Post/Author/DateTime	Post
IceFractal 11-03-05, 03:20 AM	Persistant Spell is tricky in it's spell level adjustment - the +6 of the new version is really too much for most spells, but the +4 of the old version was abusable for certain short duration ones. In the same way that now (in 3.5), continuous magic item pricing is dependant on spell duration, I propose that Persistant's cost should be based on the duration of the spell being made Persistant. Here's my proposed costs: 1 hour/level = +1 spell levels (Once you hit 12th level, this is actually equal to or weaker than Extend Spell. Before that, it's a slight boost, but not much of one, it only applies to some spells, and you do have to spend an extra feat for it). 10 minutes/level = +2 or +3 (I'm really not sure) 1 minute/level = +4 spell levels (Should be balanced with Quicken) 1 round/level or less = +6 spell levels (The worst case scenario that 3.5 Persistant is priced for). So, any opinions on this? Does it seem balanced?
Rheitheillaethor 11-03-05, 07:33 AM	Seems like a very nice idea actually. Go for it :-)
Shatteredtower 11-03-05, 07:50 AM	A fluctuating value based on the spell's normal duration seems like a reasonable idea, though some people will mistakenly (or "mistakenly" in some cases, if you know what I mean) make the wrong level adjustment if there isn't a single flat formula. If you fear that circumstances might be less than ideal for managing the floating level adjustment, maybe you can consider just using the +4 level adjustment and limiting its application to spells with a duration measured in minutes or greater? Or how about if the Persistent Spell feat was a special case metamagic, one that adjusted Exend Spell to allow it to be applied to a spell more than once, as it was in 3.0 rules? Would recapturing that option be worth it or is the all-day duration the only desirable prize here?
Novacat 11-03-05, 07:57 AM	This formula allows Invisibility for 24 hrs as a 6th level spell, and Greater Invisibility for 24 hours as an 8th level spell. That second one, at least, seems a scary thought.
Bopple 11-03-05, 07:58 AM	A similar was proposed, even before 3.5 Persistent Spell was introduced. And the problem won't go away, as long as we have Divine Metamagic.
Esponer 11-03-05, 08:07 AM	This formula allows Invisibility for 24 hrs as a 6th level spell, and Greater Invisibility for 24 hours as an 8th level spell. That second one, at least, seems a scary thought. Complete Arcane's Superior Invisibility lasts hours/level and is even more useful than Greater Invisibility. What you've said is a little scary, but I don't think it's unbalanced compared to the existing "upgrade" on invisibility.
Shatteredtower 11-03-05, 08:22 AM	This formula allows Invisibility for 24 hrs as a 6th level spell, and Greater Invisibility for 24 hours as an 8th level spell. That second one, at least, seems a scary thought.Which formula allows that? The one IceFractal suggests would require a 10th level spell slot, while the "minutes or greater increments" duration I suggested as one possible alternative wouldn't allow you to use it with greater invisibility, with a duration measured in rounds. Meanwhile, the idea of the feat allowing you to stack Extend Spell indefinitely would just allow greater invisibility with a duration of 5 rounds/level in an 8th level slot.
Merestil Haye 11-03-05, 08:36 AM	There is one big problem with Persistent Spell. So few spells are eligible candidates for Persistance. Invisibility is not eligible. Neither is Greater Invisibility. The problem is that Persistent Spell affects only spells with range "Personal" or a fixed range from the caster. Invisibility is range "Personal or ..." The key to analysing the eligibility of a spell for persistance is "Do I know at the time of preparation exactly what the spell will affect?" With Invisibility, you do not, since you do not decide whether it is a Personal spell or not until the spell is cast. If you made that decision at preparation time, it would be eligible for Persistance; but since you do not, it is not. Another point against Invisibility? You can make potions of Invisibility. You cannot make potions with Personal range spells. Be very restrictive with what you can make Persistent and you end most (not all, but most) of the problems.
cowdragon 11-03-05, 08:54 AM	Also, with duration of "1 round or less/level" you could seriously abuse the "sudden" spells because most of them are personal. Imagine being able to gain +1D6 sneak attack 24 hours/day as just a wizard. Otherwise, I like the idea... and although I love sorcerers I don't use much metamagic now that draconic feats exsist. So I don't know how well this all would work. The Cowdragon :mage:
smrtgmp 11-03-05, 01:49 PM	This is almost identical to what I do in my game. Needless to say, I like the idea. ;)
Keenath 11-03-05, 01:57 PM	I find a perfect fix is a simple houserule: The effective level of a spell cast with a metamagic effect may never be higher than the highest-level spell you can cast. (With the POSSIBLE exception of metamagic rods.) Persistent on its own isn't a problem -- it's Divine Persistent being used to produce effective 10th and 11th level spells that's a problem. Limit free-metamagic abilities to only allow spells you COULD have cast anyway (essentially allowing you to upgrade a spell slot by X levels on the fly). The ability is still powerful and fun, but the brokenness is gone in most cases.
Keenath 11-03-05, 01:59 PM	The key to analysing the eligibility of a spell for persistance is "Do I know at the time of preparation exactly what the spell will affect?" With Invisibility, you do not, since you do not decide whether it is a Personal spell or not until the spell is cast. If you made that decision at preparation time, it would be eligible for Persistance; but since you do not, it is not.That's kind of a strange point of view. By this logic, a Sorcerer can cast Persistent Invisibility, because he applies the metamagic at casting time, simultaneous to choosing a target.