Limited Wish and Permanancy Question

[Rugger]

Okie....

So the Wizard in my party is looking to do some more Permanacy effects.

The problem is that she wants to Perm. spells from Forbidden Schools (She's an evoker with no divination allowed), using Limited Wish to cast the forbidden spells.

I'm thinking that this means she's trying to Perm a Limited Wish, NOT the spell she's simulating, which means no dice.

Anyone else run into this?

-Rugger
"I Lurk!"

 

[RigaMortus]

Either way it would be no dice. If you ruled they were perming the divination spell instead of the limited wish, then they wouldn't be able to do it based on the fact that it's a banned school.

That's just MHO

 

[bret]

I would allow it.

Limited Wish allows you to cast spells from a forbidden school.

Permanancy hacks a spell so that it doesn't expire. If you dispell the permanancy, the spell expires.
Not a problem. Same method you would use to do Permanant Magic Fang.

 

[Rugger]

Either way it would be no dice. If you ruled they were perming the divination spell instead of the limited wish, then they wouldn't be able to do it based on the fact that it's a banned school.

That's just MHO

Actually, Limited wish will allow a caster to cast Forbidden spells of 5th level or lower... believe me, that was my first thought

-Rugger

 

[hammymchamham]

If you don't allow this, they'll start looking for someone to cast the divination spell on them.

I don't see why its a problem. They're expendiing XP from both Permanancy and Limited Wish. How hard would it be for the wizard to find another wizard to cast the spell on him?

 

[Xeriar]

Okie....

So the Wizard in my party is looking to do some more Permanacy effects.

The problem is that she wants to Perm. spells from Forbidden Schools (She's an evoker with no divination allowed), using Limited Wish to cast the forbidden spells.

I'm thinking that this means she's trying to Perm a Limited Wish, NOT the spell she's simulating, which means no dice.

Anyone else run into this?

-Rugger
"I Lurk!"

Permenancy targets an effect cast on yourself. Limited Wish can create such an effect at your caster level, say 'See Invisibility'.

And, as mentioned, she's paying the XP cost twice. Limited Wish and Wish are meant to help bend the rules, and for critical spells like See Invisibility they are certainly necessary.

 

[Rugger]

Alrighty then, I think I'm sold on allowing it....

And I just heard how much XP she'll be spending...3000XP!!!

Sounds like punishment enough

Thanks, all!!

-Rugger

 

[Bauglir]

I always thought permenancy was too expensive. A few thousand xp cost for an ability that can be lost forever via a simple dispel? (and very probably will be - dispels are quite common)

Seems much more sensible to get an item which confers the ability..

 

[Xeriar]

I always thought permenancy was too expensive. A few thousand xp cost for an ability that can be lost forever via a simple dispel? (and very probably will be - dispels are quite common)

Seems much more sensible to get an item which confers the ability..

A targetted dispell, and then only by one of equal or greater caster level. Even then I like the idea of it being temporary (1d4 rounds) as it is with items, anyway.

 

[Janos Antero]

Permanency doesn't have to target a spell on yourself, nor necessarily does the spell need to be cast by you to permanency it either, or at least that was the consenus I got when I asked opinions (it's not clarified anywhere, and awaiting the "wise" sage to answer that question.

So realistically, she could have someone else cast some of those spells on her and permanency them anyway if the spells themselves allow it. Based on that, I'd let her use the limited wish trick, might as well since she's paying more than she would otherwise.