Permanecy o Permanecy

[ThePublic]

First Hey everyone, thanks for the board.

but down to biz....

Being an old 1st Ed DM thrust into 3.5, I got one question that pertains to the world of all these wonderous spells.

Permanecy. Since it has been lowered in level for the new editions, it feels lke it would be an area of massive abuse- even with the XP costs. I do see that the old list of what can be perm'd is the same from 1st, but then there is the issue of other spells...

So, here it is- a call to GM's everywhere. How do you put a cap on it, what dynamic do you use to make it a standard rule not to be lawyered at every want of the PCs?

Holler out folks,

Lets see what ThePublic can get.

 

[DarkJester]

I'm not sure how 1st edition handled things, but spells made permanent via permanency are subject to dispel magic. That could be an awful waste of experience points when a single spell could strip you of them. In my games I even allowed that dispel magic would merely supress a permanent spell rather than getting rid of it and I still have not seen anyone make use of it. (Though, admittedly, we only ran 2 games where the PC's were high enough to have the option).

 

[der_kluge]

First Hey everyone, thanks for the board.

You're welcome.

but down to biz....

Being an old 1st Ed DM thrust into 3.5, I got one question that pertains to the world of all these wonderous spells.

Permanecy. Since it has been lowered in level for the new editions, it feels lke it would be an area of massive abuse- even with the XP costs. I do see that the old list of what can be perm'd is the same from 1st, but then there is the issue of other spells...

So, here it is- a call to GM's everywhere. How do you put a cap on it, what dynamic do you use to make it a standard rule not to be lawyered at every want of the PCs?

Holler out folks,

Lets see what ThePublic can get.

Banned in my game. Not because of abuse, but because I tossed XP out the window. I modified all the spells that require XP costs to not require them. The easiest solution for this spell was to just remove it.

 

[frankthedm]

First Hey everyone, thanks for the board.

but down to biz....

Being an old 1st Ed DM thrust into 3.5, I got one question that pertains to the world of all these wonderous spells.

Permanecy. Since it has been lowered in level for the new editions, it feels lke it would be an area of massive abuse- even with the XP costs. I do see that the old list of what can be perm'd is the same from 1st, but then there is the issue of other spells...

So, here it is- a call to GM's everywhere. How do you put a cap on it, what dynamic do you use to make it a standard rule not to be lawyered at every want of the PCs?

If it rubs you that bad, just diallow it from your game and make a replacement spell for the few times it is used for other things like lich creations.

That said...

You are the one who says what spells get added to the permanency list, if any.

XP is an insanely valuable resource. Only the caster can pay the spell’s XP cost.

Permanency only makes the spell’s duration last forever. The Permanencied spells can still be dispelled. Only on spells a wizard has cast on themselves does it take a higher caster level{caster level when the Permanency was cast].

You are pretty much free to say most NPCs won't cast the spell except for their closest allies. Also the going rate for NPCs to cast spells with an xp coxt is 5gp per XP.

Also read over a few of those spells, permanency'ing an enlarge person means that if the recipient ever drops a weapon, that weapon shrinks down and never again resizes. That a guaranteed -2 to hit, due to now being the wrong size, and may bone out the use of power attack. There is no Quick-sheath feat. Sheathing a weapon take a move action all by itself and draws an AoO.

 

[kreynolds]

I do see that the old list of what can be perm'd is the same from 1st, but then there is the issue of other spells...

Other spells? Unless a spell not on the permanency list specifically states that it can be made permanent with the permanency spell, then it cannot be made permanent with the permanency spell without intervention of the DM.

Does that address your question?

 

[mvincent]

I do see that the old list of what can be perm'd is the same from 1st, but then there is the issue of other spells...

Other spells? Most DM's only allow spells specifically noted by WotC as being permanency-able.

 

[Arkham]

I've allowed fairly free-reign in using Permanency on other spells. Only two players every did so, mostly due to the fears of dispel stripping them of their spent exp. The other thing to note is that if the character dies and needs to have their body reformed by either Resurrection or True Resurrection, it is likely the permanent spells are gone too.

One permanencied a Shapechange, but didn't use it much before the game ended.
The other permanencied Energy Immunity once for all 5 energy types. He got more use out of it.

 

[frankthedm]

Here is what market prices for permancies go...

Resistance from a 9th Level caster costs 2545 gp
Enlarge person from a 9th Level caster costs 2590 gp
Magic fang from a 9th Level caster costs 2590 gp
Reduce person from a 9th Level caster costs 2590 gp
Magic fang, greater from a 11th Level caster costs 7830 gp
Telepathic bond from a 13th Level caster costs 13150 gp {only joins 2 people]

The rest ONLY can be cast on the caster, points in space or objects.

If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available.

 

[ThePublic]

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

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?).

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?)

Sorry to be a wanker on this, but just saying "No" on this mechanic seems a bit off as well as taking a simple answer without a wherewithall reason of why (hence the question of how much spell research via spellcraft and at what level of DC should I allow differing levels of spell). There should be a good format of what someone has used in a campaign that has lasted for atleast a few years that has worked (as this is the largest forum of this type- hence I came here).

So, thanks for the above answers, but I think I still need a bit more.... you got anything?

ThePublic

 

[frankthedm]

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

Then you are making the spell the problem.

(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 makes permancy too strong. Part of it's balance is that if you are all magiced up, one Greater dispel from a signifigant foe shows you why you don't put your eggs in one basket. Many casters will not apreciate you using Arcane Sight to look at the top of thier spell stack