|
Basic question, how would this metamagic feat interact with this spell?
I'm pretty sure, simply enough, if you made the first Will save, you'd have to reroll.
What I'm NOT sure about, is if you make your Fort save, if you'd have to reroll, YET AGAIN, or if you'd be good..
I'm not sure whether the feat would...
(1) only work on the first save of a spell, so if you failed the first, but made the second, you'd be alright..
(2) would effect the first save you made, so if you made the first, and failed the reroll, but made the third roll, IE the fort roll, you'd be alright..
(3) or nastiest of all, you would have to reroll EVERY save you first make. So altogether, the above spell, would require you to make up to 4 rolls, altogether. Make first will, fail second will, make first fort, have to make a second fort.
I guess this question would apply to other spells as well, which require more than one save. I'm just very curious to overall, how this feat works.. The above is nasty >.<
I'd say the feat causes ONE reroll. Basically, the first time the target succeeds on a save, it has to save again. No matter if that happens on the first or second save.
Whenever a creature targeted by a persistent spell or within its area succeeds on its saving throw against the spell, it must make another saving throw against the effect.
This text has no limitations written ino it about only one save per spell. Each of the saves would trigger this effect independently. If they made the will save, they'd have to reroll that. If they then failed the will save but made the fort save, they'd have to reroll that too. It only makes you reroll each successful save once, but it makes you reroll every successful save.
I agree with Omelite. It makes no mention of only one save. All saves will be affected.
After re-reading the feat, I agree. Somehow I had the description all wrong in my head.
So in other words, this Metamagic feat's strength shines even stronger when it is used on a spell with more than one save...
Thats kinda scary >.< Thanks for the input, but I would also love to see if this was the original intention of the feat as well :P
It's actually not any more powerful with phantasmal killer.
Let's say you have a single-save spell that succeeds 75% of the time. A DC 25 vs a +9 save, for instance. Phantasmal killer is only going to succeed 56.25% of the time in this situation (the non-scaling 3D6 single-target damage really isn't anything).
Now let's say you have a DC 20 vs. the same +9 saves. Phantasmal killer is going to start at 25% effectiveness, where the single-save spell will have 50% effectiveness.
When you use persistent spell on each of them at DC 20 vs. +9 saves, the single-target spell goes from 50% to 75% effectiveness where the phantasmal killer goes from 25% to 56.25% effectiveness. It may seem like this helped phantasmal killer a lot more than it helped the single-save spell, but it did not. It helped each of them the same amount that +5 on the DC would have helped.
It's will not always be +5, but persistent spell will increase effectiveness on both single and multi-save spells the same as a +X increase to the DC would [X will sometimes include fractions]. Essentially, my point is that persistent's "dispropotional" effect on Phantasmal Killer is simply from the fact that Phantasmal Killer benefits disproportionately from any flat increases in success chances, since those increases get multiplied in twice (it's always less effective than single-save spells, but the difference is much less at high success rates).