Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MaZa 03-26-07, 08:23 AM	There's a feat called Persist Spell, which lets you make a spell with a duration which has fixed or personal range last 24 hours if Im not mistaken. Time Stop has personal range, so could a Time Stop be persisted? Then it would last 24 hours and you could even rest and regain spells during that time.. :D
runestar 03-26-07, 08:48 AM	The 3.0 FAQ mentioned that the duration of timestop is treated as instantaneous for purposes of interacting with persistant spell. Whether this was originally intended, or a houserule made up on the fly to avoid potential abuse, I am not sure, but that is their stance on this issue.:)
Nezkrul 03-26-07, 10:40 AM	once again I agree with Runestar, its just to easy to abuse... but then again the only person doing this before epic is the cleric... which is already heinously powerful with DMM(Persistent)
MaZa 03-26-07, 11:11 AM	once again I agree with Runestar, its just to easy to abuse... but then again the only person doing this before epic is the cleric... which is already heinously powerful with DMM(Persistent) A 17th level wizard with a metamagic rod could do it. Incantantrix could do it without rod, IIRC.
tarkin 03-26-07, 12:39 PM	And there are other ways. Honestly, WoTC made it way too easy to 'reduce' the metamagic costs of things.
Merestil Haye 03-26-07, 12:57 PM	A 17th level wizard with a metamagic rod could do it. Incantantrix could do it without rod, IIRC.I'm not overly worried about a Greater Rod of Persistent Spell since none have been published, and an off-the-cuff estimate of the cost I made came in at just under three quarters of a million gp. But no, you can't Persist Time Stop. You can Empower it though.
mvincent 03-26-07, 01:00 PM	The 3.0 FAQ (still applicable here) says: "You can’t make time stop persistent. (Its duration is effectively instantaneous for purposes of the Persistent Spell feat.)" While this could technically be viewed as contradicting the core rules, it's been universally accepted as a good ruling that should be upheld.
dpflibse 03-26-07, 05:03 PM	Everyone else (so far) has said the same thing, but I'll say it again because it bears repeating: No. Time Stop cannot be persisted. The 3.0 FAQ is the last example of precedent I remember, but if all else fails this is a great example of why they wrote "Rule 0" for in the first place: fixing a basic logic problem no-one fixed prior to publication.
runestar 03-27-07, 02:07 AM	The PGTF erratum prevents an incantatrix from persisting a time stop at lv17 as well, since they must actually able to cast the final version of the spell they are applying instant metamagic to. For example, if you want to instant-metamagic timestop with persistant spell, you must be able to cast lv15 spells(though it still only expends a 9th lv slot).
MaZa 03-27-07, 06:52 AM	Pity that it doesn't work. It would have been funny to see DM's face when trying to persist a Time Stop. :D The PGTF erratum prevents an incantatrix from persisting a time stop at lv17 as well, since they must actually able to cast the final version of the spell they are applying instant metamagic to. For example, if you want to instant-metamagic timestop with persistant spell, you must be able to cast lv15 spells(though it still only expends a 9th lv slot). Well, actually it would be 14th level slot due to that Improved Metamagic class ability..