of a hidden general rule is not an argument.

[MisterKaws]

Statblocks ARE often wrong. The Abjurant Champion is a ready-to-hand example, what with the whole "they depend on mage armor" when mage armor IS NOT an abjuration spell--and yet it benefits from the feature which explicitly only applies to abjuration spells, not conjurations like MA.

To be fair, I always thought of Mage Armor as more of an Abjuration than a Conjuration. I guess most people just think the same... even the editors.

[Mato]

Ok I understand but my question is: can I use persistent spell on a spell with a range:touch without the feat reach or ocular.

Thanks in advance for the information.Short answer is no.

RoboEmperor's argument is mostly kettle logic and can be proven illogical and wrong. Like the spell needs to have a fixed range but he submits the distance between you and a given target to refutes that which is a false equivalence. Using stat blocks over rule text could arguably be called quoting out of context and he also tried an argument from silence to affirm the consequent. Just because one of the five printings mentioned touch spells were disallowed doesn't mean one that doesn't say anything either way is proof you are allowed to.

And then the usage of personal or fixed also supports otherwise. The more common ranges of close/medium/long to not meet the definition of the word or the examples provided. And if you consider how their exact range varies based on the caster's current caster level disqualifies them then a spell whose range varies based on the caster's current size & reach would be as well. In truth, "personal" has the same problem, it's not a fixed value anymore than "touch" is. However the feat makes special mention of including the range entry of personal. The range of touch however is not included, and for supplemental data the one time it was mentioned for clarification it was not allowed.

[Zhepna]

Thanks to everybody for your answers.