Permanecy o Permanecy

[DrNilesCrane]

DM'd with a player using numerous permanent spells, as per the PHB, in a long term campaign (4+ years; see link below). Given the XPs costs, it was pretty much a non-issue: the character lost some the permanent spells--in a few cases, even several times--due to targetted Dispel Magic attacks. I thought (and the player agreed) that it was balalnced given the XP cost.

 

[frankthedm]

And if you perm any spell on yourself, you automaticly strip it off if you have to use a targeted dispel on yourself.

You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.

 

[Wolfspider]

And if you perm any spell on yourself, you automaticly strip it off if you have to use a targeted dispel on yourself.

I'm quite sure your interpretation is not in the spirit that that particular rule was written.

 

[udalrich]

The issue of xp seems so small (when you figure how fast it comes is 3.5 compared to1st ed).

It's a cost. Probably less than in 1E, but it's still a cost.

and on the dispell magic end, there is the issue of targeting the perm'd spell, and then defeating the DC (it's a straight contest of Dc right?).

Dispel Magic can target a person, which causes a dispel check against all the spells on him (including the permanent spells). It's 1d20 + dispel caster level vs 11 + perm caster level when permanency was cast.

That bold bit is important. If you cast Permanency and it's still up 3 levels later, an enemy caster of the same level has a 65% chance of knocking it down. A BBEG four levels above the party has an 85% chance to dispel it. It's not so much "Permanency" as "For a Level or Two (I Hope) But Maybe Just for the Next Combat".

and if you are perm'ing the spell and tossing all the XP at it as well as whatever spell components, I think that it would be suppress like in an item rather than flat dispelled (don't you think that would make more sense- or else what makes it soo strong that when a spell is attached to an item it is a mere suppression rather than a full dispellation?)

That's clearly not how the spell works in the rules. You can house rule it as such, but then it's a much better spell. The only time I've seen the spell actually used was in PvP Arena games where it was automatically restored after the fight.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I pull a page from Elements of Magic, instead of using item slots there is a max number of magical effects allowed to operate on a character at any given time.. 12. A permanent spell counts against this number.

And permanented spells are suppressed just like magic items, altho they can be disjoined/etc..

... of course, not many games I run are high enough level to worry about it either.

So, limit what the spell can work on and impact the number of items the character is using... should be nicely balanced

 

[ThePublic]

All of this is good stuff, but then again it comes back to the question at hand (well not the question, but more the spirit of the question I really had in mind).

3/3.5 ed- perm is a 5th level spell (in a world where the PCs 'by the book' just pick a new spell or so a level)- is able to be dispelled by a 3rd level spell (dispel magic, which BTW was usually used to help remove charms, quests, geas, curses etc in 1st ed, but is now the cure what ails you magically spell). The levels changed, but the big toss of XP for a perm spell didn't , hence it is not that popular (when you can create a misc item with the same type of 'juice' for lack of a better term and not have the monkey of Dispel Magic around to off your hard work)

1stEd- Perm is a 9th level spell, is wicked strong, but it cost xp (which is even harder won at those levels) but the idea of permanecy is truely perm, short of antimagic shell/ rod of absorption. (well that and most GMs had you find your spells back then, but that is another story.

So, the issue I have isn't with the spell, but understanding the spirit of the device of it as a balance factor (XP for a cool effect with a risk of losing it if some joker finds out and whips the old dispel magic ata ya) vs teh classic one that I have seen used, and to make a different spell perm other than the classic list cost lots of GP, and time in game for a tight perctage roll.

That and it used to cost Stat points when you made an item, but that is another issue that I ahve come to peace with in the new age.

So. is my perception screwed (which if so I can accept) or does it just feel a bit odd since things have changed so much in the new editions(which I can accept with a bit of explanation)?

Let me know

ThePublic

 

[ThePublic]

Hey that makes a bit more sense screw, thanks (can you reference the source better so I can work the dynamic in house?)

 

[frankthedm]

It is just a bit odd adjusting to the things that changed so much in the new editions.

one thing that may take soem adjusting is in 3e, gold pieces are a point buy system.

BTW, If you like 1E, look at "Castles and Crusades".

 

[ThePublic]

Franky,


um point buy GP conversion- nope, ya lost me there. Just would really like a rhyme to the reason of this issue I got here.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

He's telling you, obliquely, that a lot of a PC's power resides in how effectively he can turn gold ("points") into magic items ("powerups").

The system is based around PCs having a certain amount of gold / points at each level.

For instance, certain monsters have a rating which says that they are resonable challenges for a group of 4 5th-level PCs (as a way to help you plan "What should my PCs be fighting if I don't want to steamroll them?"). When it says "5th-level PCs," it means "5th-level PCs with an appropriate amount of stuff."

It assumes things like PC warrior-types having a +1 weapon on hand, or the group having some wands and potions, etc.

Thus, if you decide to run a low-treasure kind of game, keep in mind that the suggestions for how tough a monster is will be off (it's much harder to kill monsters with Damage Reduction 10 / Magic when you don't have a magic sword, for instance).