Really permament?

[Deset Gled]

Personally, I'd rule that Permanency effectively changes the level of the underlying spell to 5th level and combines it with permanency to have a "permanent" duratioh.

This seems the simplest approach.

The spell itself gives no great guidance on this, and Hyp's approach seems to me to be over-technical and more complicated in practice.

With my approach (that seems to be just as valid), the Tenacious Magic [Epic] feat woudl apply to Permanency, which seems fine given that this is an Epic feat only.

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how adding in additional effects to the Permanency spell that are clearly not listed in the spell is the "simplest approach". I would also have to disagree that your approach is "just as valid" for the same reasoning. You're adding rules that do not exist in the RAW and are justifying them with the logic that they do not contradict the spell, while Hyp's ruling relies only on the written text. Your interpretation may be more "reasonable" given the cost of the spell and feat, but I do not consider that to be the same thing.

Either way, it looks like the answer to your original question is no. Even if you wanted to rule that the feat works like you say, there is no non-epic version of it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The meter doesn't stop; it just never reaches the "Too long!" mark.

But if the "Too long!" mark is suddenly dialled back to 11 minutes after the meter has been running for a year, you're past that mark.

-Hyp.

Two things could happen when a spell is made permanent; the meter could stop, or the "too long" effect (of ending the spell) could be suppressed. In the first case, the arcane sight whose permanency was dispelled would run for a little while longer (almost 11 minutes, most likely) and then end. In the second case, there are two possible interpretations of "When the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends."

One interpretation is that it is like a electronic alarm clock. Suppose the alarm is set for 8:00 am. You turn off the alarm at 7:30 and 8:00 comes. The alarm doesn't trigger; it has been suppressed. At 8:05 you turn the alarm back on. The alarm still doesn't trigger; it triggers only when "current time = 8:00 am" not "current time >= 8:00 am". A plausible reading of "when the time is up" is "elapsed time = spell duration". In which case a permanent spell might not go away when the permanency is dispelled (unless this happened prior to when the spell's duration would expire). It would have to be dispelled separately.

If I am giving an exam and say "your time is up, hand in your papers" I am not speaking with mathematical exactness; there is a certain leeway (a few minutes- 11 would be stretching it) where students can submit their papers. If a particular student delays too long and I leave the room, I won't accept his paper later. Especially not if he submits it a year later. I think the claim that "when the time is up, the magic goes away and the spell ends" will apply a year after the time is up is plausible, but not compelled by the rules.

Your reading of "when the time is up" is "elapsed time >= spell duration". And it leads to the spell ending when the supporting permanency is dispelled. But this is not the only reading.

Permanency obviously suspends the "when the time is up" rule, but it gives no indication of how it does so. In the absence of a mechanism there is no certain resolution of what happens when the permanency comes to an end. Your ruling is clear and simple and workable, but I think it fills a lacuna in the rules, which could be filled in different ways.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You missed an earlier [statement] in the spell. . .

I didn't miss it, but that doesn't negate the line I quoted. So, the permanency may be dispelled (using your quote), but the underlying "on you" spell can not be dispelled (using my quote). Doesn't this contradict, to some measure, Hyp's statement of one of the weaknesses of Permanency?

 

[Artoomis]

I didn't miss it, but that doesn't negate the line I quoted. So, the permanency may be dispelled (using your quote), but the underlying "on you" spell can not be dispelled (using my quote). Doesn't this contradict, to some measure, Hyp's statement of one of the weaknesses of Permanency?

I think the way this works (or is supposed to work, as I see it) is:

Cast a spell plus Permanency.

If on the first list (cast on you only), it can be dispelled only by a caster level higher than when you cast it.

If not cast on you (second or third list), is can be dispelled regardless of caster level.

I think the Permanency and the underlying spell were meant to be merged into one entitiy.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think the way this works (or is supposed to work, as I see it) is. . .
I think the Permanacy and the underlying spell were meant to be merged into one entitiy.

If that's true, then that directly contradicts the line I quoted. Something cannot be both dispellable and non-dispellable. There's no heading for the line I quoted so in some way, shape, or form a spell cast "on you" must be different, either not dispellable or not dispellable as normal.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yeah, I always assumed Permanency (once cast) changed the "target spell" so that it became Duration: Permanent. I never really realized that Permanency itself stayed on you. Would this mean that you could only have 1 Permanency on you at a time?

 

[Artoomis]

If that's true, then that directly contradicts the line I quoted. Something cannot be both dispellable and non-dispellable. There's no heading for the line I quoted so in some way, shape, or form a spell cast "on you" must be different, either not dispellable or not dispellable as normal.

""Spells cast on other creatures, objects, or locations (not on you) are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal."

This does not say spells cast on you are "Not Dispellable," but merely not "as normal" - meaning it takes a caster level higher than yours. That's abnormal.

 

[Thanee]

I see where you are going, but of course that would be a rules contradiction as instantaneous effects are not dispellable.

No contradiction. The Permanency spell would be not dispellable, but that would be of no relevance, since the only spell, that truely matters is the spell made permanent, and that would be dispellable normally. Permanency would work somewhat like a metamagic feat then, that changed the spell's duration to permanent.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

No contradiction. The Permanency spell would be not dispellable, but that would be of no relevance, since the only spell, that truely matters is the spell made permanent, and that would be dispellable normally. Permanency would work somewhat like a metamagic feat then, that changed the spell's duration to permanent.

Bye
Thanee

I see what you mean, but I do not think this was an accident or oversight. I think it is meant to work as I stated above.

 

[Thanee]

That's effectively the same, though, just reached in a slightly different fashion.

Bye
Thanee