Dropping # of spell slots required for Persistent spell
Dropping # of spell slots required for Persistent spell
I looked for something related to this subject already but I couldn't find it. But I suggest that the number of spell slots required for a spell to be used while having the feat persistent spell on, should be lowered from 4 to maybe 3 or 2. Because there are a lot of new cool spells out there that I would like to be able to use on myself but they don't last too long.
I have to look through the current spell list as well as those not currently implemented to really be able to agree or disagree with this idea. I would like to suggest, though, that some spells have a VERY limited duration for a reason. Many very powerful spells are often short duration (as well as should be).
It may be better, however, to ask that those number of spells you've encountered have their duration increased instead of made available as persistent.
It may be better, however, to ask that those number of spells you've encountered have their duration increased instead of made available as persistent.
This land shall come to the God who knows the answer to War. -Ninety-Nine Nights
-
Kelemvor
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: The Fugue Plain within the Crystal Spire
Spell duration is heavily affected by yoru skill level in the spell, so in some respects you may find that this improves over time.
With regard to the Persistent Spell feat, reducing its cost in 'added levels' would be unbalancing.
For example:
Classes other than clerics and wizards would then be able to apply persistent spell to their spells and prayer.
A greater number of spells would be open to be persisted conferring greater advantage to spell-casting classes over non-spellcasters.
Spell level (the 1 through 9 level of the spell) is balanced to take into account of which spells may be maximized, empowered, extended or persisted.
Changing the cost of the feat in 'added levels' would mean doing exactly as Selveem noted above, going through the entire spell list once more to ensure that powerful spells were not lasting so long as to be unfair.
With regard to the Persistent Spell feat, reducing its cost in 'added levels' would be unbalancing.
For example:
Classes other than clerics and wizards would then be able to apply persistent spell to their spells and prayer.
A greater number of spells would be open to be persisted conferring greater advantage to spell-casting classes over non-spellcasters.
Spell level (the 1 through 9 level of the spell) is balanced to take into account of which spells may be maximized, empowered, extended or persisted.
Changing the cost of the feat in 'added levels' would mean doing exactly as Selveem noted above, going through the entire spell list once more to ensure that powerful spells were not lasting so long as to be unfair.
...never send to know for whom the bell tolls,
it tolls for thee.
it tolls for thee.
Not to argue the point, but wouldnt it actually not affect balance at all? Persistant spell ONLY affects spells castable on yourself. IE: buffs. From that detail alone couldnt it be assumed that the only REAL benefit wizards and clerics would gain from be able to persist higher level spells would be the cost of coins necessary for re-casting and using more spell components? Further, it might help to stop or slow the "Wait, I need to mediate every 45 seconds to regain the power to re-cast my defences" issue?
Again. No intention of arguing the point, but...I guess thats exactly what I did. sorry bout that
Again. No intention of arguing the point, but...I guess thats exactly what I did. sorry bout that
Far away and across the field, the tolling of the iron bell calls the faithful to their knees to hear the softly spoken magic spell.
