Permanency question

[Pielorinho]

I have a question about the text of the permanency spell. I'm most interested in the spirit of the rules, common-sense interpretations, and balance, although programmatic Rules-As-Written interpretations can be interesting as well.

Here's the text; the question follows:

This spell makes certain other spells permanent.

Depending on the spell, you must be of a minimum caster level and must expend a number of XP.

You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself.

[snip]

You cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast the spell.

In addition to personal use, permanency can be used to make the following spells permanent on yourself, another creature, or an object (as appropriate).
Spell Minimum
Caster Level XP Cost
Enlarge person 9th 500 XP
Magic fang 9th 500 XP
Magic fang, greater 11th 1,500 XP
Reduce person 9th 500 XP
Resistance 9th 500 XP
Telepathic bond1 13th 2,500 XP
1 Only bonds two creatures per casting of permanency.

Okay, my question is this. For the list of spells you make permanent on yourself, it specifies that you cast the spell and then cast permanence. There is no such specification for spells cast on others. Does this mean that caster A may cast (for example) greater magic fang on Frank, and caster B may then cast permanence?

There's an NPC wizard cohort in our party with permanence; as the party druid, I cast Greater Magic Fang about four times every day (once on the monk, twice on me, once on my companion). If the cohort could cast permanence on GMF, that would drastically free up my spell list.

I'm inclined on one hand to think this is cheesy, that they misplaced a sentence that should apply to all castings of permanence. On the other hand, GMF only appears on the druid/ranger lists, meaning that you'd need to be at least a druid5/mage9 to cast this combination; that combination is so absurdly rare that this wouldn't even appear if that was the intent. (Of course a PC with crazy UMF and scrolls could also do it, but again, totally rare).

What do y'all think? Can we do this?

Daniel

 

[kerbarian]

Okay, my question is this. For the list of spells you make permanent on yourself, it specifies that you cast the spell and then cast permanence. There is no such specification for spells cast on others. Does this mean that caster A may cast (for example) greater magic fang on Frank, and caster B may then cast permanence?

Sure. As you quoted, "In addition to personal use, permanency can be used to make the following spells permanent on yourself, another creature, or an object (as appropriate)." The way I read that is: You cast Permanency, targeting one of the listed spells that's currently in effect on a creature/object, and that spell's duration is changed to permanent. It doesn't matter how the spell got there originally.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Sure, I think that is a reasonable thing to do, given the context of the rules.

Following RAW, if you did not allow this, it would be impossible to ever have a Permanent Greater Magic Fang, as Permanency is only a Sorcerer/Wizard spell to my knowledge. At the very least, it isn't for Druids.

By RAW, it should be the Wizard who pays the XP cost, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to have the Druid pay the XP cost since it affects his spell. IMO, that would follow the spirit. I guess you could pay the XP cost at 5gp/XP spent, plus the cost of casting the spell itself if that is a issue.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

I concur wholeheartedly. In this case, I see no reason for the caster providing permanency and the caster providing the base spell (greater magic fang) to be one in the same.

Furthermore, I would allow the caster providing GMF and even the subject to contribute XP toward the xp required for permanency.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The cheesy part of it is having a cohort do it. But then, I hate Leadership.

 

[Nail]

....that is to say, "The cheesy part is allowing the PC to get away with not spending XP in the casting of Permanency."

To directly address Pielorinho's question:
Sure, Caster A could cast the spell to be made permanent, and Caster B could cast the permanency spell. There's nothing wrong with that. .......other than the XP cost issue.

 

[moritheil]

It seems fine to have more than one caster involved.

Inf, the main - well, only - downside to Leadership is that if your cohorts keep getting killed off, eventually the feat will become useless.

 

[Stormrunner]

I can think of one minor disadvantage right off, and that's that the Permanency will be easier to dispell, since it would use the cohort's caster level which will always be lower than the PC's level. Since PCs often face foes of about the same level as themselves, this implies most spellcasters the party faces will be able to dispell the permanency.

If I was the Dm I would slow down the advancement of the cohort due to the constant XP drain, so the cohort ends up 3 or 4 levels below the PC instead of 2.

 

[Jack Simth]

Even if you restrict Permanency to only spells that the caster of Permanency cast, it's still possible to get a permanencied Greater Magic Fang:

Potion/Oil of Greater Magic Fang, caster level as desired.

Wizard imbibes potion/applies oil (and, with the rules for potions and oils, is thus the "caster" of that casting of Greater Magic Fang).
Wizard casts Permenency.

Granted, that doesn't work so hot for 4th+ level spells.....

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

Permanency, my favorite spell. Cast Polymorph then permanency, and you just became eligible for the killing machine PrC.