Permanancy and Protection from Arrows

[Black Omega]

Sorry is this has already been answered here.

Protection from Arrows has both a normal duration and it runs out after absorbing a certain number of points of damage. Does making Protection from Arrows permanant mean it will absorb 100 points of arrows per day, or does it remove that limitation, or something else?

 

[Drawmack]

Hmm interesting one. The rules do not seem to stipulate this in the SRD. Unless it has been added to the FAQ the eratta or WotC has put yet another thing in a non-core rulebook and called it core rules then I would say that it is up to the DM. I personally would rule that it is 100 point/day. I say this because I believe that just making it infinite will overpower the spell and you want the PC to have it for a little while before the uber wizard casts dispel magic on him and takes away his nifty power.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I would make it permanent. Wizards are supposed to be powerful at higher level, and I believe there is a hefty xp cost for making the spell permanent.

Remember, just because something is permanent doesn't mean it can't be dispelled. I say let the wizard have their permanent protection from arrows.

 

[kreynolds]

Protection from Arrows has both a normal duration and it runs out after absorbing a certain number of points of damage. Does making Protection from Arrows permanant mean it will absorb 100 points of arrows per day, or does it remove that limitation, or something else?

It would be permanent. I.E. no daily limit of damage absorption. Resist elements only absorbs 12 points per caster level, then is discharged, but magic items/permanent effects don't generally work that way. As a magic item or permanent effect, you'd just energy resistance 15, or something like that.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

I think I'll hazard an actual rules argument.

"Permanent" is a type of spell duration. The conditions that discharge a spell are generally part of the spell's duration (see the spells in question). So if you replace a spell's duration with "permanent," then it can no longer be discharged. I'd argue that this is what the permanency spell does.

A spell that could be cancelled by means that did not involve a discharge condition in its duration (such as when you attack while invisible) is therefore still cancelled under the same circumstances.

 

[kreynolds]

I think I'll hazard an actual rules argument.

Wow. What was that all about? I already got my coffee, so what's your excuse?

 

[Tzarevitch]

I think I'll hazard an actual rules argument.

"Permanent" is a type of spell duration. The conditions that discharge a spell are generally part of the spell's duration (see the spells in question). So if you replace a spell's duration with "permanent," then it can no longer be discharged. I'd argue that this is what the permanency spell does.

A spell that could be cancelled by means that did not involve a discharge condition in its duration (such as when you attack while invisible) is therefore still cancelled under the same circumstances.

This was my reasoning as well. "Permanent" is a duration. It does not suspend or alter any of the spell's other limitations or termination conditions.

Tzarevitch

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Wow. What was that all about? I already got my coffee, so what's your excuse?

Wow? I certainly didn't mean anything that should evoke a "wow." Just that we'd had, up until that point, some arguments based on balance (what the rule should be) but not interpretation (what the rule is). Which seemed to me to be the actual question at hand. Not that balance issues are not also germane; they certainly are.

Or is it the word "argument?" I don't mean "fight," I mean "discourse."

In any case, I didn't mean to offend.

 

[Drawmack]

"Permanent" is a type of spell duration. The conditions that discharge a spell are generally part of the spell's duration (see the spells in question). So if you replace a spell's duration with "permanent," then it can no longer be discharged. I'd argue that this is what the permanency spell does.

A spell that could be cancelled by means that did not involve a discharge condition in its duration (such as when you attack while invisible) is therefore still cancelled under the same circumstances. [/B]

Good point, however it is only one side of the argument. Most magical weapons that can cast spells can only cast them a certain number of times per day. (i.e. a sword that casts magic missle 3x/day) Also with a ring of invisibility does the wearer remain invisible before during and after an attack? I have almost always heard it ruled that with a ring of invisibility attacking makes you visible for the remainder of that round, which seems to make sense to me as the underlying spell has been broken and it takes permanency a second or two to bring the spell back. Here is how I see these two points relating to the question at hand. First off protection from arrows is normally discharged after 100 points of damage has been absorbed. With the permanency spell it would not be discarged but would rather be dormant for the remainder of the day and become active again the next day.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Also with a ring of invisibility does the wearer remain invisible before during and after an attack? I have almost always heard it ruled that with a ring of invisibility attacking makes you visible for the remainder of that round, which seems to make sense to me as the underlying spell has been broken and it takes permanency a second or two to bring the spell back.

This is an error, on two counts. First, permanency has nothing to do with magic items, not being involved in their creation. Second, using a ring of invisibility to become invisible requires the user to activate the ring (see your DMG or SRD). This is a standard action. If you break the invisibility, you'd need to take an action to activate the ring to restore it.