Making Permanency more... Permament

[Malin Genie]

Not that this would necessarily help, but we house-ruled permanency to create a 'true' permanent effect, so it is only suppressed for 1d4+1 rounds rather than completely gone if dispelled. On the other hand, a lower-level caster with a good roll can still suppress the effect, and we bumped up some of the XP costs. Perhaps you could talk to your DM about changing permanency, and offer some tradeoffs in exchange for the 'real' permanency you desire?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Another angle to look at things is allow a feat to enchant anything as a magic item. Then just spend the money and xp.

 

[Artoomis]

I have been convinced that the feat is the way to go. It's very similar to item creation feats in that you gain something permanent for the price of a feat plus spending some experience points.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I have been convinced that the feat is the way to go. It's very similar to item creation feats in that you gain something permanent for the price of a feat plus spending some experience points.

Except much better, since a permanent spell doesn't take up a slot.

 

[Artoomis]

Except much better, since a permanent spell doesn't take up a slot.

True, but it cannot be purchased (well, a Permanency scroll can be, but not the permanent spell itself), costs experience points, and also is severely restricted in what you can do. Seems balanced to me.

I wonder if they should have some chance of being lost, though, like items can be lost or destroyed. A small chance, but a chance. Mage's Disjunction (to use the SRD term for it) could do it, and maybe that's enough. The Will save should be allowed as with items, though.

 

[welby]

I don't get why permanency can be permanently dispeled by some joe shmoe caster with a dispel wand.

we houseruled it so that if permanency was dispeled, it would be gone for 3days + a number of days equal to the caster level difference between me and the dispeller. Minimum would always be 3 days. It was long enough to make me consider recasting, but not so painful that I felt like I was throwing away xp.

Of course, my F***ing DM had a balor cast a targetted dispel on me the session after I finished all my permancy spells. I was level 12 at the time, and on a side quest with a lvl 12 assassin during an off week. Needless to say, the 5 players in the campaign universally agreed that the DM had been trying to kill us all for several gaming sessions, and no one was having fun. 4 of the players including me are now in a new campaign without him.

Oh ya, the point....um, we changed permanency and under normal circumstances I think it would work out.

 

[Artoomis]

Oh ya, the point....um, we changed permanency and under normal circumstances I think it would work out.

Yep - Permanency is kind of a balancing act. At high levels, using Greater Dispel is pretty routine, making it kind of useless. On the other hand, my DM feels that XP are a renewable resource, and should not be allowed to create truly permanent effects. He feels that feats, however, are not renewable and a more appropriate cost for items.

I admit he's got a point, which is why I am pushing for the equivalent to an item creation feat, allowed only at higher levels, to avoid having lower level characters with too much power.

I don't really care either way in the end, as my next character will not be a spell caster anyway!

 

[Lord Pendragon]

True, but it cannot be purchased (well, a Permanency scroll can be, but not the permanent spell itself), costs experience points, and also is severely restricted in what you can do. Seems balanced to me.

Well, I won't get into it too much, because I don't want to derail your thread. Suffice it to say, permanency has always bothered me, because as written it is far too easily dispelled, but if made permanent (in the way that magic items can only be suppressed,) it is far too cheap. I'm sure that somewhere in there is a balanced compromise, but I haven't found it yet.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I won't get into it too much, because I don't want to derail your thread. Suffice it to say, permanency has always bothered me, because as written it is far too easily dispelled, but if made permanent (in the way that magic items can only be suppressed,) it is far too cheap. I'm sure that somewhere in there is a balanced compromise, but I haven't found it yet.

The balance is to use a feat to give you the ability to make Permanency permanent - with the 1d4 round suppression thing thrown in for good measure.

I have managed to move this discussion pretty much completely into house rules, though.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The balance is to use a feat to give you the ability to make Permanency permanent - with the 1d4 round suppression thing thrown in for good measure.

I have managed to move this discussion pretty much completely into house rules, though.

Well, since you've got another thread going to give you what you were originally looking for...

The feat doesn't seem right to me. Item Creation already costs a feat, and Permanent Permanency still gives you a "magic item" that doesn't use up an item slot, and is a lot cheaper and faster to craft, to boot. It just seems far, far too nice.

I'd probably wind up having to create a virtual slot for a permanent spell, so that only one can be active at a time. Or even ruling that Permanency cannot stack with itself, and thus only one can be active at a time. Doing that, I'd be far more willing to allow a more truly permanent effect.