Permanency scroll cost

[BigAl]

So:
- The creator of the scroll sets the scroll's caster level.
- This defines the range and damage of the scroll's spell.
- When reading the scroll, the target of the spell can be anything within the range that was determined when the scroll was created.

Back to the permanency spell:
- The creator of the scroll sets the scroll's caster level sufficiently high to make a darkvision spell permanent (10th level)
- The creator of the scroll must decide which effect would be made permanent (because this must be decided when the spell is started)

Does this sound right?

- Al

 

[IceBear]

If there's a way of determining what's to be made permanent, I guess it makes sense. Just makes the scroll less flexible than investing an extra amount of XP and saying the scroll can be used on any spell up to X amount of XP.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

So:
- The creator of the scroll sets the scroll's caster level.
- This defines the range and damage of the scroll's spell.
- When reading the scroll, the target of the spell can be anything within the range that was determined when the scroll was created.

Yes.

Back to the permanency spell:
- The creator of the scroll sets the scroll's caster level sufficiently high to make a darkvision spell permanent (10th level)

Basically.

- The creator of the scroll must decide which effect would be made permanent (because this must be decided when the spell is started)

This is where I disagree. I see only two reasonable options here...

1) At the time the scroll of permanency is created, you simply specify how much XP you're putting into it, which means you are essentially setting the caster level of the scroll.

...or...

2) At the time the scroll of permanency is made, you must create it with the other spell in mind and include the other spell on the same scroll.

Option 1 is for those of us that are a big "liberal", meaning I don't care what spell you use a permanency scroll with 500XP on, so long as it's a 1st level spell.

Option 2 is for those of us that are sticklers, meaning the permanency scroll must be "attuned" to a particular spell.

I like option 1.

Whoops. I forgot option 3...

3) The user of the permanency scroll spends the XP. Remember, activating a scroll is very similar to casting the spell yourself, except for the XP part.

I use option 3 in my games, but if I were to handle this differently, option 1 would be my choice.

 

[Antikinesis]

Originally posted by kreynolds

3) The user of the permanency scroll spends the XP. Remember, activating a scroll is very similar to casting the spell yourself, except for the XP part.

I use option 3 in my games, but if I were to handle this differently, option 1 would be my choice.

A valid example of a house rule.

From the SRD...

The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material components or focuses the spell requires. If casting the spell would reduce the caster’s XP total, she pays the cost upon beginning the scroll in addition to the XP cost for making the scroll itself. Likewise, material components are consumed when she begins writing, but focuses are not. (A focus used in scribing a scroll can be reused.) The act of writing triggers the prepared spell ...

(Emphasis mine.)

-AK

(Edit: Made it purty.)

 

[kreynolds]

A valid example of a house rule.

You're not even paying attention at all, are you?

 

[Antikinesis]

You're not even paying attention at all, are you?

Not-Sean, Not-Sean, Not-Sean... what are we gonna do with you? *sigh*

You make wands with 5th level spells, then tell someone they can't make a scroll that casts two spells at once. (See? I was paying attention! )

Then you make a blatant change to the rules regarding XP expenditure for item creation, in the middle of discussion about what what the rules are for such XP expenditures.

You're all over the map, amigo. Pick a spot and sit down already.

(Option 1 is the only one that makes sense to me, BTW.)

Debating the games is almost as fun as playing it, huh?

(Edit: inserting missing "[".)
-AK

 

[kreynolds]

You make wands with 5th level spells

Wrong. Officially, I made a command activated wondrous item with charges.

then tell someone they can't make a scroll that casts two spells at once.

Wrong. I said that the scroll would require both spells, and that the two spells couldn't not be combined into one spell for the scroll. You would need both of them and they wouldn't go off at the same time, as per the rules.

(See? I was paying attention! )

Not from where I'm standing.

Then you make a blatant change to the rules regarding XP expenditure for item creation, in the middle of discussion about what what the rules are for such XP expenditures.

Wrong. I stated early on how I handle this, and that's also when I explained the "wand" which is actually a wondrous item.

You're all over the map, amigo. Pick a spot and sit down already.

Wrong. You just can't read the map.

(Option 1 is the only one that makes sense to me, BTW.)

That's also the one that makes sense to me, but I wouldn't use it unless I dropped my house rule.

Debating the games is almost as fun as playing it, huh?

It can be. Mostly, I just dig this place because you can get just about any question answered.

 

[Antikinesis]

Originally posted by kreynolds

Wrong. Officially, I made a command activated wondrous item with charges.

And yet...

In one of my games, the player has a wand of permanency with about 40 something charges left in it, but she still has to do the research, spend the gold, and spend the XP.

Wrong. I said that the scroll would require both spells, and that the two spells couldn't not be combined into one spell for the scroll. You would need both of them and they wouldn't go off at the same time, as per the rules.

And yet...

What you can't do is combine these two spells into one simple step. They will function just as if cast normally, so they have to be separate, but you can place them both on the scroll.

Regarding using a house rule...

Wrong. I stated early on how I handle this, and that's also when I explained the "wand" which is actually a wondrous item.

And yet...

That's also the one that makes sense to me, but I wouldn't use it unless I dropped my house rule.

(emphasis mine --AK.)

Hmmm... looks like someone else is posting using your account, Mr. Reynolds.

-AK

 

[kreynolds]

Oh, for pitty's sake, fine. I'll grind you up and spit you out...

You quoted this from my post...

A fifth-level spell in a wand? That's bending the rules a bit.

-AK

I replied with this...

It's a "wand" but it's priced as a wondrous item...

spell level x caster level x 900gp (command word, 50 charges).

See? No bending of the rules.

So, you're still wrong.

Next, you quoted me on this...

then tell someone they can't make a scroll that casts two spells at once.

I replied with this...

Originally posted by kreynolds Wrong. I said that the scroll would require both spells, and that the two spells couldn't not be combined into one spell for the scroll. You would need both of them and they wouldn't go off at the same time, as per the rules.

By the rules, a scroll with two spells does not cast them at the same time, but they can both be cast one after the other. That's what I addressed in my post.

As for the rest of this...I don't know what the hell your point is, if you even have a point.

Was that fun?

 

[Antikinesis]

Oh, for pitty's sake, fine. I'll grind you up and spit you out...

Yay! He noticed me! *sigh* You underestimate me, sir, for I am gristly and pig-headed.

And, on a related issue, you're wrong. I'll try to help you understand, Not-Sean.

All this quoting is getting too long, so I'm gonna start paraphrasing, at the risk of reduced accuracy.

You said your player had a "wand of permanency".
I pointed out that you can't have such a wand.
Then you said your player didn't have a wand of permanency, but a wondrous item, instead.

And then you tell me I'm wrong?
Okay, fine.

Then you told another poster, "What you can't do is combine these two spells into one simple step".
I pointed out that your wondrous-item-workaround calls this assertion into question.
Then you asserted that you said "the two spells couldn't not be combined into one spell for the scroll.

One step, one spell... subtle difference, but important. But then you tell me I'm wrong?

As for the rest of this...I don't know what the h*** (shame on you, Not-Sean, for not masking your profanity! But that's another topic...) your point is, if you even have a point.

I'll try to be more direct.

You presented three options for handling the rules dilema under discussion.
I pointed out that your selected option directly violates the rules for magic item creation, making it a house rule.
You question my attention span, which I (perhaps mistakenly?) interpreted as dissention. You then commented, "I wouldn't use it unless I dropped my house rule."

Self-contradiction (barring possible misinterpretation on my part) yet again.

Was that fun?

Ah, yes. Pardon me while I bask in my own self-assuredness , secure in the knowledge that I have not been "ground up and spit out". [Edit] "... spat out". [/Edit]

-AK