Level Up (A5E) So. Permanency, the spell.

[Faolyn]

I appreciate having a permanency spell instead of the casting it every day for a year. I would get rid of that in favor of this.

Is this defined as a ritual? I find the one minute casting time too low. I would think at least an hour. I'm also not a fan of the casting it over ten days but I can't say why. Maybe a number of days equal to 1 + spell level of the spell to be made permanent?

It's not. I actually upped the casting time to a minute because in both earlier editions, the time was a mere 2 rounds. And I had done it over ten days because, well, a single 2-round casting felt cheap when compared to permanent Con loss or spending XP. I do very much like your idea of the casting time dependent on the level.

Honestly, it could go back to a shorter time if we wanted to use it to make spells like polymorph be made permanent, since permanently turning a creature into an animal is a common fantasy trope.

I know this isn't typical, but what if permanency was second level but has to be heightened to a spell slot one higher than the spell to be made permanent? That would stop ninth level spells from being made permanent in this manner, if desired.

Ooh, I like!

I think the dispel is too easy, given the potential cost of making a spell permanent. Maybe it just suppresses the magic instead for a number of (rounds) equal to the difference of the dispel casters spellcasting check against the permanency casters DC when it was made?

Now that's a good idea! I think I'd simplify it to either 10 minutes (like knock) or an hour (like what happens if you "sacrifice" a magic shield).

I suggest the suppressing as I think of Stoneskin on a character or Symbol on a wall. The dispel gives a bypass for a while but allows it to come back. Thinking of dispel magic, what about spells like Anti-Magic Field or Prismatic Wall that are immune to Dispel attempts?

Hmm.

Just a few coppers worth of thoughts for you.

 

[Faolyn]

I do think, with the requirement to make 10 consecutive successful checks, there's going to be a pretty chance of failure. Might be your intent though.

It was less that an more that I felt that by this level, you likely have enough resources to gain advantage or at least a couple of expertise dice on the rolls. But you're right, this probably does make a failure likely.

 

[Faolyn]

This is an interesting topic! This spell is fundamental IMO for world building: in 2e it was how magic items were created in the first place! Using it to make individual spells (not magic items) permanent was probably more of a niche use. 3E allowed to have permanent buffs this way, but it did cost XP. Paying in XP is messy IMO, first because it doesn't work for groups using milestones, and second because the same number of XP means very different things depending on current level, so the cost would be high for low-ish level characters and very low for high level characters

I'd rather maintain an aspect of personal sacrifice but remove failure chances altogether.
What if one simply sacrificed a spell slot of the same level of the spell being made permanent?
This way it's as if the spell was cast every day in the morning and it lasted the whole day without concentration, but other than that there's no power creep.

Edit: to clarify, the sacrifice would be permanent. I.e. a permanent fly spell would reduce by one the number of available 3rd level spell slots

Yeah, I'm definitely torn on this. Con loss is out, both because permanent stat reduction isn't really a thing anymore and because it would (likely) be fixable quite quickly by a greater restoration. The average spellcaster might not have easy access to that spell, but it's quite likely a party of adventurers would. And XP loss is out for exactly the reasons you state.

I don't think I want a permanent loss of a spell slot. I like the idea, but even a 20th-level caster only gets a single 8th- and 9th-level slot.

Maybe having hit point reduction equal to the level of the spell slot? With one point being a permanent loss, even if greater restoration is cast?

 

[Faolyn]

See, while that might work for balance, I don't like it for worldbuilding. If Permanency is indeed used for magic item creation, every caster would be damaging their own magic potential forever when they make anything. The court magician loses power forever when they make a magic sword for the prince, or set up the castle's security. That seems unrealistic to me.

Agreed. While it might be useful to have spells just for magic item creation, having permanency be used for magic item creation and causing the caster to permanently lose something only works if magic items are vanishingly rare. That may have been the original intent behind the spell (I have no idea how common magic items were in the games run by Gygax et al), but it's certainly hasn't been feasible in a very long time.

 

[Faolyn]

One thing you need to specify, what happens with spells taht require concentration? My assumption is they no longer require concentration once permanent but probably want to note that specifically.

Hadn't thought about that. I would definitely assume they would no longer require concentration.

 

[evildmguy]

Great discussion!

I think the original idea was that magic items were found and couldn't be made anymore. It's why adventurers went adventuring. Maybe late 2E finally had rules on how to make an item for PCs but I thought most of it was assumed to be found or NPC created, hence the huge cost.

Permanency is also tough because of the idea of game balance. I do agree losing a slot is a lot, same for CON. What if there is a limit to the number of spells that can be permanent on a person? No more than CHA mod? (I say that because CHA seems to be influencing externally, as a generic idea.) Or no more spell levels total that CHA score?

Oooh! What if having a permanent spell was considered one of the receiving character's attunement slots? That might make them think a bit before doing this. It could still be powerful, with True Seeing, Stoneskin, or similar as the spell picked, but it does have a cost.

Maybe limits need to be created for them but that could get to be a huge endeavor. If Stoneskin was made permanent, maybe it only protected from level of caster x 10 hit points before it goes dormant for the rest of the day? Then that has to be done for a lot of spells. Or put into the description as something the DM and player figure out.

If they are fixed, a la Wall of Fire, then not sure there needs to be a cost. The long casting time makes it not valid for adventuring. If they want to protect their stronghold or the party's or their liege, that seems to be what they are for.

It was less that an more that I felt that by this level, you likely have enough resources to gain advantage or at least a couple of expertise dice on the rolls. But you're right, this probably does make a failure likely.

Unless it's one check at the end instead of every day?

The question I had about that is can they do something else during this time? If they are giving themselves a permanent Detect Magic, can they still adventure? They will be down those slots every day.

Yeah, I'm definitely torn on this. Con loss is out, both because permanent stat reduction isn't really a thing anymore and because it would (likely) be fixable quite quickly by a greater restoration. The average spellcaster might not have easy access to that spell, but it's quite likely a party of adventurers would. And XP loss is out for exactly the reasons you state.

I don't think I want a permanent loss of a spell slot. I like the idea, but even a 20th-level caster only gets a single 8th- and 9th-level slot.

Maybe having hit point reduction equal to the level of the spell slot? With one point being a permanent loss, even if greater restoration is cast?

Why is a cost needed? It seems tough on one of the lowest hit point classes to lose more to this, unless the idea is that they don't make more than two or three in their life? I think the problem is that gold doesn't mean much. Maybe if it's balance, all spells to be made permanent need some rare components that must be harvested by the caster? Worth at least 1000 gp x spell level to be made permanent?

In my current PF1 game, time was a great limiting factor. They could take five or six days off for a few things to be made, different rules of course, but they had to pick wisely what they would make as they didn't have unlimited time to do this during the campaign.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't like the idea of losing Con: there are magic items that set your Con score (amulet of health). You'd need to rule that this drain happens despite the magic item for the penalty to be effective, and that creates another can of worms.
If the effect is not on a creature but on a position or a structure, IMO it's not different from the creation of a magic item.

But mechanically it wouldn't operate that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I'm definitely torn on this. Con loss is out, both because permanent stat reduction isn't really a thing anymore and because it would (likely) be fixable quite quickly by a greater restoration. The average spellcaster might not have easy access to that spell, but it's quite likely a party of adventurers would. And XP loss is out for exactly the reasons you state.

I don't think I want a permanent loss of a spell slot. I like the idea, but even a 20th-level caster only gets a single 8th- and 9th-level slot.

Maybe having hit point reduction equal to the level of the spell slot? With one point being a permanent loss, even if greater restoration is cast?

See, I have no problem with Con loss or XP as a cost, because I don't accept the idea that permanent stat loss just "isn't done anymore" because that's very much a preference (and greater restoration can easily be nullified by spell text) and I don't care for milestone XP.

I'm sure there's a way to thread the needle though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Great discussion!

I think the original idea was that magic items were found and couldn't be made anymore. It's why adventurers went adventuring. Maybe late 2E finally had rules on how to make an item for PCs but I thought most of it was assumed to be found or NPC created, hence the huge cost.

Permanency is also tough because of the idea of game balance. I do agree losing a slot is a lot, same for CON. What if there is a limit to the number of spells that can be permanent on a person? No more than CHA mod? (I say that because CHA seems to be influencing externally, as a generic idea.) Or no more spell levels total that CHA score?

Oooh! What if having a permanent spell was considered one of the receiving character's attunement slots? That might make them think a bit before doing this. It could still be powerful, with True Seeing, Stoneskin, or similar as the spell picked, but it does have a cost.

Maybe limits need to be created for them but that could get to be a huge endeavor. If Stoneskin was made permanent, maybe it only protected from level of caster x 10 hit points before it goes dormant for the rest of the day? Then that has to be done for a lot of spells. Or put into the description as something the DM and player figure out.

If they are fixed, a la Wall of Fire, then not sure there needs to be a cost. The long casting time makes it not valid for adventuring. If they want to protect their stronghold or the party's or their liege, that seems to be what they are for.


Unless it's one check at the end instead of every day?

The question I had about that is can they do something else during this time? If they are giving themselves a permanent Detect Magic, can they still adventure? They will be down those slots every day.


Why is a cost needed? It seems tough on one of the lowest hit point classes to lose more to this, unless the idea is that they don't make more than two or three in their life? I think the problem is that gold doesn't mean much. Maybe if it's balance, all spells to be made permanent need some rare components that must be harvested by the caster? Worth at least 1000 gp x spell level to be made permanent?

In my current PF1 game, time was a great limiting factor. They could take five or six days off for a few things to be made, different rules of course, but they had to pick wisely what they would make as they didn't have unlimited time to do this during the campaign.

Thanks for the discussion!

In Level Up, gold can mean quite a bit more. Maybe the cost can vary in a sidebar that discusses the issue via a vis different playstyles.

Permanency is a big deal. I can see taking time and ink discussing what it means. Would make a great article on its own actually.

 

[Faolyn]

Great discussion!

I think the original idea was that magic items were found and couldn't be made anymore. It's why adventurers went adventuring. Maybe late 2E finally had rules on how to make an item for PCs but I thought most of it was assumed to be found or NPC created, hence the huge cost.

I seem to recall there being "rules" for magic item creation in the 2e DMG, but they were very mythological in feel. Things like having to get the footfall of a cat, with it being up to the player to decide how getting such a thing was possible. Definitely nothing like magic item creation in 3e. A large part of me wants to go back to that sort of magic item creation--but that still assumes magic items are very rare, rather than a given.

Permanency is also tough because of the idea of game balance. I do agree losing a slot is a lot, same for CON. What if there is a limit to the number of spells that can be permanent on a person? No more than CHA mod? (I say that because CHA seems to be influencing externally, as a generic idea.) Or no more spell levels total that CHA score?

Oooh! What if having a permanent spell was considered one of the receiving character's attunement slots? That might make them think a bit before doing this. It could still be powerful, with True Seeing, Stoneskin, or similar as the spell picked, but it does have a cost.

Oh, that I like!

Maybe limits need to be created for them but that could get to be a huge endeavor. If Stoneskin was made permanent, maybe it only protected from level of caster x 10 hit points before it goes dormant for the rest of the day? Then that has to be done for a lot of spells. Or put into the description as something the DM and player figure out.

If they are fixed, a la Wall of Fire, then not sure there needs to be a cost. The long casting time makes it not valid for adventuring. If they want to protect their stronghold or the party's or their liege, that seems to be what they are for.

Yeah, this was the main reason for permanency. I'm well aware that people will be buffing themselves with it--but with your idea of using an attunement slot, that keeps permanent spells to a reasonable maximum.

The question I had about that is can they do something else during this time? If they are giving themselves a permanent Detect Magic, can they still adventure? They will be down those slots every day.

Well, in the particular case of detect magic, there are a fair number of classes who basically can get that permanently already--warlocks can use it at will as early as 2nd level, for instance, via Eldritch Sight. So it's mostly a case of what sort of spells would be too OP if gotten permanently, especially when considering magic items that do the same thing.

Why is a cost needed? It seems tough on one of the lowest hit point classes to lose more to this, unless the idea is that they don't make more than two or three in their life? I think the problem is that gold doesn't mean much. Maybe if it's balance, all spells to be made permanent need some rare components that must be harvested by the caster? Worth at least 1000 gp x spell level to be made permanent?

That's another strong possibility. Thoughts, everyone?