Really permament?

[Artoomis]

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

Bye
Thanee

I think in your case the Tenacious Magic [Epic] must be applied to the underlying spell only.

In my case it's arguable either way from a rules perspective.

From a game balance perspective, it seems fine to allow Tenacious Magic [Epic] to work as I have suggested it will.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Doesn't it imply that spells cast on you are therefore not vulnerable to dispel magic as normal? What does that mean?

Spells cast on you are not vulnerable to dispel magic as normal. They are vulnerable to dispel magic only under special conditions not found in the description of dispel magic; they are therefore vulnerable to dispel magic, but not as normal.

I think in your case the Tenacious Magic [Epic] must be applied to the underlying spell only.

Right.

The original spell - say Arcane Sight - must still exist in order to have an effect. As I read it, both Arcane Sight and Permanency are in effect, and either can be dispelled. As Thanee reads it, Permanency changes the duration of Arcane Sight (which remains in effect), and goes away. In either case, Arcane Sight is still there, and if it's still there, it can be dispelled.

You're trying to claim that once you cast a Tenacious Permanency, you somehow get to apply the Tenacious effect to a spell that is not Permanency. I can't see how that's supportable by any twisting of logic. If you're benefiting from Arcane Sight, Arcane Sight is in effect on you. Its duration is permanent, but the only way to make it Tenacious is to apply the Tenacious effect to Arcane Sight. If you apply it to Permanency, you end up with a Permanency that cannot be dispelled, but since Arcane Sight is not Tenacious (the only thing Tenacious is the spell that's changing its duration), Arcane Sight, once dispelled, isn't coming back.

Either take the feat for the spell you actually want to be non-dispellable, or don't... but you can't make the feat applied to one spell cause it to affect another spell.

You might try something like applying Tenacious Magic to one of the Anyspell spells, and using that to create the effects you wish to apply Permanency to.

-Hyp.

 

[Dracorat]

Per rules, I read permanency the same way as Hyp. And I think it was designed that way. In short, you want to be sure to beef up your caster level before you permanency anything on yourself in order to give yourself a few caster levels of breathable room where it could not be dispelled at all.

However, if it ever is dispelled, permanency is itself supressed but its supression may cause the original spell to end as normal. Additionally, if the underlying spell is dispelled, the permanency ends as it has an invalid target now. Permanency does not affect the underlying target's ability to be or not be dispelled.

--------------

However, I adjudicate Permanency more closely to the alternate interpretation, which I do not feel is RAW. That is, the underlying spell becomes permanent and permanency itself ends. If a dispel magic is cast upon that spell, it is supressed. No magic short of epic magic can remove a permanent spell. (However, a permanent spell could be dismissed by its caster if it is of the (D) type, ending it immediately).

 

[Artoomis]

...The original spell - say Arcane Sight - must still exist in order to have an effect. As I read it, both Arcane Sight and Permanency are in effect, and either can be dispelled. As Thanee reads it, Permanency changes the duration of Arcane Sight (which remains in effect), and goes away. In either case, Arcane Sight is still there, and if it's still there, it can be dispelled....-Hyp.

Both of those are possible readings. It is also possible to read it that the only thing needing to be dispelled is the Permanency (certainly the spell description seems to imply that in at least one place). If that's true, then making Permanency non-dispellable makes it really, truly permanent.

Note"

"This application of permanency can be dispelled ..."

Seems to indicate it is the permanency, not the underlying spell, that must be dispelled

But

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

Which seems to indicate the the spells get dispelled, not the permanency.

Maybe it is different depending upon whether it is a personal use or not?

Anyway, my DM will decide for me.

Personally, if I was ruling on it, I'd be generous simply because of the high cost for spells that can be dispelled rather easily.

 

[tomBitonti]

How has this been resolved?

Hi,

Getting a little lost in the exchanges ... is it resolved that "Permanency" having a "permanent"
duration is silly, that it must be 'instantaneous', and is it resolved that Permanency causes a
change in a prior spell so to give that spell a permanent duration? That is, to change the
original spell such that the spell is, in effect, modified as if cast by an (imputed virtual) 'permanent spell' metamagic feat?

Or, is it resolved that both 'permanency' and the prior spell are still in effect? That is, that
permanency has a 'permanent' duration, targets an active spell, and has the ongoing effect of changing that spells duration to 'permanent'?

But, that in either case 'tenacious spell' is not useful, as in the first case, one doesn't have
a spell to apply it to (since 'some spell ... permanent ...' is not a know spell), while in the
second case, the prior spell will immediately expire if the permanency is supressed.

Although, if there are two active spell effects, permanency may affect one and not the
other. One case, where 'permanency' was supressed has been considered. In the other
case, where permanency is still going strong, and the prior spell is supressed, then
if the prior spell were cast tenaciously, then after having been dispelled, the prior spell
would return after 1-4 rounds. In that case, tenacious spell is useful. (This presumes that
the 'tenacious' effect does not prevent the spell from being made permanent, and remains
after permanency has been applied.)

 

[Artoomis]

I think to make the Tenacious Magic [Epic] work at all you have to do one of the following:

1. Apply it to the underlying spell only, assuming you take the view that the spell now has a duration of "permanent" and it is not a combination of a short duration spell with a second spell, Permanency on top. If you have that "two spells at once" view than this would not work as if the Permanancy got dispelled the other spell duration would have expired, too, as Tenacious Magic [Epic] does not change the underlying spell's duration.

2. Apply it to Permanency only, assuming you take the view that Permanency is the controlling factor and you effectively have Permanency with an effect from the underlying spell. If you have the "two spells at once" view than oncer again this would not work because if the Permanancy got suppressed the other spell duration would have expired and would not be there to be Permanent any more when the suppression ended.

3. You could take the view that each Permanant Spell was, in effect, a new spell and Tenacious Magic [Epic] needs to be applied to each new Permanent version of the underlying spell. This works, too, but is the least PC friendly approach.

4. If you hold to the "two spells at once" theory there is no real way for Tenacious Magic [Epic] to work without interesting rules gyrations.

Obviously I favor approach number (2). That's partly for game balance reasons, as stated previously but consistently ignored in this discussion, as if game balance has no place here.

 

[Artoomis]

FWIW, I've asked my DM (who happens also to be a WotC rules guru) how this will work in his campaign.

I asked him if:

1. Would this feat apply to Permanency is such a way as to make the spell made permanent be undispellable, only suppressible? For example, a Permanent Tongues could not be dispelled, only suppressed for 1d4 rounds.

2. If the answer is yes, would you consider making this feat be non-Epic?

3. If the answer to either number (1) or number (2) is "No," would you consider a custom feat that only allows personal uses of permanency to be truly permanent such that they can only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds?

How would you guys, as DMs and not rules lawyers, answer those questions for your own games?

 

[Rystil Arden]

FWIW, I've asked my DM (who happens also to be a WotC rules guru) how this will work in his campaign.

I asked him if:

1. Would this feat apply to Permanency is such a way as to make the spell made permanent be undispellable, only suppressible? For example, a Permanent Tongues could not be dispelled, only suppressed for 1d4 rounds.

2. If the answer is yes, would you consider making this feat be non-Epic?

3. If the answer to either number (1) or number (2) is "No," would you consider a custom feat that only allows personal uses of permanency to be truly permanent such that they can only be suppressed for 1d4 rounds?

How would you guys, as DMs and not rules lawyers, answer those questions for your own games?

As a GM, I would say No and No (so an implied No to the third). I would, however, allow someone who took Tenacious Spell on a particular buff and then Permanencied that buff to have it suppressed but permanent. It may go against the RAW, but one permabuff of your choice? That's fair for a feat. Infinitely many? That's way too strong, in my opinion.

 

[Sledge]

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.

For the record is there anyway this will come up in a game?

I was trying to find an example but just couldn't think of one.

Anyways if you can find one, this is my theory. When a spell has a duration that is "timed" you measure the rounds that pass. However a permanent spell does not measure rounds that have passed. So when a spell loses permanency (if possible) the spell reverts to a "timed duration" which requires you to measure rounds etc as they pass. No where in the magic section does a permanent spell require you to measure, so why would you be measuring the rounds that occurred while permanent?

 

[Infiniti2000]

How would you guys, as DMs and not rules lawyers, answer those questions for your own games?

1 & 3. Absolutely not. I would not even listen to an argument to allow it pre-epic.