D&D 5E Permanency

[transtemporal]

I would probably have a permanent personal spell take a feat slot of the appropriate level. Attunement slot is probably unfair since a magic item can be taken off you.

In world permanencies? Go nuts I say. Do as many as you can afford.

 

[Sunseeker]

Permanency could work but I don't like it to be codified. What works in some games won't work in others.

For example, I knew a player that wanted to have Permanent "Enlarge" on his dwarf. This was real strong mechanically, and was permissible in 3E. However, the rest of us players mocked the idea greatly: he wanted to be a Giant Dwarf! Realizing how that sounded, he decided that he mechanical benefit was not worth the social problems that would occur (both IC and OOC). A group less into the social aspect of the game and more into power-gaming would have no problem with this.

Awwww, the short dwarf just wanted to be taller!! I think this would be a great chance to throw in something like the ent-waters from LOTR for his character.

Anyway, permanency is majorly OP what with capped scores and all that 5th edition has included, at least when it comes to permanency to gain statistical bonuses and more PC power. Permanency on someone who altered-self into a different person would be hilarious, with no real statistical gain.

 

[MasterTrancer]

I think this is a big part of it. Permanency in earlier editions was effectively a "spell resource and action resource" tool - it let you have up spells not from the current day's resources, and in some cases let you have up otherwise short-lasting spells without taking the action to cast.

But now, with Concentration as a limiting factor for many buff spells, it changes the equation. Other ways to get around the spell resource part, such as potions, now require the drinker to maintain concentration. (Which might still be worthwhile if they had nothing else to concentrate on.) But permanently requiring concentration for any spell that uses it might be more limiting than useful, but not requiring it would be more broken then balanced.

I haven't looked at the non-concentration spells to see how they would fare. But I'd say leaving out permanency from the first list of spells was probably intentional. And my guess is that Contingency is more likely to come back then Permanency.

Exactly what I thought of the issue, and that's why I started the OP: to check if perchance I overlooked Permanency.

By the way, IIRC Contingency is back, so Permanency has some hopes! [emoji6]