Level Up (A5E) So. Permanency, the spell.

[Faolyn]

See, I have no problem with Con loss or XP as a cost, because I don't accept the idea that permanent stat loss just "isn't done anymore" because that's very much a preference (and greater restoration can easily be nullified by spell text) and I don't care for milestone XP.

I'm sure there's a way to thread the needle though.

There's very little precedent for attribute loss in 5e, which would make it difficult to do it in a way that's fair (with or without greater restoration), and, well, my table and I hate non-milestone leveling, because even with the introduction of exploration challenges granting XP, there's still too much emphasis on killing monsters for XP. So that's out.

 

[DarkRainbowFiend]

There's very little precedent for attribute loss in 5e, which would make it difficult to do it in a way that's fair (with or without greater restoration), and, well, my table and I hate non-milestone leveling, because even with the introduction of exploration challenges granting XP, there's still too much emphasis on killing monsters for XP. So that's out.

i also point out there's even less precedent for attribute loss in A5E.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I seem to recall there being "rules" for magic item creation in the 2e DMG, but they were very mythological in feel. Things like having to get the footfall of a cat, with it being up to the player to decide how getting such a thing was possible. Definitely nothing like magic item creation in 3e. A large part of me wants to go back to that sort of magic item creation--but that still assumes magic items are very rare, rather than a given.


Oh, that I like!


Yeah, this was the main reason for permanency. I'm well aware that people will be buffing themselves with it--but with your idea of using an attunement slot, that keeps permanent spells to a reasonable maximum.


Well, in the particular case of detect magic, there are a fair number of classes who basically can get that permanently already--warlocks can use it at will as early as 2nd level, for instance, via Eldritch Sight. So it's mostly a case of what sort of spells would be too OP if gotten permanently, especially when considering magic items that do the same thing.


That's another strong possibility. Thoughts, everyone?

I could absolutely get behind expensive and/or hard to find materials! That's just more adventure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's very little precedent for attribute loss in 5e, which would make it difficult to do it in a way that's fair (with or without greater restoration), and, well, my table and I hate non-milestone leveling, because even with the introduction of exploration challenges granting XP, there's still too much emphasis on killing monsters for XP. So that's out.

Well, it is your homebrew.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i also point out there's even less precedent for attribute loss in A5E.

True, but I don't consider a lack of current rules precedent to be a reason not to do something.

 

[DarkRainbowFiend]

I will say i do like EvilDMGuy's idea to connect permanancy to the attunement mechanic. Makes it both reasonable and balanced with you having to pick against having permanent truesigth against a magic item.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

i don't understand the talk of casting permanency to put buffs on people, because this version of the spell explicitly states:

Spells that are cast on creatures and have a range of Self and Touch can't be made permanent (but see "Cast at Higher Levels" below).

Cast at Higher Levels: When you cast this spell with an 8th-level spell slot, you can make permanent spells that have a range of Self or Touch.

so you can't make spells cast on creatures permanent, even with an 8th-level slot (the 8th-level upcast lets you make self or touch spells permanent, but says nothing about spells cast on creatures). am i misreading this? is the upcast supposed to let you make spells cast on creatures permanent?

EDIT: also with the attunement angle - would the caster or the target creature need to attune to the spell? because if you separate making spells on creatures permanent from the upcast, that could give artificers a very interesting synergy if the caster needs to attune to it....

 

[DarkRainbowFiend]

i don't understand the talk of casting permanency to put buffs on people, because this version of the spell explicitly states:


so you can't make spells cast on creatures permanent, even with an 8th-level slot (the 8th-level upcast lets you make self or touch spells permanent, but says nothing about spells cast on creatures). am i misreading this? is the upcast supposed to let you make spells cast on creatures permanent?

EDIT: also with the attunement angle - would the caster or the target creature need to attune to the spell? because if you separate making spells on creatures permanent from the upcast, that could give artificers a very interesting synergy if the caster needs to attune to it....

The intent, it seems, is for 8th level or high casting to remove a previous restriction. For the attunement thing, that's a bit more tricky but I'll assume it would be the target of the spell.

 

[Faolyn]

i don't understand the talk of casting permanency to put buffs on people, because this version of the spell explicitly states:


so you can't make spells cast on creatures permanent, even with an 8th-level slot (the 8th-level upcast lets you make self or touch spells permanent, but says nothing about spells cast on creatures). am i misreading this? is the upcast supposed to let you make spells cast on creatures permanent?

Originally, half the purpose of permanency was to make spells permanent on a creature. In 2e, the spell was 8th level; in 3e, it was 5th level. So I split the difference.

 

[lichmaster]

I don't think I want a permanent loss of a spell slot. I like the idea, but even a 20th-level caster only gets a single 8th- and 9th-level slot.

Yes, single high level spell slots are a thing about 5e. Losing complete access to those spells is probably a very steep penalty, although also having a permanent 8th or 9th level spell is quite the boon.
I'm not too fond of hp penalty either, because it can still be sidestepped with temporary HP, multiclassing to classes with more HPs, magic items, etc, and doesn't feel right to me.

The idea of the attunement slots is actually very interesting. It allows a PC to substitute a magic item with a power, which is something some 3.5 3pp expansions were doing and suggesting.
It does give some decision power back in the hands of the player, whereas 5e generally leaves giving magic item as a prerogative for the DM. I'm ok with that, but I guess that the possiblity of having 3 high level permanent spells could lead to a lot of issues in the hands of min-maxers. Could still be fun though.

The thing is: could a player recover the attunement slot by forfeiting the permanent spell? I'd also link the attunement slot to the character benefitting from the spell, not necessarily the caster.