Divine Metamagic; Pers. Spell. Overrated?

[Kizara]

As the title suggests, I feel that the build of using Divine Metamagic to power Persistant Spell is in fact, not really overpowered, and indeed overrated.

Let's look at why:

Persistant Spell takes up a slot SIX levels higher, as a Metamagic feat and requires you to have Extend Spell as a pre-req. That's 3 feats right there.

Now this means that you need to have a 16 charisma to even USE this combo, on a single spell 1/day, and have no ability to turn/rebuke or power divine feats otherwise (not that you have any, since this combo takes too much). Now, if you somehow got a 20 charisma, and took Extra Turning, you could now do this combo to 2 spells.
Most of the spells you desire for this combo are melee-combat oriented personal buffs, thus you also need a good Str and Con score to make use of them.

So lets give our cleric 16 10 18 12 18 18. Certinally a nice array, and something that most character's can't claim. You also have low int to make use of your nice class skills, but that's besides the point.

Assuming your human, your build would look like the following:

Clr 1 Extra Turning, Extend Spell
Clr 2
Clr 3 Persistant Spell (unusable)
Clr 4
Clr 5
Clr 6 Divine Metamagic (Persistant Spell)
Clr 7

Now, you need to cast Eagle's Splendor and then you can use your DM:PS to power 2 spells. Let's say Divine Favor and Divine Power. GREAT! That's +8 str, +2 luck to attack/damage. Certinally cool, except you have those spells anyways, and you have basically spent 4 feats to save yourself 1-2 rounds of actions in combat.

So, seriously, far from broken, is DM:PS even wroth it? Personally, I have things I'd rather spend 4 feats on. Such as Power attack, Skill Focus (concentration), Quicken Spell and Divine Might.

[Xefas]

Are you including Night Sticks, that give you a bonus 3/day turning/rebuking per stick?

They're in Libris Mortis or Heroes of Horror or some such book, I believe.

EDIT: Yes, Libris Mortis, for...7,500gp

[Solo]

Nightsticks, Nightsticks, and more Nightsticks.

[Jack_Simth]

Don't forget the Planning and Undeath domains, which give you Extend Spell and Extra Turning, respectively, as domain powers.

A Human Cleric-1 with Planning and Undeath can technically pull it off once per day, with a Charisma score as low as 8. Spend all further feats on Extra Turning, use Eagle's Splendor at 3rd (for the two extra turning attempts) and you can actually get quite a few persistent spells running. Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might as they become available - and you're being additive, not switching out. Mass Lesser Vigor is debateably useful for this, too (point that determines if it works: Does Persistent Spell override the spell description duration limit?)

[Nebo_]

With enough Extra Turnings, Nightsticks and Charisma, you should have somewhere near enough turn attempts to persist three spells per day with some left over for DMM: Extend, so you can have five or six spells active at once. Plus non-persisted ones.

So, no it isn't overrated, it just isn't that good if you don't build it right.

[Temp]

Clr 1 Extra Turning, Extend Spell
Clr 2
Clr 3 Persistant Spell (unusable)
Clr 4
Clr 5
Clr 6 Divine Metamagic (Persistant Spell)
Clr 7

Usually the Planning domain's thrown in there for free Extend Spell.

Power Attack's thrown in for Melee sorts and Quicken Spell for casters, but have you seen the CharOp builds? Most of the other feat slots are filled with Extra Turning because Persistant Spells are just that good.

[Kizara]

Ok, so WITHOUT using obscure material (nightsticks) or Undeath Domain (assuming also in Libris Mortis) or Planning Domain (where is that? its not in CDivine), is it any good?

If the concensus is "No, its only good if this obscure material is allowed, and your DM lets you get away with a broken combo", then I stand by my OP.

[Solo]

Ok, so WITHOUT using obscure material (nightsticks) or Undeath Domain (assuming also in Libris Mortis) or Planning Domain (where is that? its not in CDivine), is it any good.

If the concensus is "No, its only good if this obscure material is allowed, and your DM lets you get away with a broken combo", then I stand by my OP.

I think it's always been said that DMM is good only under those circumstances.

[ocato]

Yes, it is fair to say that it is only good if you do it right.

[Xefas]

Ok, so WITHOUT using obscure material (nightsticks) or Undeath Domain (assuming also in Libris Mortis) or Planning Domain (where is that? its not in CDivine), is it any good.

If the concensus is "No, its only good if this obscure material is allowed, and your DM lets you get away with a broken combo", then I stand by my OP.

So your justification is "This feat isn't good, so long as the DM does all he can to make it so"?

Oh yeah, you know what other feat isn't good? Power Attack...y'know, when the DM disallows all the one and two handed weapons. And those clerics...not good when your DM gets rid of the gods.

[Kizara]

So your justification is "This feat isn't good, so long as the DM does all he can to make it so"?

Oh yeah, you know what other feat isn't good? Power Attack...y'know, when the DM disallows all the one and two handed weapons. And those clerics...not good when your DM gets rid of the gods.

Not using Libris Motris is hardly along the lines of what you are suggesting. It's not like he's saying you can't take Extra Turning.

[Xefas]

Not using Libris Motris is hardly along the lines of what you are suggesting. It's not like he's saying you can't take Extra Turning.

You have a point, but considering that DMM isn't a core feat, then it becomes a matter of what non-core things are okay, and what aren't. If you're allowing one thing, but disallowing another because that makes it good, then why not do the same to other things?

That said, I suppose I understand what you mean.

[Aquillion]

Not using Libris Motris is hardly along the lines of what you are suggesting. It's not like he's saying you can't take Extra Turning.Anyway, the point is, the combo is only broken when it's complete. That includes a source of many (or even effectively unlimited) extra turning attempts. Sure, none of those are core, but Divine Metamagic isn't core, either. Divine Metamagic builds are decidedly underpowered when the DM bans Divine Metamagic, too.

[Quietus]

Here's a question : What's the general consensus on the strength of Persist Spell in a no-DMM environment, if you use Easy Metamagic to cast a persistent Divine Favor and Divine Power as sixth and ninth level spells, respectively?

[Kizara]

Here's a question : What's the general consensus on the strength of Persist Spell in a no-DMM environment, if you use Easy Metamagic to cast a persistent Divine Favor and Divine Power as sixth and ninth level spells, respectively?

Where's Easy Metamagic? I would be annoyed at you for derailing my thread, but I'm actually basically done here, so I hope someone addresses your question.

[Reel On, Love]

Yes, DMM(Persistent) is all it's cracked up to be. Divine Favor you quicken or persist normally; try persisting, say, Divine Power, and Miracle(Giant Size) or Miracle (Bite of the Werebear) at high levels, Divine Power and Righteous Might at lower ones. Or, depending on interpretation, one of those group Vigor spells. Or a bunch of others.

[tyckspoon]

Here's a question : What's the general consensus on the strength of Persist Spell in a no-DMM environment, if you use Easy Metamagic to cast a persistent Divine Favor and Divine Power as sixth and ninth level spells, respectively?

Kizara: Dragon 325.

Quietus: I would say it's effective, but nowhere near broken. With Divine Power, you're using a 9th level slot to pretend to be a Fighter all day. That's nice, but it's not all that impressive compared to other 9th level spells (although saving yourself the price of a Strength enhancement item is a handy side-effect.) Divine Favor caps at +3, which is unimpressive for a 6th level slot. On the plus side, Luck stacks with everything.

[Skjaldbakka]

One of the vulnerabilities of a Persistent Spell/DMM buff cleric is dispels. You generally only have enough turn attemps to put your spell suite up once each day (which is kinda the point).

[Reel On, Love]

One of the vulnerabilities of a Persistent Spell/DMM buff cleric is dispels. You generally only have enough turn attemps to put your spell suite up once each day (which is kinda the point).

That's a "vulnerability"?

1) You'd be just as vulnerable to them anyway. This way, you often save a bunch of spell slots *and* action. If your buffs get dispelled on the third fight, say, cast another normally.

2) An equal level caster has a 50% of dispelling *each* buff (so you'll rarely/never be stripped of all of them(... except that as a DMM cleric, you pick up all the caster-level boosters you can. Eventually you're casting them with +4 from a Bead of Karma, +1 from an Orange Ioun Stone, maybe +1 from a Create Magic Tattoo spell (Anyspell or your local wizard), maybe +4 from Divine Spell Power... sure, that's some investment, but those are investments that are good anyway. And Dispel checks cap.

3) If a spellcaster can successfully dispel you, they could instead have done something like cast Slow on your entire party, or Haste on their friends, or at higher levels, with Greater Dispel, something even more devastating... if you were a fighter, that 6th-level slot could just take you out entirely.

[Quietus]

Where's Easy Metamagic? I would be annoyed at you for derailing my thread, but I'm actually basically done here, so I hope someone addresses your question.

Sorry about that. I might have had the name of the feat incorrect, it's the one where you select a known metamagic feat, and it reduces the spell level increase by 1 (to a minimum of 1, I think). Looking at the feat index, I might've been thinking "Practical Metamagic" or something to that effect. That one was in Races of the Dragon, according to that index.

[Vva70]

Ok, so WITHOUT using obscure material (nightsticks) or Undeath Domain (assuming also in Libris Mortis) or Planning Domain (where is that? its not in CDivine), is it any good?

If the concensus is "No, its only good if this obscure material is allowed, and your DM lets you get away with a broken combo", then I stand by my OP.

Undeath and Planning domains can both be found in Spell Compendium. Hardly obscure.

[Kizara]

Undeath and Planning domains can both be found in Spell Compendium. Hardly obscure.

Spell Compendium is largely just a compilation of things from various sources, I need the original sources.

[Karsh]

Planning is from Complete Warrior. Undeath is from Forgotten Realms and was brought into non-campaign specific by Spell Compendium.

Therefore, even without Undeath a first level human cleric has: Extend Spell, Persist Spell, Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell.

And your contention that it's not that good when you exclude sources defeats the entire purpose of character optimization. There are specific rules that the good people over at CO use, one of which is "Use universally accepted source books" of which Libris Mortis and Spell Compendium are members.

Certainly, when excluding sourcebooks which the combo depends upon, the combo becomes less effective. At the same time, though, then you are no longer criticizing or evaluating that combo, but rather a watered down strawman.

This is the same thing as saying that the Hulking Hurler build really isn't that powerful as long as the DM disallows Complete Warrior.

[Kizara]

Planning is from Complete Warrior. Undeath is from Forgotten Realms and was brought into non-campaign specific by Spell Compendium.

Therefore, even without Undeath a first level human cleric has: Extend Spell, Persist Spell, Divine Metamagic: Persist Spell.

And your contention that it's not that good when you exclude sources defeats the entire purpose of character optimization. There are specific rules that the good people over at CO use, one of which is "Use universally accepted source books" of which Libris Mortis and Spell Compendium are members.

Certainly, when excluding sourcebooks which the combo depends upon, the combo becomes less effective. At the same time, though, then you are no longer criticizing or evaluating that combo, but rather a watered down strawman.

This is the same thing as saying that the Hulking Hurler build really isn't that powerful as long as the DM disallows Complete Warrior.

I didn't realize Planning was in Complete Warrior: last place I'd look for additional divine magic.
So, with that, you can do this at first level. That's not bad then, although it's still 2 feats and a domain power for 1 spell unless you have nightsticks.

Banning or not using a book the class is in, or the class/feat itself, is an extremely silly exageration to not using a completely different, much later source, that you happen to want to use as part of a combo with it.

I suppose my OP could be more accurately presented as "in my understanding, with the books and options I am presenting, do you not agree this is not powerful?". You see, for the combo I was evaluating (as detailed in my OP) wasn't the one you are desiring to use, and really, I never claimed it to be.

It's like someone talking about using Power Attack as opposed to Sneak attack TWF, and saying they playing core-only, or perhaps only with PHB 1-2 (yes, that would be odd). And you claiming its not legitimate because you are disallowing Cadventurer and thus Leap Attack. For one thing, power attack can be evaluated without Leap Attack, and is in fact still quite good. For another, Leap Attack doesn't have to be allowed for Power Attack to be allowed, as per your circular logic.

[Skjaldbakka]

1) You'd be just as vulnerable to them anyway. This way, you often save a bunch of spell slots *and* action. If your buffs get dispelled on the third fight, say, cast another normally.

You save spell slots and actions, but burn through turn attempts and three feats. Getting your allotment of all-day spells taken out shorts you three feats.


2) An equal level caster has a 50% of dispelling *each* buff (so you'll rarely/never be stripped of all of them(... except that as a DMM cleric, you pick up all the caster-level boosters you can. Eventually you're casting them with +4 from a Bead of Karma, +1 from an Orange Ioun Stone, maybe +1 from a Create Magic Tattoo spell (Anyspell or your local wizard), maybe +4 from Divine Spell Power... sure, that's some investment, but those are investments that are good anyway. And Dispel checks cap.

Losing any of your spells is going to be heinous, given the feat investment in them. There are ways to break the cap on dispelling checks, or to negate them altogether. Disjuntion automatically dispels those effects, at high level play. Dispel Magic is not the only way to dispel buffs.


3) If a spellcaster can successfully dispel you, they could instead have done something like cast Slow on your entire party, or Haste on their friends, or at higher levels, with Greater Dispel, something even more devastating... if you were a fighter, that 6th-level slot could just take you out entirely.

That is true for a single opponent that only expects yo fight you once. A BBEG's minions are very likely you throw dispels at you, because the BBEG orders them to. A stealthy caster might very well hit the party with an area dispel, and then GTFO, and then come back later after the party has put buffd back up. Minions are supposed to soften up the party to give the BBEG an advantage against them. Dispelling is an excellent tactic to accomplish this.

More importantly, if you are playing a DMM/Persistent spell cleric, the odds of encountering magic dispelling effects goes up dramatically.


None of this changes the general brokenness of DMM/Persistent spell. Dispelling is a vulnerability of the combo, however.

[Temp]

It's like someone talking about using Power Attack as opposed to Sneak attack TWF, and saying they playing core-only, or perhaps only with PHB 1-2 (yes, that would be odd). And you claiming its not legitimate because you are disallowing Cadventurer and thus Leap Attack. For one thing, power attack can be evaluated without Leap Attack, and is in fact still quite good. For another, Leap Attack doesn't have to be allowed for Power Attack to be allowed, as per your circular logic.What? You never limited it to any material. You just said the feat was barely worth taking...

So it's not like your example (where limitations were actually stated) at all.

I don't follow.

[Kaelik]

I didn't realize Planning was in Complete Warrior: last place I'd look for additional divine magic.
So, with that, you can do this at first level. That's not bad then, although it's still 2 feats and a domain power for 1 spell unless you have nightsticks.

Banning or not using a book the class is in, or the class/feat itself, is an extremely silly exageration to not using a completely different, much later source, that you happen to want to use as part of a combo with it.

I suppose my OP could be more accurately presented as "in my understanding, with the books and options I am presenting, do you not agree this is not powerful?". You see, for the combo I was evaluating (as detailed in my OP) wasn't the one you are desiring to use, and really, I never claimed it to be.

It's like someone talking about using Power Attack as opposed to Sneak attack TWF, and saying they playing core-only, or perhaps only with PHB 1-2 (yes, that would be odd). And you claiming its not legitimate because you are disallowing Cadventurer and thus Leap Attack. For one thing, power attack can be evaluated without Leap Attack, and is in fact still quite good. For another, Leap Attack doesn't have to be allowed for Power Attack to be allowed, as per your circular logic.

First of all, you asked if "the build" using DMM Persist, was worth it.

"The Build" (The not A) involves nightsticks, good spells, and probably domains. You were answered that "The Build" is in fact very good. If you want to know if "A build that doesn't use nightsticks" that is a very different question.

Secondly, not allowing sources because they are useful is a really strange thing to do.

[deadseashoals]

Basically, if this combo is allowed, and the enemy is not either a dedicated abjurer with multiple dispelling feats/PrCs, or a wizard capable of casting Mordenkainen's Disjunction, the DMM (ab)user going to walk over the encounter. And seriously, what percentage of encounters can really involve one of those two things without crossing the line over to "picking on the cleric because you allowed a broken combo."

Best just to avoid such things altogether.

The combo doesn't even have to involve nightsticks, that just makes it easier. I have heard that stacking nightsticks isn't even legal, since it would fall under the magic items stacking rule (nightsticks don't provide "turning charges," they actually just give you the Extra Turning feat). Even being able to persist just two 1 round/level spells makes it quite good, probably too good (the poster children being divine power and righteous might). The cleric can pre-cast or quick-cast the rest of his buffs.

[tyckspoon]

The combo doesn't even have to involve nightsticks, that just makes it easier. I have heard that stacking nightsticks isn't even legal, since it would fall under the magic items stacking rule (nightsticks don't provide "turning charges," they actually just give you the Extra Turning feat). Even being able to persist just two 1 round/level spells makes it quite good, probably too good (the poster children being divine power and righteous might). The cleric can pre-cast or quick-cast the rest of his buffs.

Extra Turning specifically stacks with itself; you can take it multiple times and get the benefit as many times as you want.

As for Disjunctioning the cleric at high levels, that's the nuclear option of D&D. If your DM is doing that to you, you have far more to worry about than whether or not your buff spells stay up.

[Kizara]

First of all, you asked if "the build" using DMM Persist, was worth it.

"The Build" (The not A) involves nightsticks, good spells, and probably domains. You were answered that "The Build" is in fact very good. If you want to know if "A build that doesn't use nightsticks" that is a very different question.

Secondly, not allowing sources because they are useful is a really strange thing to do.

1) This would be true if I had not outlined what I thought "the build" was. If I had simply left that to be interpreted, which I did not, you would have a point.

2) I'd like you to show me where I said that people shouldn't allow sources because they were good/useful. At wrost, I said that DMs wouldn't allow that specific combo (nightsticks powering that spell) which I agree was not a legitimate thing to say, cause it does completely defeat the purpose of the argument. That is to say asking "is this overpowered as long as the DM doesn't ban it if it becomes overpowered?" is a completely nonsense, circular question, but asking "is this overpowered, as I have presented?" is not.

[TheDarkOne]

Take a look at Consumptive Field, Greater. That spell is definitely worth the feat investment to have it dmm persisted.

[Kizara]

Take a look at Consumptive Field, Greater. That spell is definitely worth the feat investment to have it dmm persisted.

Where would I find that spell to take a look at it?

I don't really feel like hunting through 1d8 books attempting to find it.

[Skjaldbakka]

And seriously, what percentage of encounters can really involve one of those two things without crossing the line over to "picking on the cleric because you allowed a broken combo."

I already outlined exactly why dispelling focused opponents are good strategy for a BBEG's minions. That is a strategically sound option for a BBEG regardless of whether or not the cleric is being abusive. An abusive player has no business complaining about getting hit with good tactics.

[Tor the Fallen]

I didn't realize Planning was in Complete Warrior: last place I'd look for additional divine magic.
So, with that, you can do this at first level. That's not bad then, although it's still 2 feats and a domain power for 1 spell unless you have nightsticks.

Banning or not using a book the class is in, or the class/feat itself, is an extremely silly exageration to not using a completely different, much later source, that you happen to want to use as part of a combo with it.

I suppose my OP could be more accurately presented as "in my understanding, with the books and options I am presenting, do you not agree this is not powerful?". You see, for the combo I was evaluating (as detailed in my OP) wasn't the one you are desiring to use, and really, I never claimed it to be.

It's like someone talking about using Power Attack as opposed to Sneak attack TWF, and saying they playing core-only, or perhaps only with PHB 1-2 (yes, that would be odd). And you claiming its not legitimate because you are disallowing Cadventurer and thus Leap Attack. For one thing, power attack can be evaluated without Leap Attack, and is in fact still quite good. For another, Leap Attack doesn't have to be allowed for Power Attack to be allowed, as per your circular logic.

Shock trooper is what really makes power attack shine.

In core, power attack is good when you're mounted and wielding a lance.

[TheDarkOne]

Where would I find that spell to take a look at it?

I don't really feel like hunting through 1d8 books attempting to find it.

er...Spell Compendium.

[Dausuul]

I consider Divine Metamagic to be a problem feat, but not because of this particular combo--rather, it's because it disrupts a core element of D&D balance. Namely, spell level.

The whole idea of spell levels is to set a hard limit on how much power a caster can unleash in a single turn. If you're a 5th-level caster, you get 3rd-level spells and that's as high as you get. The entire caster system is balanced with this hard limit in mind.

Metamagic is hypothetically predicated on the idea that you boost a spell's performance in exchange for a boost to its level. It's okay that an Empowered enervation inflicts (effectively) 1d6 negative levels instead of 1d4, because Empowered enervation is a 6th-level spell. Again--hard limits to keep things under control.

Along comes Divine Metamagic and its ilk, and suddenly those hard limits can be circumvented. It's as if you had a class that got +2 BAB per level; it undercuts one of the central principles upon which so much of the system depends.

(And before somebody brings up metamagic rods, I don't like them either. Metamagic rods are a major contributor to the brokenness of high-level casters.)

[Kizara]

er...Spell Compendium.

Originally printed source? One of the big fallacys of the Spell Compendium is that it doesn't include the original source of it's material. Really a shame, cause it would then be a simply excellent reference source.

[Kizara]

I consider Divine Metamagic to be a problem feat, but not because of this particular combo--rather, it's because it disrupts a core element of D&D balance. Namely, spell level.

The whole idea of spell levels is to set a hard limit on how much power a caster can unleash in a single turn. If you're a 5th-level caster, you get 3rd-level spells and that's as high as you get. The entire caster system is balanced with this hard limit in mind.

Metamagic is hypothetically predicated on the idea that you boost a spell's performance in exchange for a boost to its level. It's okay that an Empowered enervation inflicts (effectively) 1d6 negative levels instead of 1d4, because Empowered enervation is a 6th-level spell. Again--hard limits to keep things under control.

Along comes Divine Metamagic and its ilk, and suddenly those hard limits can be circumvented. It's as if you had a class that got +2 BAB per level; it undercuts one of the central principles upon which so much of the system depends.

(And before somebody brings up metamagic rods, I don't like them either. Metamagic rods are a major contributor to the brokenness of high-level casters.)

For referance, I cannot possibly agree with you empathically enough, and I don't intend for this thread to be an argument about why DMM should be allowed in a game. For one thing, I think using it with quicken spell instantly breaks it.
I simply thought that this often-touted combo wasn't all that great. Also, I am considering making a new character in my group that's a cleric, and was considering using this.

[TheDarkOne]

Originally printed source? One of the big fallacys of the Spell Compendium is that it doesn't include the original source of it's material. Really a shame, cause it would then be a simply excellent reference source.

According to the internet, Libris Mortis is, at least, one book it was in before SC. I don't know if it was in others before then or nor.

It would have been cool to see the original books spells were published in, but I'd really only be interested in the information as a curiosity. It would be useful for telling people where to look up a spell who don't have the book, but I don't do that too often.

[Jack Mann]

The Spell Compendium acts as a reference on its own. Indeed, it is a more authoritative reference than those it draws from, as it updates the spells.

[tyckspoon]

Originally printed source? One of the big fallacys of the Spell Compendium is that it doesn't include the original source of it's material. Really a shame, cause it would then be a simply excellent reference source.

Could I ask why you need the original source? The Spell Compendium is definitely a source, and often the spells are updated from the original printing either cosmetically (there's a lot of things with setting-specific names taken off) or mechanically, which usually makes the Compendium the official source for how that spell works.

[Kizara]

Could I ask why you need the original source? The Spell Compendium is definitely a source, and often the spells are updated from the original printing either cosmetically (there's a lot of things with setting-specific names taken off) or mechanically, which usually makes the Compendium the official source for how that spell works.

Because the group I play with doesn't have the Spell Compendium, and if I can't show it to them in a book I do have, the spell isn't usable.

That's why.

[TheDarkOne]

If you don't have either book, let just put it this way. If you've ever fancied having around +100 to str, over 200 temporary hit points, and a bonus of half your current caster level to your caster level all day long, a dmm persisted version of this spell, plus the deaths of 50 or so peasants, or other creaturs with less then 9 hit points, is all you need to do it. (The strength bonus and temp hit points increase with the number of things you kill...so you could easily go higher with more deaths). (It kills things with 9 or fewer hp with in a certain distance of you, and gives you bonuses for the duration of the spell for each thing you kill with it[it does state that explicitly])


Of course, I know this probably too powerful for you average game, plus you need to be evil to cast it. But, the point here is, there are spells other then Divine Power that are great with DMM, especially as you go up in level.

[greenknight]

Because the group I play with doesn't have the Spell Compendium, and if I can't show it to them in a book I do have, the spell isn't usable.

That's why.

Spell Compendium does quote it's sources, on p285. These include various D&D supplements (several books of the Complete Series, Libris Mortis and many others), articles published on www.wizards.com/dnd and articles published in Dragon Magazine. Few people would be able to refer to all of those sources, and it's not really necessary since Spell Compendium updated them. Granted, that's not much help if you don't have Spell Compendium, but if you don't have that, you probably don't have all those original sources anyway.

For an example of how DMM:Persist can be a problem, refer to my Cleric (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2826740&postcount=76). The character was created to show several problems with spells and the magic system in general. For that character, I used Divine Metamagic: Persistant Spell on Divine Power, Greater Visage of the Diety, Miracle (Bite of the Werebear) and Veil of Undeath. This gave:

* BAB equal to character level (effectively a +9 bonus). +6 Strength. +25hp (the bonus is based on caster level, which was boosted by items).

* +1 natural armor. Darkvision 60'. Immunity to poison (although this is also a class ability, and it's granted by another spell). Resistance to acid 10, cold
10, electricity 10, and fire 10. Damage reduction 10/magic. SR 25. +4 Str, +4 Dex, +2 Con, +4 Int, +2 Cha (the Cha improvement helped give another DMM: Persistant Spell).

* +16 Str, +2 Dex, +8 Con, +7 to natural armor. Bonus feats: Blind Fight, Power Attack.

* Immunity to mind-affecting spells and abilities, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death, extra damage from critical hits, nonlethal damage, death from massive damage, ability drain, energy drain, fatigue, exhaustion, damage to physical ability scores, and any effect requiring a Fortitude save unless it is harmless or affects objects. No need to breathe, eat, or sleep.

The really big advantage of DMM: Persistant Spell is that it allows you to persist high level spells which you wouldn't otherwise be able to - even spells which normally have a duration of 1 round / caster level. Thus, spells which were designed to have an effect for a very short duration (usually one battle, and not something you'd cast in advance unless you were anticipating a fight very soon) are able to be used for the entire day. Which can turn those spells into a very big problem.

[Rad]

I'm interested in the cost of nightsticks. High level characters are rich, but can you burn tens of thousands gp every day to keep your buffs up? Plus more if the party decides to rest in the dungeon to recover spells...

[Tor the Fallen]

I'm interested in the cost of nightsticks. High level characters are rich, but can you burn tens of thousands gp every day to keep your buffs up? Plus more if the party decides to rest in the dungeon to recover spells...

They aren't single use items.

[MrNexx]

Am I the only DM who might allow using DMM to fuel Persistent spells, but would say no to someone who wanted to use Nightsticks to fuel DMM?

[Rad]

Am I the only DM who might allow using DMM to fuel Persistent spells, but would say no to someone who wanted to use Nightsticks to fuel DMM?

Me too! :smallwink:


They aren't single use items.
:smalleek: Oh... I see it now

[Badgerish]

Am I the only DM who might allow using DMM to fuel Persistent spells, but would say no to someone who wanted to use Nightsticks to fuel DMM?

me too three.

I'm happy with DMM and persistant spell but nightsticks have been banned for being badly written (twice, badly-written effect and don't need to be held in a hand to be used) and how they interact with DMM.

(also, i rule at cha-boosts from items/spells only give you extra turning attempts if they run during your rest period)

[Overlard]

I think the simple answer for the OP is that: yes, if you use the build you propose, the DMM/Persist combination is overrated. But there are a lot of builds that lose their potency if you make them wrong. With the right construction, it's extremely powerful.

But I completely ban DMM in my campaigns anyway, so it's rarely an issue for me.

[martyboy74]

Am I the only DM who might allow using DMM to fuel Persistent spells, but would say no to someone who wanted to use Nightsticks to fuel DMM?

As a player of a DMMing cleric, I don't use them.

Admittedly, I do use the lust domain, which is extremely handy for this cleric at high levels.

[Swooper]

Am I the only DM who might allow using DMM to fuel Persistent spells, but would say no to someone who wanted to use Nightsticks to fuel DMM?
Same here. I don't use Libris Mortis anyway.

However, I am wondering if it's a fair rule to require that in order to DMM something, you need to be able to cast spells of that level to begin with. That is to say, an Extended Bull's Strength is a 3rd level spell, so you can't use DMM to cast it untill 5th level. Thoughts on this ruling, anyone?

[PirateMonk]

I think the simple answer for the OP is that: yes, if you use the build you propose, the DMM/Persist combination is overrated. But there are a lot of builds that lose their potency if you make them wrong. With the right construction, it's extremely powerful.

But it isn't overrated, because very few people who rate it use these limitations, meaning that they are, in fact, rating something different.

[Kaelik]

However, I am wondering if it's a fair rule to require that in order to DMM something, you need to be able to cast spells of that level to begin with. That is to say, an Extended Bull's Strength is a 3rd level spell, so you can't use DMM to cast it untill 5th level. Thoughts on this ruling, anyone?

To me that seems to be a terrible idea. If you do that then it completely removes the primary benefit of DMM, being able to Persist (or other MM) spells that you otherwise could not. (For Example, everything level 4 and above would forever be off limits to DMM persist.)

[warmachine]

To me that [only allowing DMM if the spell could be cast without DMM] seems to be a terrible idea. If you do that then it completely removes the primary benefit of DMM, being able to Persist (or other MM) spells that you otherwise could not. (For Example, everything level 4 and above would forever be off limits to DMM persist.)
The trouble is, Persistent 4th level or higher spells are the problem. Even a 20th level Cleric with persistent 4th level Divine Power and 5th level Righteous Might is broken.

At least the fix is less of a problem. A 9th level Cleric can persist 1st level Divine Favour. Handy but not game breaking for the cost of those feats and turn attempts.

[Swooper]

The trouble is, Persistent 4th level or higher spells are the problem. Even a 20th level Cleric with persistent 4th level Divine Power and 5th level Righteous Might is broken.

At least the fix is less of a problem. A 9th level Cleric can persist 1st level Divine Favour. Handy but not game breaking for the cost of those feats and turn attempts.
That was kind of the point :smallsmile:

[Dausuul]

I'd just scrap DMM entirely. Honestly, I never understand why people go to so much effort to "fix" one particular feat, or spell, or magic item. Core classes, okay; if you axe clerics or fighters or arcane casters, it leaves a big hole in the game, so it's worth making the effort to fix the class (or at least find a suitable replacement) rather than junking it. But a single feat out of a splatbook?

What does DMM add to the game that makes it worth fixing?

[Chronos]

The real problem with Persisted Divine Power, in my opinion, is that it completely eclipses another class. Yes, spellcasters are more powerful than non-spellcasters, but there's still something that the fighter or barbarian can do better than the spellcasters. What the warrior does maybe isn't the most useful thing in the world, but he still does it best.

Until you start bringing in things like persisted Divine Power, or fleshraker wildshapes. Now, not only is what the fighter does suboptimal, but even there, the cleric does it better. It basically removes the fighter from the game entirely.

Mind you, persisted Divine Power still isn't as broken as anything involving Consumptive Field (regular or greater). That, I would put in the top tier of D&D brokenness, right up there with the Sarrukh's Modify Form ability. The problem with Consumptive Field is not that it can be used in a broken way, but that it can't really be used in a non-broken way.

[Kaelik]

The trouble is, Persistent 4th level or higher spells are the problem. Even a 20th level Cleric with persistent 4th level Divine Power and 5th level Righteous Might is broken.

At least the fix is less of a problem. A 9th level Cleric can persist 1st level Divine Favour. Handy but not game breaking for the cost of those feats and turn attempts.

The problem is that Persisting Divine Favor is absolutely in no way even worth those feats. You are spending three feats and turning attempts to gain pretty much nothing. (You can't persist Divine Favor even until level 15.)

I hate it when people attempt to "balance" powerful effects against such an arbitrarily low baseline. If you want to remove it, then do so. But there is no reason to nerf something so much that only an idiot would use it.

[MrNexx]

Same here. I don't use Libris Mortis anyway.

However, I am wondering if it's a fair rule to require that in order to DMM something, you need to be able to cast spells of that level to begin with. That is to say, an Extended Bull's Strength is a 3rd level spell, so you can't use DMM to cast it untill 5th level. Thoughts on this ruling, anyone?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I would have thought that was the standard rule.

[Chronos]

I hate it when people attempt to "balance" powerful effects against such an arbitrarily low baseline. If you want to remove it, then do so. But there is no reason to nerf something so much that only an idiot would use it.I dunno, I see the example as more like the case of a half-orc wizard. Yes, you'd have to be stupid to play a half-orc wizard, but you allow it anyway, because it's simpler than making a list of every race that can or cannot be a particular class. There are other uses of divine metamagic that would still be useful under that houserule, and if you're going to allow divine metamagic, it's easiest to allow it for all metamagic feats.

[Rad]

The point of divine metamagic is to be able to affect high level spells with it. So no, I would not rule in the other way; not with the metamagic rods available.

On the other hand, I don't understand why everybody wants to ban DMM instead of Persistent spell; I would probably do the latter first. If you want to do it and invest three feats to shoot a couple of free, say, quickened spells per day I'd call it fair.

[greenknight]

The point of divine metamagic is to be able to affect high level spells with it. So no, I would not rule in the other way; not with the metamagic rods available.

The point of DMM is to cast spells with metamagic effects but without using a higher level spell slot. The ability to apply metamagic effects to spells you otherwise couldn't apply them to (because they require too high a spell slot) seems to be more of a side effect - one which causes many problems, IMO. If Swooper's rule also applied to metamagic rods, I think it could be acceptable to use them in-game, otherwise I'd recommend banning them too.


On the other hand, I don't understand why everybody wants to ban DMM instead of Persistent spell; I would probably do the latter first. If you want to do it and invest three feats to shoot a couple of free, say, quickened spells per day I'd call it fair.

Persistent Spell by itself isn't a problem, since you can only use it on 1st - 3rd level spells, and even then it requires a 7th - 9th level spell slot so the caster needs to be of a high level. But when you add DMM and allow it to Persist 9th level spells, then it's a different story. Swooper's fix seems to solve that issue, particularly if you disallow nightsticks, so I'd consider it to be quite a reasonable solution.

[Overlard]

On the other hand, I don't understand why everybody wants to ban DMM instead of Persistent spell; I would probably do the latter first. If you want to do it and invest three feats to shoot a couple of free, say, quickened spells per day I'd call it fair.
I ban it because turning undead is a situational benefit, and has been designed as such. Allowing it to be used every day, to power spells is too powerful.

[MrNexx]

I'll re-mention my old solution of spending XP (instead of spell slots) to metamagic spells.... 25 xp per level of normal increase per level of spell. So, if you want to Still a 4th level spell, you have to spend 100xp (25xp * 1 level of normal increase for Still Spell * 4th level spell). If you want to Persist a 5th level spell, it's 750xp (25 * 6 levels of normal increase for Persistent Spell * 5th level spell). It's steep, but it doesn't take any time or higher level spell slots.

[deadseashoals]

The problem is that Persisting Divine Favor is absolutely in no way even worth those feats. You are spending three feats and turning attempts to gain pretty much nothing. (You can't persist Divine Favor even until level 15.)

I hate it when people attempt to "balance" powerful effects against such an arbitrarily low baseline. If you want to remove it, then do so. But there is no reason to nerf something so much that only an idiot would use it.

It's still work taking sometimes (if you were already going to take the metamagic feats in question). It saves you your highest level spell slots. I think I'll use this fix in the future, rather than banning Divine Metamagic as I have been doing.

I believe the "baseline" here you are referring to is also known as the default cap on spell power as a function of character level. Which Divine Metamagic breaks, and which is not an arbitrary threshold. It's combating supplemental power creep.

[Dausuul]

It's still work taking sometimes (if you were already going to take the metamagic feats in question). It saves you your highest level spell slots. I think I'll use this fix in the future, rather than banning Divine Metamagic as I have been doing.

I believe the "baseline" here you are referring to is also known as the default cap on spell power as a function of character level. Which Divine Metamagic breaks, and which is not an arbitrary threshold. It's combating supplemental power creep.

I agree--although you might consider allowing DMM to work with any metamagic feat if you go this route. Still, the ability to metamagic your lower-level spells without expending your higher-level slots is not to be undervalued.

[warmachine]

The problem is that Persisting Divine Favor is absolutely in no way even worth those feats. You are spending three feats and turning attempts to gain pretty much nothing. (You can't persist Divine Favor even until level 15.)
I wouldn't call +3 luck bonus to attack and weapon damage nothing, even at 13th level (needed to cast 7th spells). Though there are other uses for three feats and undead turning, a bonus that usually stacks with others and an attack bonus that's also good for ranged touch is handy for melee-oriented Clerics.

It's a specialised build but it's usable and not broken.

[Accersitus]

Would (Greater)Spell Immunity be worth DMM?
I'm thinking about using it to be immune to (Greater)Dispell Magic
or other spells that could remove the other buffs.

[deadseashoals]

Would (Greater)Spell Immunity be worth DMM?
I'm thinking about using it to be immune to (Greater)Dispell Magic
or other spells that could remove the other buffs.

It lasts 10 minutes a level, so it's not that worthwhile to persist. Either you know what you're facing ahead of time, and you just cast it ahead of time, or you don't know, and it was never worth it to begin with. It also doesn't work against dispel magic, as it gives you infinite SR vs. the spells, and dispel magic doesn't allow for SR.

[Jack_Simth]

Would (Greater)Spell Immunity be worth DMM?
I'm thinking about using it to be immune to (Greater)Dispell Magic
or other spells that could remove the other buffs.
Doesn't work - (Greater) Spell Immunity can only make you immune to things which permit SR - and Dispel Magic doesn't.

[Kurald Galain]

A simple nerf could start with giving "Persist spell" a prerequisite of "ability to cast 7th-level spells".

Because it stands to reason that normally, you won't be persisting anything until you have a 7th-level slot available (yes, yes, you can persist cantrips in a 6th slot, but that's generally pointless).

Then it means that persist-clerics are screwing their build for the first 12 levels in order to kick ass at level 13. Still not ideal, but it's an improvement.

A different nerf would be to disallow nightstick turn attempts to be changed into anything else, or to limit divine metamagic to one turn attempt per spell.