Author Topic: Persistent Spell  (Read 4557 times)

Offline Asinjin

  • DM
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9390
    • View Profile
    • Habololy
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2017, 09:29:51 AM »
There are two questions left that needed to be answered.

1) How to handle spells that would be of epic level?

2) Can touch spells be made persistent?

The consensus appears to be to make epic spells cast more to cast using divine metamagic (or similar feat).  So making a spell equivalent 10th costs one extra spell level, 11th, costs 2 extra, and so forth.  That means that making a 9th level spell persistent would cost 12 slots.

Touch spells still under consideration.  Thoughts?
The hand that rolls the Dice rules the world.

Offline Valdis

  • Magnanamous
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
    • View Profile
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2017, 02:55:27 PM »
There are two questions left that needed to be answered.

1) How to handle spells that would be of epic level?

2) Can touch spells be made persistent?

The consensus appears to be to make epic spells cast more to cast using divine metamagic (or similar feat).  So making a spell equivalent 10th costs one extra spell level, 11th, costs 2 extra, and so forth.  That means that making a 9th level spell persistent would cost 12 slots.

Touch spells still under consideration.  Thoughts?

As long as the touch spells have a duration, then yes, I would include them.

Offline Windblade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1453
    • View Profile
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2017, 03:08:15 PM »
I don’t think attack touch spells that discharge should be included

Offline Hero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
    • View Profile
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2017, 04:35:48 PM »
I don’t think attack touch spells that discharge should be included
This is part of the normal persistent spell rules - cannot persist anything with an instantaneous duration or that can be discharged.

Offline Hero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
    • View Profile
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2017, 04:50:46 PM »
1) How to handle spells that would be of epic level

The consensus appears to be to make epic spells cast more to cast using divine metamagic (or similar feat).  So making a spell equivalent 10th costs one extra spell level, 11th, costs 2 extra, and so forth.  That means that making a 9th level spell persistent would cost 12 slots.

Note that there is precedent set for offsetting metamagic costs - there’s a bardic music feat called metamagic song that uses bardic music to pay for metamagic the same way DMM uses turn undead, except the bardic version specifically states you can’t use it to cast spells of a level you couldn’t normally cast.

So should we impose a similar restriction on DMM? Or imposes a higher cost if you exceed you normal casting ability?

Offline Asinjin

  • DM
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9390
    • View Profile
    • Habololy
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2017, 05:49:24 PM »
Note that there is precedent set for offsetting metamagic costs - there’s a bardic music feat called metamagic song that uses bardic music to pay for metamagic the same way DMM uses turn undead, except the bardic version specifically states you can’t use it to cast spells of a level you couldn’t normally cast.

So should we impose a similar restriction on DMM? Or imposes a higher cost if you exceed you normal casting ability?

I would say higher cost for exceeding.  It would be an even bigger issue for bards since they cap at a lower level.
The hand that rolls the Dice rules the world.

Offline Valdis

  • Magnanamous
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
    • View Profile
Re: Persistent Spell
« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2017, 12:45:13 AM »
I would say higher cost for exceeding.  It would be an even bigger issue for bards since they cap at a lower level.
If we are just going to keep adding penalties, why not just ban the feats or feat combinations?  We're running the risk of "pricing it" out of usefulness.  DMm already has a built in +1 level penalty. Arcane Thesis can only be applied to a single spell one time so you can't stack that multiple times. 

What about just making a rule that spells above "X" level can not be made persistent?  And don't add any additional penalties other than what is laid out in the feats in their current form.