# DMM Persistent Spell - Do You Allow It?



## nittanytbone (May 4, 2007)

Hello,

Just wanted to run a quick poll and see how common a "ban" is on this feat combination.  I've explained it below if you're not familiar with it.

Here's the Trick:

Feats Required - Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, DMM Persistent Spell



> PERSISTENT SPELL [METAMAGIC]
> 
> Prerequisite: Extend Spell.
> 
> Benefit: A persistent spell has a duration of 24 hours. The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range. Spells of instantaneous duration cannot be affected by this feat, nor can spells whose effects are discharged. You need not concentrate on spells such as detect magic or detect thoughts to be aware of the mere presence of absence of the things detected, but you must still concentrate to gain additional information as normal. Concentration on such a spell is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A persistent spell uses up a spell slot six levels higher than the spell’s actual level.




Divine Metamagic allows you to use Turn Undead attempts instead of increasing the spell level of the target spell.  For example, to DMM an Extended spell would require you to pay 1+1 = 2 turn undead attempts.  To DMM a Persistent Spell would require 6+1 = 7 Turn Undead Attempts.

_This combination is totally within the rules and commonly accepted as technically legal._

Spells Commonly Persisted

This tactic really takes off around level 7, when Divine Power can be persisted.  Righteous Might is also a favorite.  Some party buffs such as Bless can also be made to last all day.  There are a wide variety of Persist-able spells out there.

A Step Further

This is commonly combined with Nightsticks (7500 GP each from Libris Mortis;  Give +4 turn undead attempts), Extra Turning (core feat), or Radiant Servant of Pelor (PrC from Complete Divine).  The Planning and Undeath Domains can augment as well by granting required feats.

Eagle's Glory (core spell) can grant +2 turn attempts to fire up the DMM, and the Lust domain allows you to "nova" your CHA and fire up DMM.

The inquisition domain allows you to get a +4 to your dispel checks, making the buffs harder to dispel.

NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT USE ELEMENTAL TURN ATTEMPTS FROM THE ELEMENTAL DOMAINS TO FUEL THIS!!!  Only Turn Undead attempts count.

Limitations of the Tactic

- Feats:  Using DMM Persistent requires that you invest at least 3 feats (probably 4 - extra turning) into the trick.  Feats are a precious resource for most clerics, so this cost is not inconsequential.

- Ability Scores:  This requires a CHA-focus.  Clerics are a fairly high MAD class so this is a sacrifice, assuming standard point-buy for ability scores.

- Dispel Magic:  A simple Dispel Magic can wipe the buff away, making all those feats and turn attempts and equipment worthless.

- Uses Turn Undead Attempts: While turning undead is usually pointless, sometimes it is handy.  Some days a cleric might prefer to have turn attempts left than to have Divine Power running.


----------



## Pyrex (May 4, 2007)

It's a fairly large investment to make it work given that (generally) it only works for one spell per day.

I'd look real hard at any combo that allowed a second divine-Persistant spell and probably make tweaks to make a third nigh-impossible. (21 turn attempts!)


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

This combo consistently makes the top ten most broken combinations in the game (top 5 really).  It is not "common", except on lists of "commonly used incredibly broken things".  Indeed in my experience I have yet to meet a sane DM who allowed it, once that DM understood the ramifications.

I am firmly on the player lieniency side of debates on EnWorld.  I almost never called something broken.  My personal list of broken things is extemely small.  And yet, this ranks pretty close to number one on the list.

The problem is that DMM lacks the restriction that every other similar ability in the game has.  That being that you shouldn't be able to use DMM to cast a spell of a level that you wouldn't ordinarily have access to yet.  So for example, if you use DMM to cast a metamagicked spell of level 7, then your character should be able to ordinarily cast level 7 spells.  This is how the bardic music feat that does this same thing works.  This is how one of the incantatrix special abilities that does this works.  This is how almost all other similar abilities work, except for DMM.

I think it was an unfortunate error in the rules text that the left out the level cap restriction, and I strongly suspect some day WOTC will get around to issuing errata on this subject to fix it (just like they did with other similar abilities).


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> It's a fairly large investment to make it work given that (generally) it only works for one spell per day.
> 
> I'd look real hard at any combo that allowed a second divine-Persistant spell and probably make tweaks to make a third nigh-impossible. (21 turn attempts!)




Don't let the investment of feats, or the "one time a day", fool you.  The feats in question are usually gained for free by careful selection of domains (Planning Domain gives Extend for Free; Undeath Domain gives Extra Turning for free).  The "one time a day" is to gain a massively powerful ability that is balanced for use for one round or a single encounter, and blown up into an all-day effect.  It's also usually more than one time a day.  In fact, the most common "optimized" build gives you two persistable spells at level 3!


----------



## James McMurray (May 4, 2007)

You're spending four feats for the trick. I allow it, and have never seen anyone take it. There's just too much other stuff you can do with 4 feats and 7 turn attempts.

I don't allow it in arenas though, because the characters get to cherry pick their gear, PrCs, etc. and can easily get enough turn attempts to persist 4 or 5 spells per day. There's also the aesthetics issue: one party member and perhaps one BBEG using the trick can be cool. Every other cleric in a 30 character arena using it is boring.


----------



## Tigerbunny (May 4, 2007)

I've never had an issue with it, but most of my play hasn't reached the levels where it's a problem. I'm of the opinion that given the general rule that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast (and I do NOT see that DMM breaks that restriction by text - absence of specific enforcement of a general case is not the same as making an exception to that case) and the large feat-investment, it's like most other "broken" combos - something that makes a character into a one-trick pony, and thus only fun as wankery.

My general rule is "sure, you can do that, but we'll all laugh at you."


----------



## pallandrome (May 4, 2007)

I vote for OK, but Limited.

The group I typically game with does not powergame, and are therefore unaware of the disruptive effects it can have on an unprepared group. I would most certainly focus on educating the interested player, and making certain that they understand that they will NOT be getting free reign with the feat.


----------



## takasi (May 4, 2007)

One houserule that considerably nerfs Divine Metamagic is to make it so the slot the spell would normally need to occupy cannot exceed the highest level spell the cleric can cast.

For example, a cleric would not be able to quicken cast a cure light wounds using divine metamagic until he could cast 5th level spells.  

It's still a useful feat that allows a cleric to do something he normally wouldn't be able to do without using a 5th level slot.  But he would never be able to divine metamagic a Persistent Righteous Might as it would be an 11th level spell.


----------



## Thanee (May 4, 2007)

I generally don't allow Divine Metamagic to work with Persistent Spell or Quicken Spell.

Other combinations are fine but still require approval.

I would allow it flat-out, when the maximum level of a spell, which it could be applied to, is equal to the highest level you can cast minus the appropriate metamagic modifier (i.e. 6 for Persistent or 4 for Quicken).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## seans23 (May 4, 2007)

takasi said:
			
		

> One houserule that considerably nerfs Divine Metamagic is to make it so the slot the spell would normally need to occupy cannot exceed the highest level spell the cleric can cast.




wow, that's a houserule?  I thought that was just common sense.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Tigerbunny said:
			
		

> I've never had an issue with it, but most of my play hasn't reached the levels where it's a problem. I'm of the opinion that given the general rule that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast (and I do NOT see that DMM breaks that restriction by text - absence of specific enforcement of a general case is not the same as making an exception to that case) and the large feat-investment, it's like most other "broken" combos - something that makes a character into a one-trick pony, and thus only fun as wankery.
> 
> My general rule is "sure, you can do that, but we'll all laugh at you."




There is no stated general restriction that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast.  There is a result in common usage that ends up that way, but nothing says it as far as I know, and hence it's not actually an exception to a rule.

I agree with you that it should be there, and in the text.  But it isn't.  So changing it to include that "rule" I think is a very wise houserule, but as far as I can tell it isn't RAW.


----------



## Destil (May 4, 2007)

A) Persistent Spell has been on my hit list of horridly balanced rules ever since day 1. The "The persistent spell must have a personal range or a fixed range" clause is a terrible balancing factor, it does not hold true that all such spells will be balanced as persistent nor do I want to be constrained by the feat when designing new spells.

The huge problem with persistant is that there's no reason for it to exist. Just let a player stack extend 4 times (4x duration). If the duration isn't 24 hours yet then there's a good reason it shouldn't be an always on spell, IMHO. (Stacking the same metamagic was only really a problem with a few corner cases like a double empowered bull's strength... empower is also on my "Needs some sort of balancing factor aside from the 'random' limit, but it's not nearly as easy to break).

B) The biggest problem balance wise with divine meta magic is that is breaks the cap for spells, letting a PC cast a spell that would use a higher level slot than their normal limit. There's a reason a 8th level cleric can't usually cast 8th-9th level spells, and I don't care how many turnings you trade it's not balanced.

Likewise you're trading a pretty limited resource that's only useful in some encounters (turn undead) for something that's always good. From a flavor standpoint divine metamagic should only work with spells like cure and searing light, IMHO (positive energy spells) for good clerics.

All in all this is about the most solidly BANNED thing in 3.5e for me. I've gone so far as to get rid of turn undead entirely and make a new meta-magic feat called persistent spell with completely different effects just to make it 100% clear in my game.


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2007)

I can't think of any situations in which I'd allow this.


----------



## Nifft (May 4, 2007)

Not only don't I allow DMM(Persist), I don't allow DMM or Persist in isolation.

 -- N


----------



## Pyrex (May 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Don't let the investment of feats, or the "one time a day", fool you.  The feats in question are usually gained for free by careful selection of domains (Planning Domain gives Extend for Free; Undeath Domain gives Extra Turning for free).




Selecting particular domains to get those feats as domain granted powers has nearly as high an opportunity cost as just selecting those feats in the first place.  Taking those domains means there are other strong domains you *aren't* taking.

Any way you slice it, DMM-Persistent is a large investment for a character to make.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Selecting particular domains to get those feats as domain granted powers has nearly as high an opportunity cost as just selecting those feats in the first place.  Taking those domains means there are other strong domains you *aren't* taking.
> 
> Any way you slice it, DMM-Persistent is a large investment for a character to make.




The payoff is hands down much larger than the investment.  I really can't see how it would end up as balanced relative to the opportunity cost of the feats you are passing up.  What other feats would result in something more powerful than this result?


----------



## Elethiomel (May 4, 2007)

"Other" because "It Depends On The Campaign". In a carefully planned long-running campaign with a story, actual NPC interaction, all that good stuff? Banned. One-shot/ short running kick-in-the-door slay-all-the-monsters get-all-the-treasure? "Is fine. Crowe! Zey can come in."


----------



## IanB (May 4, 2007)

Nooooooo. No. No way.


----------



## Nail (May 4, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I can't think of any situations in which I'd allow this.



Me too.


Banned!


----------



## pawsplay (May 4, 2007)

I put "other." I cap DMM; it allows for more metamagics than normal, but not higher level ones.


----------



## Elemental (May 4, 2007)

nittanytbone said:
			
		

> The inquisition domain allows you to get a +4 to your dispel checks, making the buffs harder to dispel.




Actually, you're not the one making a check when someone sends a dispel at you, so Inqusition won't help you save your spells.

I just don't use Persistant Spell in my games, at all. I've never seen anyone use it and actually pay the extra spell levels, it's always to abuse an "add metamagic for free" ability.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 4, 2007)

I don't allow Divine Metamagic at all, so the most broken of the bunch is right out.


----------



## mikebr99 (May 4, 2007)

I am currently allowing it in my campaign (RHoD)... but all the players were limited to 28 point buy. The Cleric can currently persist one spell per day... and it's usually elation (Exalted cheeze) for the party.

Mike


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 4, 2007)

Tigerbunny said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion that given the general rule that you can't metamagic a spell you couldn't otherwise cast



I don't agree that that's a general rule. All sorts of feats and PrC abilities break it. DMM itself, the sudden feats from Complete Arcane, Practical Metamagic (Races of the Dragon), Arcane Thesis (PHB2), Metamagic School Focus (Complete Mage) and the Incantatrix and Dweomerkeeper PrCs.


----------



## werk (May 4, 2007)

Tigerbunny said:
			
		

> I've never had an issue with it, but most of my play hasn't reached the levels where it's a problem.




Ditto.  If you want to put all your eggs in one basket, help yourself, but I rarely play high level and never above 20.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Ditto.  If you want to put all your eggs in one basket, help yourself, but I rarely play high level and never above 20.




High level? The build gets the ability at 3rd or 6th level usually.  With mutiple uses per day at those levels.


----------



## Slaved (May 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> High level? The build gets the ability at 3rd or 6th level usually.  With mutiple uses per day at those levels.




What is the worst you can do with it at level 6?


----------



## EyeontheMountain (May 4, 2007)

DMM has never reared its face in my game, but I would probably restrict it. It is a very potentially powerful combination, and clearly is built around a flawed viewing of the rule. TO me, since every other version, arcane and bardic, contains the max level language, I consider that that sufficient for stealth errata for DMM. Plus it makes the feat balanced. I always wanted to make a DMM cleric myself, but focusing on extend instead for a summoner. Or some such feat. Persistant is just not worth it, to my way of thinking.


----------



## Destil (May 4, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't agree that that's a general rule. All sorts of feats and PrC abilities break it. DMM itself, the sudden feats from Complete Arcane, Practical Metamagic (Races of the Dragon), Arcane Thesis (PHB2), Metamagic School Focus (Complete Mage) and the Incantatrix and Dweomerkeeper PrCs.



Add the rods and it's a list of all the broken things I'd never allow people do do with/for metamagic. Almost brings a tear to my eye.


----------



## ThirdWizard (May 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Not only don't I allow DMM(Persist), I don't allow DMM or Persist in isolation.
> 
> -- N




That one. That's my vote.


----------



## James McMurray (May 4, 2007)

How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?


----------



## Grog (May 4, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Not only don't I allow DMM(Persist), I don't allow DMM or Persist in isolation.




Actually, IMO Persistent Spell isn't that bad since they changed it to a +6 to the spell level instead of a +4. No more Persistent Divine Power or Righteous Might (at least, in pre-epic play).


----------



## Piratecat (May 4, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?



With the agreement of the player who was using it, we removed Persistent Spell from the game, and in my opinion the game is better for it. I haven't tried DMM Persistent in the game as a result.


----------



## Pyrex (May 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The payoff is hands down much larger than the investment.  I really can't see how it would end up as balanced relative to the opportunity cost of the feats you are passing up.  What other feats would result in something more powerful than this result?




Two Domain powers + a Feat or Three feats to get one mid-level (dispellable) buff spell (that you could likely just cast during each fight anyway) to last all day?

I can think of *plenty* of other things to do with those feat/domain slots:
*Sun domain
*Sudden Maximize
*Divine Vigor
*etc...


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> What is the worst you can do with it at level 6?




I'd say probably a persistant "Mass Vigor, Lesser", so that your party has fast healing - constant.  And the FAQ even uses this example I believe.


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> Two Domain powers + a Feat or Three feats to get one mid-level (dispellable) buff spell (that you could likely just cast during each fight anyway) to last all day?
> 
> I can think of *plenty* of other things to do with those feat/domain slots:
> *Sun domain
> ...




There is no reason to exagerate.

It's Extend spell, which is a useful feat for a cleric on it's own, and persistant spell, and divine metamagic.  Three feats, two of which can be obtained through domains, or through just picking up feats.  You can gain more power by using extra turning and picking up items like the nightstick and increases to your stats that increase your turn attempts, but they are not necessary, just useful.  Much like most character concepts.  But this one starts getting level-20 like powers at level 6 and up!


----------



## James McMurray (May 4, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> With the agreement of the player who was using it, we removed Persistent Spell from the game, and in my opinion the game is better for it. I haven't tried DMM Persistent in the game as a result.




Was it an epic game, or did he have other ways of making it cheap/free? I'm trying to figure out how a +6 metamagic is broken in other situations and am drawing a blank.


----------



## Corsair (May 4, 2007)

I haven't DMed in a while, but if I do in the near future, I will not be allowing nightsticks.  That alone reduces the cheese to a managable level.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 4, 2007)

Corsair said:
			
		

> I haven't DMed in a while, but if I do in the near future, I will not be allowing nightsticks.  That alone reduces the cheese to a managable level.




I agree. I don't use nightsticks, either.

However, I've no problem with DMM or persistant.  A character so specialized is going to be easily defeated by enemies.  Don't think they'll be able to do a tiny bit of research and find out what completely foils the cleric?  

Actually, as a DM I kind of enjoy when players contemplate throwing DMM into the mix.  They throw up a few DMM and all of a sudden the BBEGs suddenly invest into the necromancy market.  After all, if the cleric is foolish enough to use their turn undead attempts on foolish things like dispelable spells, I'll be glad to let the enemies invest in undead!

Proper use of Dispel magics and Undead really makes the players think about the consequences of DMM and they begin to realize that DMM isn't really worth it.  I truly believe that DMM was brought into the game because DMs wetre underusing Undead and WotC needed to give some people a reason besides healing to play a cleric.  [Nobody likes the label "band-aid, after all]


----------



## Mistwell (May 4, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I agree. I don't use nightsticks, either.
> 
> However, I've no problem with DMM or persistant.  A character so specialized is going to be easily defeated by enemies.  Don't think they'll be able to do a tiny bit of research and find out what completely foils the cleric?
> 
> ...




Last I checked, clerics were not feat-oriented characters to begin with.  You still have almost all your spells at your disposal, and good weapons, and heavy armor, and decent saves.  There are a ton of anti-undead spells at your disposal.  It's pretty rare that a cleric suddenly sucks if a few of his feats don't apply to a situation, or his lack of turn attempts means he is suddenly not useful.

I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...claiming that it "uses too many resources".  It's NOT using that many resources.  Three feats and your turn attempts isn't going to kill your cleric! You still have lots of room to develop your character, and lots and lots of power.  You're still a cleric!  You still have most of the best buff spells in the game, plenty of direct damage spells, great AC, decent HP, good saves, spontaneous healing, good utlity spells, a decent BAB, decent weapons, etc...


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 5, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Proper use of Dispel magics and Undead really makes the players think about the consequences of DMM and they begin to realize that DMM isn't really worth it.



Don't you find it a bit restrictive having to include casters with dispel magic, or undead, in every encounter? Also dispel magic can be thwarted, at least once, by a ring of counterspells.


----------



## Crothian (May 5, 2007)

I allow it as is.  I've yet to even have a player take the feat let alone get to abuse it.  And we've gone beyond level 20 many times.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I allow it as is.  I've yet to even have a player take the feat let alone get to abuse it.  And we've gone beyond level 20 many times.




This is one of the issues I'm in solid agreement with Crothian on.  I have had one cleric character take it, but he was not very impressive at front-line fighting despite persistent spells.

Besides, as I'm fond of reminding people, there are much more powerful builds out there.  If you're going to ban something, ban _those_.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...




I just want to add for the record that this is a very loaded term.  "Incredibly abusive" can only be fairly judged _in context_, and there are many more abusive builds out there.  Yes, DMM is powerful.  It's actually much less abusive than many powerful builds, though.


----------



## Sejs (May 5, 2007)

DMM Persistant is not allowed, under the "Don't Be A Dick" DMing provisions.  If a player suggests a character built around the DMM Persistant schtick, I as the DM, will give said player a withering look and tell them to not be a dick.

All DMM is restricted to a maximum of a spell level that the character would normally have available.  If you can cast a max of 4th level spells, no DMM'ing spells over effectively 4th level.

The Persistant Spell feat is allowed as normal.  +6 level adjustment makes it work out alright.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...claiming that it "uses too many resources".  It's NOT using that many resources.




Calm down, Mistwell.  Please don't jump down my throat because I posted about my experiences, okay?  Your experience and my experience are allowed to differ and we can still be friends at the end of the day!  I'm not employing a "ploy."  I'm not even being deceptive or sneaky.  I am saying that considering how easy it is to counter it involves a significant amount of thought and character design.

In my experience, a couple of feats (or domain selections) and a couple of used spells is a significant amount of resources, considering the only thing it has cost the enemies is a successful dispel magic.  From that point on, the cleric has to now use more resources to defeat the encounter.  So long as when the encounter is done I have caused the cleric to expend X% of their resources, I'm happy.  [X being whatever percentage should be expected for the specific encounter's CR.]  Once persistant magic is down, it's down.  And, it's unlikely that they are going to be able to put it up too often.  Twice in a day is considered stellar.  Thrice is considered amazing. {Assuming no nightsticks in a campaign, of course.}

I agree that countering a DMM isn't going to kill your cleric.  But then again, my goal as the DM isn't to kill the players.  My goal is to make the game fun.  {Again, my opinion, not fact}  And countering the players DMM/Persistant forces them to think and use their other resources.  In my book, that's a win.



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Don't you find it a bit restrictive having to include casters with dispel magic, or undead, in every encounter? Also dispel magic can be thwarted, at least once, by a ring of counterspells.




Not once per encounter.  In most cases, once per day.  {Assuming no nightsticks.}  Twice per day at the worst, typically.  So, that would be a no.  Not all that restricitive.

The way I see it, there are a couple of possibilities.  If the party is going up against a known foe, then the known foe is going to likely know alot about who's coming up against them.  They'd be prepared - I.E they'd want to have a few dispel magics on hand.  That's just good tactics from the perspective of the BBEG.  Restrictive, no.  Smart, yes.

Or, they could just be coming against random encounters.  If the encounters are so random, then I probably don't really care too much about how challenging the combat was.  In that case, I'd likely just let the persistant spell remain up.  Or, perhaps use guerilla tactics that imply easier encounters which aren't resolved by kills but by retreating.

There are more ways to frustrate a player with DMM/persistant up than dispel and undead.  Those were the two easiest examples I thought of.


----------



## moritheil (May 5, 2007)

There are at least a dozen threads I can remember on the ENW forums about ways to counter ring of counterspells: dispel magic.  Here are a few off the top of my head: psionic dispel, reaving dispel, greater dispel magic, dispelling touch, wall of dispel magic, wall of greater dispel magic, slashing dispel . . .

If your player buys a ring of counterspells, laugh.  He or she has only bought misery.


----------



## James McMurray (May 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really think this is a ploy used by folks trying to sneak this incredibly abusive combo into the game...claiming that it "uses too many resources".  It's NOT using that many resources.  Three feats and your turn attempts isn't going to kill your cleric! You still have lots of room to develop your character, and lots and lots of power.  You're still a cleric!  You still have most of the best buff spells in the game, plenty of direct damage spells, great AC, decent HP, good saves, spontaneous healing, good utlity spells, a decent BAB, decent weapons, etc...




Speaking as a GM, I know that when I say it uses too many resources, it's not an attempt to sneak it into anywhere.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?



 I ban/nerf things on theory.  In fact, I think that is the MUCH preferred and smarter method. I hate, absolutely hate, retconning in the middle of a game.  That REALLY hurts the game much worse than just leaving in a broken rule.  Touch of idiocy? Gone. Persistent Spell? Gone. Elation? Nerfed.  Mass Resist Energy? Nerfed. Etc.

Btw, I object to the idea of allowing broken combos in a one-shot and not in the regular game.  The regular game offers the only chance of making such combos palatable (over time).  For the one shot, there's no repercussion and it just sucks the life out of that one session for the DM and other players.  (Maybe not, but it probably will be unless the one shot was about finding broken combos.  I know my group is not about that so such a method of gaming would be the opposite of a fun time.)


----------



## EvilGM (May 5, 2007)

I used this as a player and, as a result, won't allow it in games I DM. Definitely borked.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 5, 2007)

4 feats is not necessarily a high cost for a Cleric.  

If you pick a tactical focus and choose your spells, stats and magic items appropriately, you can be an adequately solid contributor with the benefit _zero_ feats.

Dull maybe.  But I cannot think of a single feat is a "no brainer" or "must have" for a Cleric.


----------



## Thanee (May 5, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> What is the worst you can do with it at level 6?




At 6th not _that_ much, but at 7th you get quasi-permanent _Divine Power_... that's where it starts to become _really_ powerful.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 5, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?




Is there a difference?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Vysirez (May 5, 2007)

Aren't all those who say that DMM-Persist isnt too powerful because you can always throw dispel magic at the PC, kinda admitting it's too powerful? I mean if your OK with your cleric having divine power up 24 hours a day at lvl 7 then thats one thing. But stating it's ok for PC to use the combo because you just plan on seeding your campain with psionic dispels to counter it? And if you arent seeding your game with dispels to counter it, then it's going to be up most of the time.

Edit: Just thought I would add, If I was playing in a game that allowed it, and I was playing a cleric I would almost always get this combo. It's just that powerful. I can't really think of any other combo of feats that grants as much advantage. The only possible reason I wouldnt is if I want to get into some PRC for flavor that has huge feat reqs.


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I ban/nerf things on theory.  In fact, I think that is the MUCH preferred and smarter method. I hate, absolutely hate, retconning in the middle of a game.  That REALLY hurts the game much worse than just leaving in a broken rule.  Touch of idiocy? Gone. Persistent Spell? Gone. Elation? Nerfed.  Mass Resist Energy? Nerfed. Etc.
> 
> Btw, I object to the idea of allowing broken combos in a one-shot and not in the regular game.  The regular game offers the only chance of making such combos palatable (over time).  For the one shot, there's no repercussion and it just sucks the life out of that one session for the DM and other players.  (Maybe not, but it probably will be unless the one shot was about finding broken combos.  I know my group is not about that so such a method of gaming would be the opposite of a fun time.)



Agreed.

I may not nerf the same things *I2K* does, but his method is the one I use: Try to head off problems _before_ they become problems.

....it's one of the reasons ToB:Bo9S is such a handfull.....


----------



## Wish (May 5, 2007)

Well, I don't run in, or play in, the same campaign constantly.  In some campaigns we use it, in some campaigns we don't use it, in other campaigns we limit it (the limitation that makes the most sense to me is to minorly change nightsticks so that they can only be used to actually turn undead, not power divine feats of any sort).

We used it in Age of Worms, which is a fantastically deadly cheese-fest to begin with.  And we used it in our Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, which was farcical in a lot of ways anyway.  We aren't using it in Shackled City, and none of the other characters in that campaign are nearly as tweaked as the ones from AoW or RttToEE.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 5, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> ....it's one of the reasons ToB:Bo9S is such a handfull.....




Yeah, that one was such an easy call that I decided to not even buy the book.  That way there isn't the need to pick and choose.  I just didn't pick.

In general, though, I agree wholeheartedly with the "head 'em off at the pass" before broken stuff needs to be retroactively fixed.  As a player, I'd rather have a DM say "Nope" than "Sure, build your character around it and maybe we'll nerf it later."  I have much respect for the former, little respect for the latter.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 5, 2007)

Assuming the OP is using the errata version of DMM, then yeah I allow it in all circumstances.  It only works on Divine spells anyway, and it is feat intensive.  A dispel magic will ruin the day of a Divine Metamagic-er.  You have to be quite high level anyway to get any "real" use out of it.  And without extra turning attempts, you will be very limited in exactly how many spells you can DMM anyway.


----------



## James McMurray (May 5, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Is there a difference?
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




If you don't think there's a difference between theory and playtest then we're probably not going to get anywhere. The first lets you think something's a problem, the second lets you know if it actually is or not.


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Yeah, that one was such an easy call that I decided to not even buy the book.  That way there isn't the need to pick and choose.  I just didn't pick.





Unfortunately, ToB:Bo9S is an awful lot of fun.  It's fun enough that I decided it was worth allowing...and then having to slog through it to find any problems that might come up.  So far, so good.


----------



## Nail (May 5, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> And without extra turning attempts, you will be very limited in exactly how many spells you can DMM anyway.



But, like any "problem" rule, you can always build your PC in such a way as to avoid the supposed limitations.  It's pretty pointless, IMO, to claim that "most won't get much out of it".  We aren't talking about a generic PC here.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 5, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, ToB:Bo9S is an awful lot of fun.  It's fun enough that I decided it was worth allowing...and then having to slog through it to find any problems that might come up.  So far, so good.




That's cool!  By that, I mean that I hope you didn't think I was placing a judgment upon people who allow it in game.  I have actually heard that so long as you don't mind the power-up that the book is actually a lot of fun and makes fighters a blast to play.  I'll agree with you on that much!

Personally, I didn't want to have to deal with the implications of the power-up (or more precisely: which power-ups are good and maneagable and which ones are bad and unmaneagable).  Good luck slogging, though!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 5, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> In general, though, I agree wholeheartedly with the "head 'em off at the pass" before broken stuff needs to be retroactively fixed.  As a player, I'd rather have a DM say "Nope" than "Sure, build your character around it and maybe we'll nerf it later."  I have much respect for the former, little respect for the latter.



That's a really good way to put it.  Well said.  A lot of gamers spend a lot of time to build characters.  Having done that and THEN get the main shtick nerfed/banned later would suck.


----------



## Mistwell (May 6, 2007)

Thanee said:
			
		

> At 6th not _that_ much, but at 7th you get quasi-permanent _Divine Power_... that's where it starts to become _really_ powerful.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




You think a constant-on, party-wide regeneration isn't "that" powerful?!? (Lesser Mass Vigor)


----------



## Mistwell (May 6, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Assuming the OP is using the errata version of DMM, then yeah I allow it in all circumstances.  It only works on Divine spells anyway, and it is feat intensive.  A dispel magic will ruin the day of a Divine Metamagic-er.  You have to be quite high level anyway to get any "real" use out of it.  And without extra turning attempts, you will be very limited in exactly how many spells you can DMM anyway.




The errata did nothing to correct the major flaw with this feat.  It did not address the level cap issue.  You don't have to be high level to get any real use out of it.  It's incredibly powerful at just 6-7th level.


----------



## Rokes (May 6, 2007)

What does Radiant Servant of Pelor have to do with this build?


----------



## mr_outsidevoice (May 6, 2007)

I allow it

It requires 2 feats to even get it officially, and odds are Extra Turning will be picked up.  The earliest level  to get any use of it is 12th level, more than likely 15th.

If a Player wants to expend 7 turns, which is allot, let him.  It is his resources.


----------



## Slaved (May 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I'd say probably a persistant "Mass Vigor, Lesser", so that your party has fast healing - constant.  And the FAQ even uses this example I believe.




As a character if this was the effect I was going for I would rather just spend a single feat on Sacred Healing [divine].

With 7 turn attempts I could give fast healing 3 for 7 times my charisma bonus plus 1 to all living creatures within a 60' burst.

It might not be as good in the middle of a battle but it would probably wind up healing more damage for less cost.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (May 6, 2007)

nittanytbone said:
			
		

> Limitations of the Tactic
> 
> - Feats:  Using DMM Persistent requires that you invest at least 3 feats (probably 4 - extra turning) into the trick.  Feats are a precious resource for most clerics, so this cost is not inconsequential.
> 
> ...




You basically nailed all the reasons I think DMM is fine and consider the reaction to it a bit of a knee-jerk.  I've honesty never even seen it used, it's so very costly and easy to lose.  This brings me to the next point (and the reason I chose "other") - Persistent Spell is what's broken!  I have NEVER seen a more outrageousy unbalanced* monstrosity of a feat!  It doesn't matter if the spell lasts round/level (or even 1 round total, not sure off the top of my head) or hour per level, it's all the same as far as the feat's concerned.  Is the massive stupidity inherent in such a starting premise merely lost on everyone else?!  So yes, I ban this combo, but from the other side.

* In this case unbalanced = extremely situational in power level.  And, having looked over Frostburn recently, this isn't technically true anymore.  Oh well.

Finally, I'd like to say our current party has a gestalted Healer/Paladin with 18 turn attempts a day, and a massive charisma.  Looking for feats to give her a better "punch" in combat, we looked at DMM.  And realized what an absolute waste it was, both in feats, and turn attempts, which ARE useful (she has a feat that lets her burn one to heal at range).  Feeling disheartened, we discovered in the same book Divine Spell Power.  Now that there's a broken feat!  It's come in handy so often for boosting damage and pushing through SR already.  Even more fun: She just got access to Holy Word (She uses cleric spell list, and favored soul spells known/per day progression).  Plus 4 caster levels REALLY can make a difference there!


----------



## Pickaxe (May 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You think a constant-on, party-wide regeneration isn't "that" powerful?!? (Lesser Mass Vigor)




Of course, that's not a core spell. We're already talking about combining two separate non-core feats; adding more non-core spells obviously increases the power of this combo, so it would make sense to not allow non-core spells.

I'm actually trying this combo out for the first time in a Savage Tide campaign; we typically play core-only, but in this campaign we decided to allow more options, at least if it means more fun. To me, the real litmus test of a potentially broken combo is whether it diminishes the fun of one or more players. My character is building towards having one Persistent Spell at 6th and two at 8th; the likely candidates are Fly (Travel domain), Find Traps, and (of course) Divine Power. We have no rogue, and flying is not a "role" that another character would cover, so my character shouldn't be stealing the spotlight from anyone else with regards to the first two spells, and at the same time we'll have some very useful abilities in a very challenging campaign.

Divine Power is where the real test will come; will the cleric shine in melee and make the TWF ranger and half-orc monk look bad? Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the cleric will simply be effective in melee to the extent that our four-character party won't go into a downward spiral as soon as the tank goes down. 

Anyway, we'll see.

--Axe


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

seans23 said:
			
		

> wow, that's a houserule?  I thought that was just common sense.




Common Sense is the breeding ground for House Rules.


----------



## Drowbane (May 6, 2007)

James McMurray said:
			
		

> How many of the people that don't allow it have seen it used in campaigns and banned it because of that as opposed to banning it on theory?






			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> Is there a difference?
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Absolutely.

How many people Banned Warlocks and Warforged (as two examples) on the theory alone that they are broken?  I rememeber alot of folks on these boards doing so.

A few weeks/months it turns out that niether the class or race is really all that powerful.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> How many people Banned Warlocks and Warforged (as two examples) on the theory alone that they are broken?  I rememeber alot of folks on these boards doing so.
> 
> A few weeks/months it turns out that niether the class or race is really all that powerful.




Ditto for the Mystic Theurge, if you are trying to compile a list.

As I said before, I don't mind DMs who say no in the beginning of a campaign.  If the DM really thinks a warlock or warforged or Mystic Thuerge is broken, I can accept that.  Just don't nerf it midgame!  If you start with it allowed, finish the campaign with it allowed!  

And that is the point behind banning on theory vs. banning on practice.  People who ban on theory don't have to course-correct midgame.  They can course correct at the beginning of the next campaign if they want to try it out, and everyone knows going in what the rules are going to be like.  People who ban based on experience can be easily tempted to course-correct midcampaign (although I'm not claiming they all succomb to the temptation).  Mid-campaign nerfings are annoying.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> Absolutely.
> 
> How many people Banned Warlocks and Warforged (as two examples) on the theory alone that they are broken?  I rememeber alot of folks on these boards doing so.
> 
> A few weeks/months it turns out that niether the class or race is really all that powerful.



 Well, two for three anyway if we include Mystic Theurge as NLF suggested   The people who banned Mystic Theurge generally didn't build or playtest, though.  And Warlocks.  I never banned either and always thought they were fair.  Warforged, on the other hand, the time and playtest does _not_ prove to be balanced.  It's not going to destroy most games or anything (like Divine Metamagic Persistant often will), but for many classes, Warforged is a massive advantage at low levels, and this is through both playtest and having them in games.

Lest this thread devolve into Warforged discussions (where you say you had them in games and they weren't the most powerful because X other player did Y that was worse, just like some Divine Metamagic defenders are doing here), we can agree on the rest of your post and leave it there.

Really, though, Mistwell (as he proclaimed himself) has been known to champion most overpowered combos with the same "the GM could theoretically do something that might stop it if she biased all the encounters against it, and/or everyone could armsrace with this combo" sentiments in this thread--when he's on the "It's Overpowered" side, you should definitely listen to him!


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 6, 2007)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> How many people Banned Warlocks and Warforged (as two examples) on the theory alone that they are broken?




Note to self:  Stat up Warforged Warlock.


----------



## James McMurray (May 6, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Note to self:  Stat up Warforged Warlock.




Don't you mean gestalt Warforged / cleric with DMM?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 6, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> But, like any "problem" rule, you can always build your PC in such a way as to avoid the supposed limitations.  It's pretty pointless, IMO, to claim that "most won't get much out of it".  We aren't talking about a generic PC here.




We aren't talking about a specific PC here either.  The OP asked if _ would allow it, and I would based on the fact that I know my players, and I know myself.  If I did not feel comfortable in allowing this feat, then I would have said otherwise.

And while you can build a PC around a DMM: Permanent theme to maximize on the feat, there are other things the DM can rule out besides the DMM feat to stop that from happening (again, if they see it as a true problem).

There aren't many spells that a Cleric can cast on himself that would make this combo "broken" in my eyes.  So what if he can Divine Power so his BAB is equal to a Fighter?  Not a problem for me, perhaps for others.  But that is why I voted the way I did, and I am sure that is why others who do not agree voted the way they did._


----------



## Nail (May 6, 2007)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Really, though, Mistwell (as he proclaimed himself) has been known to champion most overpowered combos with the same "the GM could theoretically do something that might stop it if she biased all the encounters against it, and/or everyone could armsrace with this combo" sentiments in this thread--when he's on the "It's Overpowered" side, you should definitely listen to him!



True, that!


----------



## Slaved (May 6, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> True, that!




Because he overreacts in one direction he is immune to overreacting in the other direction?


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 6, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Because he overreacts in one direction he is immune to overreacting in the other direction?




True that!  

Actually, I find the whole "because Mistwell is arguing this way it must be overpowered" argument to be unconvincing, and hope it wasn't seriously offered (for the sake of not being rude to Mistwell, at the very least).

I still am in the camp that the overpoweredness of DMM: persistant is at best situational.  As a DM, I know that I can handle it and it won't be broken in my campaigns.  If other DMs come to the opposite conclusion based on their style and the people that they game with, that's great!  But this concept that something is broken all the time or across the board is just weird.  The concept of "broken" is much too highly dependant upon the player's builds and the DMs style.

Do I allow it?  Sure.  Is it broken?  Not here.  Have I had many people take it because of the cost involced?  Not many.  Is it worth my time nerfing?  Not at all.

Can other DMs nerf it and still have a good game?  Of course they can (and hopefully they do at the start of a campaign and not in the middle)!


----------



## Nifft (May 6, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Actually, I find the whole "because Mistwell is arguing this way it must be overpowered" argument to be unconvincing, and hope it wasn't seriously offered (for the sake of not being rude to Mistwell, at the very least).




Mistwell is broken. 

 -- N


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 6, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Mistwell is broken.
> 
> -- N




Good lord ... is this "Shilsen is broken" v. 2.0 ?



Or - worse yet - does someone now need to make up a principle (or fallacy, or whatever you want to call it based upon how it is phrased) about how we know if an ENWorld poster is broken?


----------



## Nail (May 6, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> ... this concept that something is broken all the time or across the board is just weird.  The concept of "broken" is much too highly dependant upon the player's builds and the DMs style.



You've touched on something important: All discussions on these boards about "brokeness" *do* all boil down to play style.

That said, it sure is nice to have the potentially broken rules laid out on these boards.  After the discussion, each of us can return to our games and chose to include, exclude, or modify the rule according to our own tastes.

In that vein, DMM(Persistant) is broken because it allows Clerics to do things that only higher level PC should be able to do, and it impinges on the roles of other classes, and it requires the DM to compensate in his game for that particular tactic.

You've got the info, now.  So: "Do what you'd like with it."


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The errata did nothing to correct the major flaw with this feat.  It did not address the level cap issue.  You don't have to be high level to get any real use out of it.  It's incredibly powerful at just 6-7th level.




I certainly do like the idea of having a level cap for the feat, it makes sense and falls in line of how all other metamagic feats work.  However, I still stand by my opinion that I would allow the feat in any game I DM in all circumstances (remembering that I as DM control those circumstances).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 6, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> I still am in the camp that the overpoweredness of DMM: persistant is at best situational.  As a DM, I know that I can handle it and it won't be broken in my campaigns.  If other DMs come to the opposite conclusion based on their style and the people that they game with, that's great!  But this concept that something is broken all the time or across the board is just weird.  The concept of "broken" is much too highly dependant upon the player's builds and the DMs style.




True that!

I had to jump on the True that bandwagon...  But seriously, this is how I feel.  No one is going to convince me that this is broken, because I know if I were DM I would be able to handle a character/player who takes this feat.


----------



## James McMurray (May 7, 2007)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> True that!
> 
> I had to jump on the True that bandwagon...  But seriously, this is how I feel.  No one is going to convince me that this is broken, because I know if I were DM I would be able to handle a character/player who takes this feat.




ditto


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 7, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> You've touched on something important: All discussions on these boards about "brokeness" *do* all boil down to play style.




Agreed, 100%.  Really just because you're agreeing with me first, and I'm that kind of a guy.  {No, not really  }



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> That said, it sure is nice to have the potentially broken rules laid out on these boards.  After the discussion, each of us can return to our games and chose to include, exclude, or modify the rule according to our own tastes.




Oh, absolutely.  Even of out the "It is broken" vs. "Not broken" camps come potential solutions to cope.  Examples with DMM: persistant are things like dispel magic, more undead, guerilla tactics, etc.  There can be productive things that come out of these conversations.  But, there are also bad things that come out of these conversations - like when tempers get flared.  Not talking about anyone in particular, btw.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> In that vein, DMM(Persistant) is broken because it allows Clerics to do things that only higher level PC should be able to do, and it impinges on the roles of other classes, and it requires the DM to compensate in his game for that particular tactic.




Here, let me help you with that one a little, though.  "<snip> ... DMM(Persistant) _can be_ broken because ... <snip>"

Other than that, I agree as well.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> You've got the info, now.  So: "Do what you'd like with it."




Thanks.  Will do!


----------



## evilbob (May 7, 2007)

This is a very interesting thread.    I am a DM who understands this combo well and is allowing it in a game I'm running right now, and Mistwell, I do hope that by the end of this post you still agree that I'm sane.  

For the most part, I like the way this thread has been going and I'll just echo the wise words that have already been said:  this game tactic is not "broken."  However, it will - like anything else - probably require the DM to adjust their playstyle.  I believe running a game that has a party without a cleric, or a party with a dragon shaman (Mistwell:  this class has the ability to turn on the lesser mass vigor thing [up to 1/2 HP] from level 1; or a regular cleric or other party member could gain this ability using Dragon Magic feats at level one as well), or a party with a monk instead of a main tank will require the same amount of effort on the part of the DM as running a game with a DMM/persistent cleric:  you have to adjust what you're doing in order to keep the game both challenging and fun without being overwhelming.  However, at the same time that's _entirely the DM's job in the first place_.  As I've said before in another thread about "power gaming:"  if you think something is overpowered or broken, the fault does not lie in the players, and (probably) not even with the rules.  It lies with the DM.

I completely agree with Nonlethal force on all his comments.  I can tell from this thread and others than Nail and Infiniti2000 are two DMs that choose a different style over my own, and I respect that.  I believe Nail's comment about playstyle, quoted by Nonlethal Force above, is an excellent point and just about sums up everything someone would need to know about this situation.  To clarify further, my point is:  contrary to some of the other voices on this thread, I believe that you don't have to "nerf" or "ban" or otherwise restrict any of a player's options in order to keep a game balanced.  ("Options, not restrictions," right folks?)  In fact, I personally consider the challenge of adapting my playstyle to what the players can come up with the main reason as to *why I DM* in the first place.  If you're worried about a player becoming too powerful or shining too much in the spotlight, then it is YOUR JOB to make sure that the other players shine and are given the spotlight as well.  (Also note that players don't have to shine in combat in order to have the spotlight.)  Anything can be adjusted for; nothing has to remain broken.


In fact, for any DMs who are considering allowing this combo into their games, here are a few tips I can give to help deal with the situation.  I would suggest mixing and matching many different tips for an overall solution.

- The total effective gain from this combo (at the cost of a percentage of all resources for a cleric, including feats and any ability to turn and/or use other turn-powered abilities) is that you have duplicated a spell for X encounters per day, where X = every encounter in one day.  (Technically, it also gives a free round to the cleric that they don't need to cast, as well.)  If you want to truly limit the effectiveness of this tactic, lower your encounters per day.  This has the side effect of boosting all spellcasters' power, but it does limit the combo's power as well.  (And it tends to force the cleric to act more like a cleric.)

- While this combo -can- be done without a great deal of impact on the part of the cleric as some have said above, in order to really make it shine additional min/maxing is in order.  For example, the cleric in my campaign made Str his highest stat for maximum fighting potential; he has just enough Wis to cast his spells and just enough Cha to get the trick working.  This leaves him without many bonus spells or any turning ability.  Net effect:  more weaknesses.  Look for these weaknesses and adjust as necessary.  For example, since this ability runs off of turns, throw more undead encounters at your party if your cleric has none left after "powering up" - especially ones that are slightly higher than the EL they should normally be facing.  This increases pressure on the cleric to at least wait-and-see, instead of automatically powering up at the beginning of each day, and can keep them guessing.  Most of the time, a lot of turns is going to be more useful than any trick this combo can dish out against hordes of undead.

- Simplest tactic as mentioned before:  start including more enemies with dispel magic.  Don't deluge the party, obviously, but try to make sure you include a few every so often, so that the "trick" doesn't get used in every battle.  Mage NPCs - wizards, sorcs, or better yet warlocks with voracious dispelling - are a good start, but if you hate constantly rolling things up (like I do), there are several monsters that have dispel abilities that work just as well.  The MM4 has at least two very good monsters that can slice through this trick with ease (one is a swarm that would also negate the advantage of a counterspell ring mentioned earlier) that are about CR 7, which is just about the time this trick starts to really be powerful.  (Also, since its been mentioned a lot recently:  pixies.  )

- Great combo tactic:  combine the above with a greater number of encounters per day.  Once you've burned the character's ability to pull off the trick, then put them back into regular combat a lot and let the "non-dispellable" fighters shine.

- Start including RP "penalties" for this trick.  For example, the cleric using this ability in my campaign is level 10 and currently persistent-spelling _righteous might_.  This makes him a large creature 24 hrs a day, which is certainly powerful in combat, but quite the opposite when it comes to certain social interactions.  He generally has a hard time moving through doors (or any tight spaces, if you want to give a combat restriction), and because of his race, also weighs over 2000 pounds.  This means if he falls in combat, or needs to travel ON something, no one else can really drag him along.  D&D is a very medium-character-centric world; play it up if that's their spell choice.  Otherwise, look for something else.

Overall general rule:  if this trick seems to be too useful, be sure to include lots of encounters in which this trick just isn't useful.  Often this will eclipse other party members as well, but as long as you mix it up, everyone should get to shine.  If your cleric is competing with melee types, throw in a few area dispels.  If they are competing with casters, lower the encounters per day or throw in aerial opponents.  Mix it up and make sure everyone has fun!

These are just a few simple (and quite frankly, fairly obvious) ways to handle this one situation.  Other "broken" combos just require other tactics.  NOTHING in D&D is powerful against everything:  like everything else, it pretty much always comes down to rock/paper/scissors.  You just need to find the paper for their rock.


----------



## Nail (May 7, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Here, let me help you with that one a little, though.  "<snip> ... DMM(Persistant) _can be_ broken because ... <snip>"
> 
> Other than that, I agree as well.



Heh, heh, heh......    

FWIW, in the last high-level game I played in, I played a Clr with DMM:Quicken.  I'd take that over DMMersistant any day of the week.   Yoowza.     That PC just leveled the competition 9 times outta 10.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> True that!
> 
> Actually, I find the whole "because Mistwell is arguing this way it must be overpowered" argument to be unconvincing, and hope it wasn't seriously offered (for the sake of not being rude to Mistwell, at the very least).




I took it as a joke mostly.     And I think it was meant that way.  And if it wasn't, well then eat my shorts!


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Because he overreacts in one direction he is immune to overreacting in the other direction?




I don't think I overreact in either direction.

I'm not sure how this turned from a joke into a personal thing about me.  But, that sure sounds more personal than the posts that came before about me.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

So it seems like the poll results, rounded off, come out pretty consistently around this (again, not exact):

50% Ban it
30% Limit it
10% Consider it fine
10% Not sure, or other

Pretty rare that we take a poll and have the opinions come out that much against RAW.


----------



## Slaved (May 7, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I don't think I overreact in either direction.




I am sorry, I meant that more as an "if he does one" rather than saying that you actually do. I also meant it to be more general as in "if anyone does one" instead of singling you out personally.


----------



## Mistwell (May 7, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I am sorry, I meant that more as an "if he does one" rather than saying that you actually do. I also meant it to be more general as in "if anyone does one" instead of singling you out personally.




Okay, fair enough.  I should have figured, knowing your posts, that you didn't mean it personally.


----------



## gnfnrf (May 8, 2007)

Wouldn't a persistant mass lesser vigor have a duration of "24 hours (max 25 rounds)"?  I see no reason why you should ignore the note in the duration field just because you change the duration.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## nittanytbone (May 8, 2007)

After letting this run for a few days here are my thoughts, in summary.

*Verdict:*  DMM Persistent requires careful DM management but is only absolutely banned in about half of games.

60 people (48%) ban DMM Persistent outright.  A lot of these folks weighed in with comments ranging from "I think its broken, theoretically," to "It was broken in my campaign" to "I don't use DMM or Persistent spell, and definitely not both together."  From my observation, it seemed that there were relatively few "horror stories" about how a CoDzilla totally smashed a campaign, and more pre-emptive bannings based on theoretical logic.

An area of further polling for the future could be seeing how folks that use different rule sets treat DMM Persistent.  For example, the folks that are core-only probably ban it.  What about the folks that allow Core+Complete?  Or Core+Complete+Races Of...?  Or Anything WOTC goes?  Or anything 3rd Party + WOTC goes?

On the other far end of the spectrum, 13 votes (~10%) think DMM Persistent is fine under any circumstances.

The majority of folks that allow DMM Persistent put some sort of caveat on it (~29% + 7% for "other").  They either restrict the most abusive tactics (Nightsticks are a big one) or impose some sort of house rule.  A common one limits the spells that can be persisted to the highest spell that could normally be affected.  Some impose RP penalties or specifically start to adopt countering techniques (more undead, more Dispels, fewer encounters/day).

Finally, a small minority (~5.5%) indicated that they were "not sure" or unfamiliar with the combination.  This seems to indicate that most folks are familiar with the combination and know how to treat it in a rules sense, and that most folks also agree that it is technically legal in a strictly BtB sense.

Interesting, thanks for all the thoughts!  I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it.  However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.


----------



## Rystil Arden (May 8, 2007)

> Interesting, thanks for all the thoughts! I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it. However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.




I disagree with your conclusion.  Many of the people who weighed in on having not banned it said "I never banned it, and my players have never even taken it either."  Thus, it doesn't seem that it's a standard build at all.  Also, those who nerf it so that you can't cast spells above your usual maximum spell level (the smartest and most fair nerf--I voted that I banned it because I did, but I would allow that nerf) are likely making it not a standard build in their games (because you can't even use it on 1st-level spells until level 13).


----------



## KarinsDad (May 8, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> FWIW, in the last high-level game I played in, I played a Clr with DMM:Quicken.  I'd take that over DMMersistant any day of the week.   Yoowza.     That PC just leveled the competition 9 times outta 10.




Ditto for my last high level Cleric (until he ran into a Maximized Orb and an Empowered Orb while in an Antimagic Field). I didn't even want to let the DM know about DMM: Persistent, I just took Persistent and cast the high level spell to make Mass Lessor Vigor persistent as is.


With regard to the topic at hand, I think DMM itself is broken because it does not have a level cap (I think most of the metamagic without increasing spell level feats are broken, but they could have at least put in a level cap). All the talk about Dispels and using up multiple feats is nonsense IMO. It's not as if every opponent has a Dispel and using up feats in order to gain a broken concept does not by definition indicate that it is not broken. It merely indicates that a price has to be paid to gain the broken concept.


----------



## Deset Gled (May 8, 2007)

nittanytbone said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build -- fewer than half of the DMs out there based on our sample outright ban it.  However, you should be prepared for some nerfage, as a player.




I disagree with this conclusion as well.  In a poll of only 125 people, your margin for error is pretty big.  Claiming that 48% indicates "fewer than half" is not statistically sound.  "About half" would probably be a better approximation.  Also, the fact that the poll shows that only 10% of the audience allows the feat as written implies that it is anything but standard.

I suppose you could use the numbers to support any side you wanted, though.


----------



## evilbob (May 8, 2007)

Actually, we don't have anything close to a statistically significant poll; we have voluntary responders instead of a random sample.  It's only fair to say that "less than half of the people who chose to respond to this poll" feel a certain way.  The poll itself is undoubtably biased, because only those who feel strongly would respond.  Absolutely zero conclusions can be drawn about any sort of population at large.

Just FYI.


----------



## Nonlethal Force (May 8, 2007)

I think it is fair to say that in any given game, it is about the odds of a coin flip as to whether you can even write it on your character sheet.  Now ... as to what form it takes once it gets on the character sheet (if it gets on at all) ... that's another story.

If we are talking standard as seen in actual play ... No way.  Seldom seem?  That's more like it.

If we are talking standard as in conceptually possible to be seen, then it's fair to say about 50%/50%.


----------



## Nail (May 9, 2007)

nittanytbone said:
			
		

> I think the bottom line is that the DMM Persistent cleric is still a "standard" build ...



That's a pretty bizzarre conclusion.   Your poll wasn't about a "Standard Build"!  

Most people did *not* post "This feat combo is used in my game".  Less than half said they might allow it, but most of those had never seen it in play.  I think the evidence suggests an actual DDM: Persistant cleric is NOT a standard build, but rather a build people have wet dreams over, and then never play.


----------



## KarinsDad (May 9, 2007)

Nail said:
			
		

> That's a pretty bizzarre conclusion.   Your poll wasn't about a "Standard Build"!
> 
> Most people did *not* post "This feat combo is used in my game".  Less than half said they might allow it, but most of those had never seen it in play.  I think the evidence suggests an actual DDM: Persistant cleric is NOT a standard build, but rather a build people have wet dreams over, and then never play.




Agreed.

In my case, I never really considered adding it to my one and only 20th level Cleric build. It is so broken that I did not bother to add it, even though I was totally aware of it. It just would make the game less fun allowing Persistent 9th level spells.


----------



## mikebr99 (May 9, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> Wouldn't a persistant mass lesser vigor have a duration of "24 hours (max 25 rounds)"?  I see no reason why you should ignore the note in the duration field just because you change the duration.
> 
> --
> gnfnrf



Hi there,

The FAQ allowed it...



			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> The mass lesser vigor spell has a fixed range (of 20 feet), which makes it eligible for the revised Persistent Spell feat in Player’s Guide to Faerûn. Does that mean a 17th-level druid could use a 9th-level spell slot to give nine creatures fast healing 1 for 24 hours, or does the built-in limit of 25 rounds make that pointless?
> 
> Unlike Extend Spell, Persistent Spell replaces a spell’s normal duration with a new duration of 24 hours. In this case, the effect overrides the normal maximum duration of the spell, so it
> would indeed grant nine creatures fast healing 1 for 24 hours (a pretty reasonable effect for a 9th-level spell).




Mike


----------



## Cactot (May 12, 2007)

Nonlethal Force said:
			
		

> Yeah, that one was such an easy call that I decided to not even buy the book.  That way there isn't the need to pick and choose.  I just didn't pick.
> 
> In general, though, I agree wholeheartedly with the "head 'em off at the pass" before broken stuff needs to be retroactively fixed.  As a player, I'd rather have a DM say "Nope" than "Sure, build your character around it and maybe we'll nerf it later."  I have much respect for the former, little respect for the latter.




Its unfortunate that so many people had that kneejerk reaction to ToB, it is one of the best dnd books ever published.  Extremely balanced except for a few badly written skills (two in particular, white raven tactics and iron heart surge, and thats about it, most everything else is perfect).  Flexible, flavorful, and great fun to play, without butchering the game with overpowered stuff.  As far as i am concerned the warblade and crusader are the "sweet spot" of dnd melee.  Swordsage isn't bad, but not quite the quality of the other two.  Crusader is probably my favorite class now FWIW.


----------

