PDA

View Full Version : Do you actually play with Persistent DMM?



Cuddly
2008-02-12, 03:40 PM
So does anyone actually play with that level of cheese?

Saph
2008-02-12, 03:41 PM
God no. Clerics are already one of the top three most powerful classes in the game. What kind of nut would want to make them even stronger?

- Saph

Zincorium
2008-02-12, 03:50 PM
I've allowed it on a one time basis, in a game where none of the characters were set up to be the main tank. The player in question had managed to build a poorly functioning cleric. I told him about the combo, showed him what he needed, and the game ran fairly smoothly.

Cheese is cheese, but sometimes you need it to make a pizza. Apologies for the horrible metaphor.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-12, 03:57 PM
I've allowed it. Depends on the game and players though.

Cuddly
2008-02-12, 03:59 PM
I've allowed it. Depends on the game and players though.

Yeah, {scrubbed}

Nerd-o-rama
2008-02-12, 03:59 PM
Of course not. Fortunately, everyone I DM on a regular basis is terrible at optimizing D&D. Which is a really good thing considering they play a Druid, an Artificer, and a Bard.

Dark Tira
2008-02-12, 04:00 PM
I've seen it played in a high-powered campaign. The DMM cleric actually matched up well with the rest of the party. Of course the rest of the party consisted of 2 druids and a well-optimized chameleon.

daggaz
2008-02-12, 04:11 PM
Yeah, <scrubbed>

How can you possibly say that without sounding offensive, s*****?

OP: No I ban it on sight... but I could see playing it with a deliberately high powered game centered on ye olde hacke and slash.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 04:15 PM
I've allowed it, and the cleric in my game is still more interested in throwing spells around after DMM persisting a Divine Power. He's swung maybe 6 times so far in like 3 sessions. He doesn't have feats that are combat oriented because he spent so many feats on Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, DMM (Persist), Extra Turning, etc. As long as players aren't cheesing out with planning and undeath domains or whatever it should be ok.

The cleric is now a fighter without bonus feats. Oooohhh scary. Sure he can sling spells, but then he's not swinging his mace now is he? Divine Might isn't really that bad.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-12, 04:19 PM
Yeah, {Scrubbed}.

Until and unless you play in one you really aren't in a position to judge.

My games sound stupid because I was smart enough to actually bother to think about what D&D magic would do to a world and make a setting that takes it into account while still allowing all the standard D&D stuff and adventure types?

Or the fact that I don't mind running or playing high level or epic games? Maybe I am just capable of coming up with interesting and intriguing plot lines in which the players power doesn't really matter. And where things like role playing are more important than combat ability.

Or the fact that instead of outright banning many things I try to come up with minor tweaks to fix the problems instead.

[Scrubbed]

Kizara
2008-02-12, 04:39 PM
I've allowed it, and the cleric in my game is still more interested in throwing spells around after DMM persisting a Divine Power. He's swung maybe 6 times so far in like 3 sessions. He doesn't have feats that are combat oriented because he spent so many feats on Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, DMM (Persist), Extra Turning, etc. As long as players aren't cheesing out with planning and undeath domains or whatever it should be ok.

The cleric is now a fighter without bonus feats. Oooohhh scary. Sure he can sling spells, but then he's not swinging his mace now is he? Divine Might isn't really that bad.

Yes, highly overpowered abilities are signifigantly less effective if you don't use them properly.

Druids are much less effective if you get a light horse animal companion that never attacks, never cast summoning spells, and only wildshape into birds or dogs for scouting too.

Imagine your above player with the Power Attack feat, a greatsword (kord diety, war domain) and spending his time attacking instead of casting ineffective spells. Cause, the only combat spells a cleric should generally be casting are emergency heals, buffs and Freedom of Movement. If he spends his actions casting Prayer, Flamestrike (oooh, like 25 damage if you FAIL your save...), or inflict spells (terrible...) or the like, then that's your problem.

Personally? I just ban DDM entirely, as I don't think metamagic's balancing factor (increased spell level) should be circumvented so easily.

Solo
2008-02-12, 04:52 PM
Until and unless you play in one you really aren't in a position to judge.

The only way to decide this is for both Emperor Tippy and Cuddles to run a game with me as one of the players, so that a final verdict may be reached.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 04:56 PM
The character in question is a Stormlord, so he needed to waste feats on things like Endurance and Diehard. I allow some cheesy things in non-optimal builds precisely because it's not game-breaking.

Also, my players face a lot of humanoids with class levels. Dispel Magic is a very common thing.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-12, 05:07 PM
So does anyone actually play with that level of cheese?

Nobody has actually suggested it for their character, but if they had I would have vetoed it. I'm not a big fan of metamagic cost reducers in general, and this is one of the worst offenders.

ChaosDefender24
2008-02-12, 05:18 PM
If you PDMM Divine Power and Righteous Might it's like you Wild Shaped except that you're not a bear. Although there's probably a lot of personal-ranged spells that I completely forgot about.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-12, 05:52 PM
I've played with it in two campaigns, one was pretty much core only and the DMM was carted in, it didn't really do much at all, the cleric was a fighter without bonus feats sure but their actions when confrounted with anything worth paying attention to their actions were still worth more casting spells. It was just the piddly gobbos/kobolds that the DMM made much of a difference. The other campaign was all comers and the less said about DMM in an all splat book game the better, yet still it was the various dumbass spells that weren't proofread rather than the feat itself.

Hario
2008-02-12, 05:56 PM
I did it once when I made an RPing artificer and our min/maxer at the time told me I couldn't make a decent magic user. So we had a restart, he made a warforged juggernaught I made a Human Cleric3/ChurchInquisitor3/Divine Oracle2/Fist of Raziel 1 full with DMM Persistant spell and enough night sticks (though really didn't need it since I had over 9 turning attempts with my good cha, and my rolls were 18, 12, 18, 17, 18, 18 I did it right in front of the DM, he was astonished. I had a BAB and HP than his sword and shield warforged and full spells (minus one caster level for flavor)

Roland St. Jude
2008-02-12, 06:00 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Leave the baggage elsewhere and quit the sniping. And, um, be nice.

AslanCross
2008-02-12, 06:03 PM
I'm thinking of teaching our group's cleric about it, because she does nothing but stay at the back and move around slowly or make ineffective attacks. I'm not sure if she feels like she's weak compared to the paladin or she's just RPing (her character doesn't like combat).

...or should I open up a whole new can of worms and suddenly make her the most effective combatant in the party? :smalleek:

Squash Monster
2008-02-12, 06:22 PM
In my game, I houseruled that you can't DMM a spell to a level that you can't cast. So, for example, a 5th level Cleric can DMM:Extend Bull's Strength, but not a 3rd level spell (because they can't cast 4th level).

With that ruling, I'm perfectly fine with DMM:Persist. Of course, persisting Divine Power would be impossible unless you can somehow cast 11th level spells.

Frosty
2008-02-12, 06:36 PM
Your ruling also makes DMM fairly useless. I think DMM is complete balanced if you ban/limit Nightsticks.

Behold_the_Void
2008-02-12, 06:43 PM
Your ruling also makes DMM fairly useless. I think DMM is complete balanced if you ban/limit Nightsticks.

I do that too and no, it doesn't. You still get to apply metamagic for turning attempts instead of preparing them higher, which is what you'd do to cast them as metamagic anyway. It's not as overpoweringly broken, but it's still worthwhile.

Saph
2008-02-12, 06:47 PM
Your ruling also makes DMM fairly useless. I think DMM is complete balanced if you ban/limit Nightsticks.

Free metamagic is never useless. Squash's ruling is one of the more common, sensible fixes.

- Saph

Curmudgeon
2008-02-12, 06:48 PM
Absolutely. But then I also ignore the FAQ's nonsense about not allowing Maximize Spell to apply to spells with dispel checks, so one Maximized dispel can take down a Cleric's 24-hour buff pretty handily. After all, dispel checks have a simple formula for what they yield:


dispelling level = d20 + caster level - 11

With Maximize Spell you just replace d20 with 20. The same logic applies to spells that use skill checks, which also have numeric outputs. If you don't add a needless restriction on where you can apply Maximize Spell, you also don't need a restriction on where you can apply Divine Metamagic.

I find you don't need very many house rules if you pay attention to all the standard rules.

Ted_Stryker
2008-02-12, 07:38 PM
In my game, I houseruled that you can't DMM a spell to a level that you can't cast. So, for example, a 5th level Cleric can DMM:Extend Bull's Strength, but not a 3rd level spell (because they can't cast 4th level).

With that ruling, I'm perfectly fine with DMM:Persist. Of course, persisting Divine Power would be impossible unless you can somehow cast 11th level spells.
I've played in a game with this house rule. It's fine.

In my games, we'd probably have to talk about DMM-Persistent. DMM-Quicken, DMM-Maximize, etc., would probably be OK. There are no Night Sticks in my games.

Telok
2008-02-12, 07:42 PM
I play with the option of DMM and Persist, but nobody uses it.

First, fully 2/3 of our encounters are humanoids with class levels. With that much potential for a Dispel nobody is willing to bet their character's combat effectiveness on a single buff. Secondly, those nightsticks got a 24 hour attunement period and a limit of one per. Third, we limit DMMed spells to a maximum of 9th level, anything higher must use normal metamagics.

Of those three things the first is actually most restricting on DMM Persist. Most DMM builds are good for just one or two spells a day (before 15th+ levels and those face other challenges) and any fifth or sixth level caster can knock down them off. Most people won't risk two to four feats and all their turn attempts on something that fails every third fight.

It's also important to remember that anything the players can do the NPCs can do too. When the players are facing a cleric who's buffed to the eyebrows for a 40ish AC and hefty attacks you expect them (if they have half a brain between them) to whip out a dispel. It stands to reason that an NPC wizard with a 20+ Int would at least do the same.

MandibleBones
2008-02-12, 09:31 PM
I think DMM is complete balanced if you ban/limit Nightsticks.

I agree with this. A simple house rule of "The turning attempts granted by nightsticks may only be used for actual turning of undead" makes DMM of all stripes much more reasonable.

Wasting feats on Extra Turning or dumping points into CHA instead of WIS? Fine by me. You want that DPMM, you better earn it.

Planning and Undeath domains? Sure, if it fits the character. My DPMM cleric (though my DM has not made the above house ruling, I am acting as if it is there) doesn't have the Undeath domain (he has Planning and War), but the domains he does have his personality (LE cleric of the concept "twisted honor"). Additionally, I lost points on his STR score to up his CHA, since I needed more CHA for both DPMM as well as rebuking/commanding undead.

Why would someone in pursuit of immortality (he's an elf who realized that he was eventually going to die, and refuses to let that happen - not a bad guy, when you get to know him, but willing to do a lot of Nasty Things to get his way) not find every way he could to get more power?

We've covered this before, though. I don't see anything unbalanced in eating up three to four feat slots or domains to make a cleric as good in melee as a fighter who decided not to take any fighter bonus feats, had d8 hit dice and whose combat ability could be taken away by a misplaced dispel magic.

FinalJustice
2008-02-12, 09:42 PM
I'll be an edit ninja now and edit it, before anyone notices, because I didn't really pay attention to the post I previously quoted. Sorry XD

About DMM, I'm usually all against banning stuff. but I recognize that DMM Persist is surely ban material. Cleric outfighting fighters with buffs for a short period of time is already unfair, one should never let them do it all day long.

MandibleBones
2008-02-12, 09:57 PM
Cleric outfighting fighters with buffs for a short period of time is already unfair, one should never let them do it all day long.

To be fair, Persistent Spell only works on spells with range of Personal in the first place, a fact which many DMs may or may not overlook while frothing at the mouth over DMM.

Edit: That's not true, I am completely mistaken. Persistant Spell can indeed be used on fixed targets - which depending on your interpretation of the (rather vague) RAW could include other characters. Personally, I think I'd tend to interpret it as any stationary object or yourself.

On a totally unrelated note, your screen name reminds me that it's your move. Go ahead on. (An MST3k / Joe Don Baker reference, if for some reason your screen name wasn't an homage to the movie Final Justice and you are sitting here confused).

FinalJustice
2008-02-12, 10:22 PM
Never heard of the movie. Just a random cool name I picked a long ago to use in teh internetz0rz HAEUHAUEAHU

Aquillion
2008-02-13, 12:53 AM
I've allowed it, and the cleric in my game is still more interested in throwing spells around after DMM persisting a Divine Power. He's swung maybe 6 times so far in like 3 sessions. He doesn't have feats that are combat oriented because he spent so many feats on Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, DMM (Persist), Extra Turning, etc. As long as players aren't cheesing out with planning and undeath domains or whatever it should be ok.

The cleric is now a fighter without bonus feats. Oooohhh scary. Sure he can sling spells, but then he's not swinging his mace now is he? Divine Might isn't really that bad.It sounds like you weren't using nightsticks. That would also explain why he didn't have enough feats -- he had to waste them all on extra turning. Nightsticks are what really break things wide open (to the point of 'utterly and completely broken', not just 'overpowered'), because then the cleric can relatively cheaply persist every useful persistable spell they know on themselves, without devoting more than a few feats to getting persistant spell + DMM.

I'm guessing, say, he didn't have enough turning attempts to persist both divine power and righteous might? You said 'divine might', which isn't a spell, but what you described -- the fighter-without-bonus-feats -- makes me think it's probably just divine power.

With Righteous Might, they also get a boosted size category (which is a huge advantage, ha ha) +4 str, +2 con, +2 armor (plus bonuses from size category), plus some slight additional damage from enlarged equipment. Add the basic stat-enhancing spells so they don't need to use equipment for that (and can use it for other things),

Oh, yes, and they can get other benefits as well. Persistent Find Traps? Check. Persistent Death Ward? Check. Persistent Freedom of Movement? Check. Persistent Spell Immunity for whatever worries you? Check. Persistent Spell Resistance? Check. Persistent Antilife Shell (not all the time, obviously, but useful on certain adventures?) Check.

You get the idea. Several of these are as good as feats, class features, or expensive slotted magical items, and you're getting them cheaply, without spending any more feats or levels or anything important like that, and all day long. Don't forget that there are several AC-enhancing spells I left out, and with your massively boosted con you're probably going to be at least as good a tank as a barbarian, too, with more bonuses than they have in a rage.

And those are just core; every additional splatbook with decent cleric spells in it basically gives the DMM + nightsticks cleric that many more massively powerful class features, all day long. Even the druid can only be one animal at a time (ok, two if you count the companion... three or four if they summon... well, work with me here.) The DMM can use every worthwhile cleric spell at once, constantly.

Now, you probably do need a feat or two (power attack helps, since it lets you convert several of the massive bonuses you're getting to your to-hit into even more damage), but you don't really need massive feat chains... your higher-level persisted spells are better than most feats anyway.

NoDot
2008-02-13, 02:32 AM
In all these debates, no one points out the real problem: melee uselessness. The Fighter-without-Bonus-Feats isn't that much worse than the Fighter. Solve that and DDM Persist becomes moot.

Beren One-Hand
2008-02-13, 02:46 AM
With Righteous Might, they also get a boosted size category (which is a huge advantage, ha ha) +4 str, +2 con, +2 armor (plus bonuses from size category), plus some slight additional damage from enlarged equipment. Add the basic stat-enhancing spells so they don't need to use equipment for that (and can use it for other things),

Oh, yes, and they can get other benefits as well. Persistent Find Traps? Check. Persistent Death Ward? Check. Persistent Freedom of Movement? Check. Persistent Spell Immunity for whatever worries you? Check. Persistent Spell Resistance? Check. Persistent Antilife Shell (not all the time, obviously, but useful on certain adventures?) Check.

Just a few corrections here...
The basic stat-enhancing spells cannot be persisted (They are touch range spells, which do not qualify as fixed range spells)
The same goes for Death Ward, Spell Immunity, and Spell Resistance.
Freedom of Movement is techniqually allowed, but if a spell is a touch range spell, there is no reason it should also be a person range spell. There is no continutity between spells in this regard, unfortunately

While we're talking about odd ways of writing up spells, you could persist Vigorous Circle because it has a fixed range of 20 ft, even though it targets one creature per two level (who must be within 30 ft of each other).

The Professor
2008-02-13, 03:06 AM
I like DMM. I've always been of the opinion that Clerics, Wizards and other casters should be one-upping the Mundanes anyway. Yes, I use DMM in my games.

Now, the above is mostly opinion. DMM is certainly not for every group out there, especially people just starting out, and if your friends think that Fighter and Monk are awesome to play and optimize. Our games have BWL's Fighter, and ToB classes. I also tend to enjoy Batman Wizards, and we don't use Nightsticks.

That said, a DMM Cleric really isn't so bad in our games. He can go melee if he throws up his buffs at the start of the day, but there's always a chance for a Dispel, and the Warblade is better out there then he is.

I think it just depends on the group and the play-style of the player in question.

Squash Monster
2008-02-13, 03:55 AM
In all these debates, no one points out the real problem: melee uselessness. The Fighter-without-Bonus-Feats isn't that much worse than the Fighter. Solve that and DDM Persist becomes moot.I think you nailed the issue here. A good Fighter build that really leverages all those feats into a cohesive machine can easily outperform Clericzilla, at least until Clericzilla decides to cast Hold Person on him. Which does bring up a problem: the Cleric can still cast spells after all this.

But I digress, fixing the Fighter-without-Bonus-Feats vs Fighter problem would be a huge step. Do you have a suggestion for how to fix this?

The best I can think of would be to look at the optimized feat sets and encourage players to take the entire thing as a package. Unfortunately, the only good feat sets I know are the bullrusher set (mostly Shock Trooper and the Dungeoncrasher alternative class feature) which stops being so great after a while, or the lockdown set, which doesn't mature until level 16.

VariaVespasa
2008-02-13, 03:55 AM
Absolutely. But then I also ignore the FAQ's nonsense about not allowing Maximize Spell to apply to spells with dispel checks, so one Maximized dispel can take down a Cleric's 24-hour buff pretty handily. After all, dispel checks have a simple formula for what they yield:


dispelling level = d20 + caster level - 11

With Maximize Spell you just replace d20 with 20. The same logic applies to spells that use skill checks, which also have numeric outputs. If you don't add a needless restriction on where you can apply Maximize Spell, you also don't need a restriction on where you can apply Divine Metamagic.

I find you don't need very many house rules if you pay attention to all the standard rules.

I find with rings of counterspelling loaded with dispel magics I dont have to pay too much attention to dispel magics against my DMMs, maximised or not. :P

But DDM-P is not all free or anything- Its several feats and levels to get up to DMM-P, lots of turn attempts leaving you with few to actually turn undead, the rings, which are pretty much a must (because few enemy casters dont carry at least 1 dispel, and who isnt going to cast one at a charging tank twice the size he should be?), also cost money. Nightsticks arent free either, although I very much agree that you shouldnt be allowed to have more than 1 at a time. And a last item- you're twice the size you should be. That causes problems in any kind of enclosed space or tight quarters.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-13, 09:15 AM
Just a few corrections here...
The basic stat-enhancing spells cannot be persisted (They are touch range spells, which do not qualify as fixed range spells)
The same goes for Death Ward, Spell Immunity, and Spell Resistance.
Freedom of Movement is techniqually allowed, but if a spell is a touch range spell, there is no reason it should also be a person range spell. There is no continutity between spells in this regard, unfortunately

While we're talking about odd ways of writing up spells, you could persist Vigorous Circle because it has a fixed range of 20 ft, even though it targets one creature per two level (who must be within 30 ft of each other).

Actually you can persist Touched range spells. In 3.0 you couldn't persist touch range spells because of an Errata saying so. Then in 3.5 Persistent Spell was updated (and they changed the level increase so they actually did update the spell) and it has never had an errata published.

Whether or not its stupid and overpowered is irrelevant. In 3.5 you can persist touch range spells.

leperkhaun
2008-02-13, 10:11 AM
I have played a PDMM cleric...but then it was in a high powered game with a lion pounce barbarian, a chain tripping grish, and a optimized mage.

VariaVespasa
2008-02-13, 10:52 AM
Nightsticks are what really break things wide open to the point of 'utterly and completely broken.

With Righteous Might, they also get a boosted size category (which is a huge advantage, ha ha) +4 str, +2 con, +2 armor (plus bonuses from size category), plus some slight additional damage from enlarged equipment. Add the basic stat-enhancing spells so they don't need to use equipment for that (and can use it for other things),

Nightsticks are indeed the real problem. Restrict them to 1 active nightstick per character and most of the problems go away. (A character could carry extra nightsticks, in case he lost his active one or something, however)

Righteous Might and Divine Power, while indeed highly useful, do have drawbacks, specifically that the stat bonuses from them dont stack very well with anything except each other. Other physical stat boosting spells and items dont stack with them. I started having issues with what to buy for my DMM-P cleric after a while because of that.

Even running with both RM and DP up I never found I had enough BAB to use power attack with profitable results, even if I'd had the feat. Granted it was in CotSQ but still... Hitting for an average of 25+ (before DR from all those dorky vampires etc), I cant say I think getting 2 or 3 more damage per hit is worth eating a -2 or 3 on all 4 attacks, and the more you power attack the worse the equation gets.

I never found the other 2 party tanks to have a hard time being effective contributers either. (dwarf defender pike tripper, and his favored soul spiked chain tripper successor, even without his spells)

Aquillion
2008-02-13, 12:04 PM
Even running with both RM and DP up I never found I had enough BAB to use power attack with profitable results, even if I'd had the feat. Granted it was in CotSQ but still... Hitting for an average of 25+ (before DR from all those dorky vampires etc), I cant say I think getting 2 or 3 more damage per hit is worth eating a -2 or 3 on all 4 attacks, and the more you power attack the worse the equation gets.Were you using a two-handed weapon? You ought to be getting +6 for -4, say.

Also, were you using Divine Favor? That's +3 to attack and damage, and it's a luck bonus, so it stacks with the others. Wield a two-handed weapon and spend -4 of that on your attack, and you have -1/+9 total.

Don't forget to use Greater Magic Weapon, of course (you can't persist it, but don't need to, since it's hour/level). You don't usually want to be spending money on basic weapon plusses anyway; this lets them get spent elsewhere.

Is this going to make you completely better at hitting things than a totally optimized fighter in all respects? No. But you're a very decent fighter, better than a poorly-optimized one, and you still have all your spells... and at higher levels, melee fighters become less useful anyway. So the general idea is that you're still pretty much rendering them obsolete, since you can do their job adequately while retaining the full powers of another class.

Of course, the really broken spell to persist?

Consumptive Field. Cleric 4, 30-foot emanation centered on you.
Any creature in the field that drops below 0 hp has to make a will save or die... and for everything this kills, you get 1d8 temp hp, a cumulative +2 str )(untyped), and +1 to your caster level (CL bonus is max half your CL, others have no max) until the end of the spell. This one is broken even without nightsticks. Can be found in the Spell Compendium.

And it gets worse; Libris Mortis has a Greater Consumptive Field, which works on anything below 10 hp. The only problem with that is that you may not want to murder everyone in town every time you go to buy anything.

This is even more absurd than it sounds. Cast DMM Consumptive Field, kill some rats, then cast all your other DMM spells for the day, and they'll be at +50% CL, making them virtually impossible to dispel and likely increasing their benefit.

Let's see, other good spells to persist:

Greater Visage Of The Deity. Personal level 9 spell. Too many bonuses to list, but they include resistances, immunities, SR, DR (granted, it's only /magic), flight at double speed, and untyped bonuses ranging from +2 to +4 to every stat.

Righteous Wrath Of The Faithful. Level 5, all allies in 30-ft burst centered on you. Grants an extra attack and +3 hit/damage to your whole team, unstackable with Haste.

Dragon Breath. Level 5 personal. Gives you a dragon breath attack as a standard action. Many options, but the best are probably brass/copper/silver for 1d6-round sleep/slow/paralysis. (All 15-foot cones)

Chronos
2008-02-13, 05:21 PM
Of course, the really broken spell to persist?

Consumptive Field.It's not really fair to bring Consumptive Field into this, since there just plain isn't any non-broken use for that spell. A character with Consumptive Field and no other spells or class abilities at all would be horribly broken. I have no idea what the designers were thinking, with that spell.


Righteous Might and Divine Power, while indeed highly useful, do have drawbacks, specifically that the stat bonuses from them dont stack very well with anything except each other.Divine Power gives enhancement bonuses, which are a dime a dozen, but Righteous Might gives size bonuses. The only other spell I know of which grants size bonuses is Enlarge Person, and that gives you less Str than RM, no Con, and actually decreases your Dex. So RM will stack with pretty much everything.

Akisa
2008-02-13, 06:22 PM
Were you using a two-handed weapon? You ought to be getting +6 for -4, say.

Also, were you using Divine Favor? That's +3 to attack and damage, and it's a luck bonus, so it stacks with the others. Wield a two-handed weapon and spend -4 of that on your attack, and you have -1/+9 total.

Don't forget to use Greater Magic Weapon, of course (you can't persist it, but don't need to, since it's hour/level). You don't usually want to be spending money on basic weapon plusses anyway; this lets them get spent elsewhere.

Is this going to make you completely better at hitting things than a totally optimized fighter in all respects? No. But you're a very decent fighter, better than a poorly-optimized one, and you still have all your spells... and at higher levels, melee fighters become less useful anyway. So the general idea is that you're still pretty much rendering them obsolete, since you can do their job adequately while retaining the full powers of another class.

Of course, the really broken spell to persist?

Consumptive Field. Cleric 4, 30-foot emanation centered on you.
Any creature in the field that drops below 0 hp has to make a will save or die... and for everything this kills, you get 1d8 temp hp, a cumulative +2 str )(untyped), and +1 to your caster level (CL bonus is max half your CL, others have no max) until the end of the spell. This one is broken even without nightsticks. Can be found in the Spell Compendium.

And it gets worse; Libris Mortis has a Greater Consumptive Field, which works on anything below 10 hp. The only problem with that is that you may not want to murder everyone in town every time you go to buy anything.

This is even more absurd than it sounds. Cast DMM Consumptive Field, kill some rats, then cast all your other DMM spells for the day, and they'll be at +50% CL, making them virtually impossible to dispel and likely increasing their benefit.

Let's see, other good spells to persist:

Greater Visage Of The Deity. Personal level 9 spell. Too many bonuses to list, but they include resistances, immunities, SR, DR (granted, it's only /magic), flight at double speed, and untyped bonuses ranging from +2 to +4 to every stat.

Righteous Wrath Of The Faithful. Level 5, all allies in 30-ft burst centered on you. Grants an extra attack and +3 hit/damage to your whole team, unstackable with Haste.

Dragon Breath. Level 5 personal. Gives you a dragon breath attack as a standard action. Many options, but the best are probably brass/copper/silver for 1d6-round sleep/slow/paralysis. (All 15-foot cones)

Ummm you also forgot about several important bonuses

Bead of Karma: Hello +4 Caster level which means an extra +1 to your Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment and 20% harder to dispel checks.

Now here are 2 Bard spells that can really help you out (first one can be potions or plead with a bard friend to help you here), both are from Spell Compendium.

Hymn of Praise/Infernal Threnody: Level 3 +2 CL to Good/Evil (respectively) divine casters along with +4 Turn/Rebuke undead.

Harmonic Chorus: Level 2 bard spell, gives +2 CL to both Divine and Arcane magic but requires you to keep concentration so it's best used after the above spell. And thus why can't really be used as a potion...

Chronos
2008-02-13, 06:48 PM
I find with rings of counterspelling loaded with dispel magics I dont have to pay too much attention to dispel magics against my DMMs, maximised or not. :PForgot to mention this earlier: A Ring of Dispelling is only good for the exact spell which is stored in it. If it's a Dispel Magic, it won't work for Greater Dispelling, or vice-versa, nor for a Reaving Dispel, nor a Disjunction (which admittedly screws over almost anyone), etc. You could store Greater Dispelling in the ring, and just hope that you never encounter the others, or that they can't make their dispel checks, but it's still not entirely worry-free. And, of course, you're also using up one or both of your ring slots, and you could probably find other things you'd like to use them for.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-13, 07:10 PM
You could store Greater Dispelling in the ring, and just hope that you never encounter the others, or that they can't make their dispel checks, but it's still not entirely worry-free.
Yeah, played that game in a campaign once where our entire battle strategy was "Buff the Barbarian, then sic 'em on the biggest bad in the room."

I played one of the characters doing the buffing.

Ganurath
2008-02-13, 07:14 PM
I haven't been in a game with it, but I think I'd allow it if the other players were similiarly high power. Exception going to anyone with the Celerity or Trickery domains, though. They'll never get PDMM.

Frosty
2008-02-13, 07:16 PM
Can one even DMM: Persist a timestop? What about Extending a timestop?

Zincorium
2008-02-13, 07:19 PM
Can one even DMM: Persist a timestop? What about Extending a timestop?

At first glance, yes, but the key in the duration line is 'apparent' rounds. I believe there may be an errata/FAQ specifying that, but I don't know for sure.

Beren One-Hand
2008-02-13, 07:43 PM
Actually you can persist Touched range spells. In 3.0 you couldn't persist touch range spells because of an Errata saying so. Then in 3.5 Persistent Spell was updated (and they changed the level increase so they actually did update the spell) and it has never had an errata published.

Whether or not its stupid and overpowered is irrelevant. In 3.5 you can persist touch range spells.

I just looked it up in Complete Arcane, the texts says it works on "Spells with a fixed or personal range". That doesn't include a range of Touch.

If you're saying that a range of Touch is fixed range because it doesn't vary by caster level, that seems a stretch as that definition would include personal range spells as well. It seems clear to me, only spells that say Personal, a specific distance, or Unlimeted in the Range: portion of the spell are valid targets to become a Persistant Spell.

deadseashoals
2008-02-13, 07:55 PM
Absolutely. But then I also ignore the FAQ's nonsense about not allowing Maximize Spell to apply to spells with dispel checks, so one Maximized dispel can take down a Cleric's 24-hour buff pretty handily. After all, dispel checks have a simple formula for what they yield:


dispelling level = d20 + caster level - 11

With Maximize Spell you just replace d20 with 20. The same logic applies to spells that use skill checks, which also have numeric outputs. If you don't add a needless restriction on where you can apply Maximize Spell, you also don't need a restriction on where you can apply Divine Metamagic.

I find you don't need very many house rules if you pay attention to all the standard rules.

So in your games, spells that involve attack rolls maximize their attack rolls then? You do realize that this makes maximized dispel magic vastly superior to greater dispel magic for the same spell level?

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-13, 07:57 PM
I just looked it up in Complete Arcane, the texts says it works on "Spells with a fixed or personal range". That doesn't include a range of Touch.

If you're saying that a range of Touch is fixed range because it doesn't vary by caster level, that seems a stretch as that definition would include personal range spells as well. It seems clear to me, only spells that say Personal, a specific distance, or Unlimeted in the Range: portion of the spell are valid targets to become a Persistant Spell.

In 3.0 wizards was of the opinion that touch was fixed range. Thats why they issued an errata to specifically exclude touch range spells from persist.

In 3.5 they stripped said errata. And Touch is a fixed range.

deadseashoals
2008-02-13, 07:58 PM
Actually you can persist Touched range spells. In 3.0 you couldn't persist touch range spells because of an Errata saying so. Then in 3.5 Persistent Spell was updated (and they changed the level increase so they actually did update the spell) and it has never had an errata published.

Whether or not its stupid and overpowered is irrelevant. In 3.5 you can persist touch range spells.

I don't believe the wording on Persistent Spell has changed at all, save the spell level adjustment. Likewise, I don't believe the wording on spell range has changed materially, so I don't see why the 3.0 ruling would not apply to the 3.5 version of the feat, which is, for this purpose, exactly the same.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-13, 08:11 PM
I don't believe the wording on Persistent Spell has changed at all, save the spell level adjustment. Likewise, I don't believe the wording on spell range has changed materially, so I don't see why the 3.0 ruling would not apply to the 3.5 version of the feat, which is, for this purpose, exactly the same.

In 3.0 you could persist touch ranged spells. Then an errata was published saying that you could no longer persist touch range spells. The fact that an errata saying you could no longer persist touch range spells means that touch range spells have to be fixed range in WotC's opinion (otherwise the errata wouldn't have been needed). Now 3.5 comes out and Persistent spell is republished for 3.5. The spell level is changed (from +4 to +6) in 3.5 showing that WotC actually looked at the ability and didn't just copy/paste it. Since 3.5 has come out no errata on the subject has ever arrived, even though Persistent Spell is published in 2 separate 3.5 books. Both of which have had errata issued. And neither of which have that errata say anything about Persistent Spell.

Touch Range spells are fixed range in WotC's opinion and are RAW legal for persist.

Beren One-Hand
2008-02-13, 08:11 PM
In 3.0 wizards was of the opinion that touch was fixed range. Thats why they issued an errata to specifically exclude touch range spells from persist.

In 3.5 they stripped said errata. And Touch is a fixed range.

On the other hand, I would say that in 3.0 some player where of the opinion that touch was fixed range. That is why Wizards clairified the issue with an errata to specifically exclude touch range spells from persist spell.

In 3.5 they didn't issue that clarification, but it doesn't make touch a fixed range.

Emperor Tippy
2008-02-13, 08:16 PM
On the other hand, I would say that in 3.0 some player where of the opinion that touch was fixed range. That is why Wizards clairified the issue with an errata to specifically exclude touch range spells from persist spell.

In 3.5 they didn't issue that clarification, but it doesn't make touch a fixed range.

Actually it does.

Errata is not a clarification. Clarifications have been issued in errata before but actual errata is not a clarification. Persistent spell was actually errated to specifically exclude Touch range spells. For that errata to be possible Touch range spells had to previously be a valid target for Persistent Spell and thus fixed range spells. The very act of issuing that errata clarified that infact Touch range spells are fixed range.

And the fact that no errata for 3.5 has ever been issued on the subject and that persistent spell was updated in 2 separate books all combine to make it perfectly clear what WotC's opinion on the matter is.

Cuddly
2008-02-14, 03:21 PM
Any character that gets turning can persist their spells, right? Doesn't this make, say, archivists, 100x more broken? Not only is it batman with access to more spells, but also a c-zilla?

RTGoodman
2008-02-14, 03:43 PM
Any character that gets turning can persist their spells, right? Doesn't this make, say, archivists, 100x more broken? Not only is it batman with access to more spells, but also a c-zilla?

Except that Archivists don't get Turn or Rebuke Undead. If you find a way to get it, though, it doesn't limit what spells you can use it on.

Cuddly
2008-02-14, 03:46 PM
Except that Archivists don't get Turn or Rebuke Undead. If you find a way to get it, though, it doesn't limit what spells you can use it on.

There are, off the top of my head, 3 PrC that will give turning.

MandibleBones
2008-02-14, 03:48 PM
There are, off the top of my head, 3 PrC that will give turning.

Which has little to do with archivist and much to do with the PrCs. Furthermore, Turn Undead attempts are based on CHA, which makes Archivists (who are already DAD with their INT and WIS) pretty much MAD.

Unless you're using nightsticks. Which makes this a circular argument.

Cuddly
2008-02-14, 04:12 PM
Which has little to do with archivist and much to do with the PrCs.

No, it doesn't. An archivist has little reason to dip a PrC that gives turning if he can't DMM persist Undermaster or Greater Visage of the Deity.


Furthermore, Turn Undead attempts are based on CHA, which makes Archivists (who are already DAD with their INT and WIS) pretty much MAD.

Archivists are intelligence casters. Dex and con are nice, but really, if you're a high level full caster, you can practically get by as a quadriplegic without much problem.


Unless you're using nightsticks. Which makes this a circular argument.

Circular? Besides your lack of comprehension, what exactly would be circular about using nightsticks?

Indon
2008-02-14, 04:17 PM
In 3.0 wizards was of the opinion that touch was fixed range. Thats why they issued an errata to specifically exclude touch range spells from persist.
In which 3.0 book does it say touch is a fixed range, and does it have a 3.5 update?

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-14, 04:52 PM
How could "Touch" possibly not be a fixed range? Where's the variable?

Aquillion
2008-02-14, 05:12 PM
Any character that gets turning can persist their spells, right? Doesn't this make, say, archivists, 100x more broken? Not only is it batman with access to more spells, but also a c-zilla?Technically, turning is just needed for DMM; anyone can persist. Without DMM, though, you'll need another way to reduce or pay for the +6 level cost to make it feasable.

For persisting lower-level spells, Metamagic Song has some potential. It is like DMM for bardic music uses, but it has one vitally balancing restriction DMM doesn't: You can't use Metamagic Song to metamagic a spell above the highest-level spell you can cast normally (which limits you to persisting level 3 spells at most, unless you have some additional way to reduce metamagic cost.)

While obviously not as overwhelming as a DMM in all sorts of ways (aside from the restriction, they just don't have as many good spells to persist), a Sublime Chord with Metamagic Song can still do pretty well. They have several ways to boost their CL temporarily, for one; in addition to the spells listed above they have a song that can give up to +4 CL.

I don't know about sources for extra bardic music uses, though... But, anyway, they can use it. Really, they'd probably be better with other metamagic if they want to go the lyric spell route, though, more because bards don't have so much worth persisting than anything else.

You can also use Persistant Spell freely with metamagic spell trigger, which has no requirements (you just burn charges to pay for the metamagic.) Several classes (artificer and incantrix) get it as a class ability; I think there's also a feat that grants it in Complete Mage or something? This is useful for low-level spells, but can become prohibitively expensive with higher-level spells, and anything above 4th level is unavailable because wands stop at that point.

EDIT: Also, regarding the touch spell dispute -- what if you're an archmage with Arcane Reach? This lets you use touch spells on anyone in 30 feet, making them 'fixed range' by any of the definitions given here.

What if you apply the Reach Spell metamagic feat? That turns it into a ray with a fixed range of 30 feet... that should allow anything with a range of touch to be persisted.

Frosty
2008-02-14, 05:39 PM
Doesn't Reach turn the spell into Close range (25ft + 5ft/2 levels)?

Ted_Stryker
2008-02-14, 06:00 PM
How could "Touch" possibly not be a fixed range? Where's the variable?
You can touch anywhere within arm's reach? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, I got nothin'.

Voyager_I
2008-02-14, 06:09 PM
Circular? Besides your lack of comprehension, what exactly would be circular about using nightsticks?

Because it's already well established that Nightsticks break DMM into subatomic particles, so saying "But it would be really broken with Nightsticks!" is entirely self-evident and proves nothing about whatever is being discussed. He was aware of this. Duh.

"Circular" might not have been the best word, though...

Cuddly
2008-02-14, 06:52 PM
Because it's already well established that Nightsticks break DMM into subatomic particles, so saying "But it would be really broken with Nightsticks!" is entirely self-evident and proves nothing about whatever is being discussed. He was aware of this. Duh.

"Circular" might not have been the best word, though...

Ah. Gotcha. I was disregarding nightsticks.
And you are correct, archivists require wisdom for spells/day.

Chronos
2008-02-14, 08:13 PM
Can one even DMM: Persist a timestop? What about Extending a timestop?If I were DMing a game where the appropriate options existed (Persist Spell and metamagic tricks like DMM that make it possible to use on a 9th-level spell), I would allow a persisted timestop. I would also allow a player a Knowledge: Arcana check before he tried it, to realize what a spectacularly bad idea it would be. Because I wouldn't extend the apparent duration to 24 hours; I'd extend the true duration to that long. Which means that the character would die of old age before he returned to normal, he wouldn't be able to affect anyone else in that time, and he wouldn't even be able to refresh his spell slots, because his designated prayer time would never come.

But realistically, I probably wouldn't allow Persist Spell or metamagiced 9th-level spells in the first place, so it'd never come up.

Yami
2008-02-14, 09:04 PM
The real trick with Persist DMM is to get anyspell from the magic domain. Forget undeath and planning, persisted Swift Fly? Yes please. What's that you say, wraithstrike for 2 full days? Why not!

Worst part was, my level 7 PDMM cleric still died to the beholder swarm.

Sometimes you don't want the cheese. Sometimes, you don't have much choice.

Shhalahr Windrider
2008-02-14, 09:07 PM
Because I wouldn't extend the apparent duration to 24 hours; I'd extend the true duration to that long. Which means that the character would die of old age before he returned to normal, he wouldn't be able to affect anyone else in that time, and he wouldn't even be able to refresh his spell slots, because his designated prayer time would never come.
Die of old age? If by Persisting the real duration to 24 hours and we're still going at a ratio of 1d4+1 (average 3.5) apparent rounds to every real round, the caster would only be stuck for three and a half days.

Chronos
2008-02-14, 10:31 PM
Die of old age? If by Persisting the real duration to 24 hours and we're still going at a ratio of 1d4+1 (average 3.5) apparent rounds to every real round, the caster would only be stuck for three and a half days.Except the true duration isn't one round; the true duration is so brief that nothing else appears to move at all. Of course, it's impossible to say quite how fast that is, but given how fast some things move in D&D, for them to not appear to move at all, time must be sped up by a very great factor indeed.

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 10:56 PM
So does anyone actually play with that level of cheese?

What is Persistent DMM?
from
EE

Beren One-Hand
2008-02-14, 11:14 PM
Using the Divine Meta-magic feat to negate the spell-level increase of Persistant Spell.

EvilElitest
2008-02-14, 11:18 PM
Using the Divine Meta-magic feat to negate the spell-level increase of Persistant Spell.

and i take it that is very overpowered
from
EE

Aquillion
2008-02-14, 11:38 PM
If I were DMing a game where the appropriate options existed (Persist Spell and metamagic tricks like DMM that make it possible to use on a 9th-level spell), I would allow a persisted timestop. I would also allow a player a Knowledge: Arcana check before he tried it, to realize what a spectacularly bad idea it would be. Because I wouldn't extend the apparent duration to 24 hours; I'd extend the true duration to that long. Which means that the character would die of old age before he returned to normal, he wouldn't be able to affect anyone else in that time, and he wouldn't even be able to refresh his spell slots, because his designated prayer time would never come.Warforged or Elan.

And not allowing him to refresh his spell slots is absurd. While the rules don't really cover whose timeframe matters for refreshing spells (so it requires a DM call either way), using anyone's timeframe but his own doesn't really make any sense... if you want to keep the player from doing it, just say it doesn't work. There's no need to use absurd interpretations of the rules just to screw your players over, no matter how annoying they're being. If it was a cleric, of course, I can see using their deity's timeframe (in other words, typical Prime Material timeframe) to determine when spells are refreshed, but a wizard just needs 8 hours for their body and mind to rest... there's absolutely no reason why that should depend on anyone's timeframe but their own.


and i take it that is very overpoweredWell... you could read the thread. DMM allows you to buy off the cost of metamagic by spending turning attempts instead of increasing the spell level.

It's powerful, but the general consensus is that it's not as overpowered as some people think unless you combine it with some cheap source of extra turning attempts (e.g. nightsticks) or an already broken spell (e.g. Consumptive Field, debatably Divine Power). Nightsticks, which are cheap and grant extra turning attempts just by being carried, break the restrictions it's supposed to have wide open, while using it with a broken spell just makes that spell more broken because you can use it all the time.

If you remove nightsticks and a handful of already-fairly-broken spells, though, it isn't really that bad... you're spending two feats, and without spending even more on extra turning you're only going to be able to persist three spells at most. And you'll have to spend the spell slots needed for those spells, of course, and unless you also combine it with strategies to raise your CL they'll be vulnerable to being dispelled...

Basically, as long as you don't go out of your way to break it, it's just using DMM the way it was meant to be used. It's powerful because it creates an extremely effective use for a resource (turning attempts) that generally go to waste otherwise... but in an already high-powered campaign, it isn't going to wreck anything on its own.

I think the problem is that a lot of people have read DMM builds centered around nightsticks, and concluded that it was overpowered based on that.

(As an aside, if you want to use DMM but are worried about it breaking the campaign, the easiest solution is to houserule the Metamagic Song solution: Make it so you can't use DMM to pay for total metamagic that would normally have increased a spell's overall level above the highest available to you. With that houserule, it's not particularly high-power at all.)

Chronos
2008-02-14, 11:59 PM
and i take it that is very overpoweredTo spell it out piece-by-piece:
1: Divine Metamagic lets you apply metamagic to a spell by using up Turn Undead attempts instead of increasing the spell level.
2: Persist Spell is a metamagic which increases the duration of the spell to 24 hours, normally for a cost of +6 levels.
3: Therefore, you can cast a DMM:Persist version of a spell by using up 7 Turn Undead attepts (the cost is one plus the normal level increase of the metamagic).
4: There's a relatively inexpensive item in one of the splatbooks called a Nightstick which gives you the Extra Turning feat if you own it. Multiple Nightsticks stack, so you can basically get as many turning attempts per day as you want.
5: Clerics have a significant number of powerful buff spells, which are limited primarily by having a duration of 1 round per caster level. But if you Persist them, that limitation goes away.
6: Therefore, a cleric with DMM: Persist and a bunch of Nightsticks can run around with Divine Power, Righteous Might, and other buffs active all day.
7: The fighter can't do this, so he's unhappy, since the cleric can now do everything he can do, better (plus a bunch of other stuff).


If it was a cleric, of course, I can see using their deity's timeframe (in other words, typical Prime Material timeframe) to determine when spells are refreshed, but a wizard just needs 8 hours for their body and mind to rest... there's absolutely no reason why that should depend on anyone's timeframe but their own.A wizard could still replenish spell slots, but he's going to have to use some other trick to be able to Persist a 9th-level spell. And the wizard's spell slots don't include Create Food and Water, so he's still screwed.

But like I said, I probably wouldn't allow it in the first place, so it's somewhat moot.