With all this talk about Permanency, or lack thereof does anyone...

[Thanee]

Well, we changed it, so that it can be dispelled by a targeted dispel (on the permanency), but otherwise will only be suppressed.

Even then people are reluctant to use it, because of the high XP cost.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Drakh]

why not have a dispell only affect the "visible" aspect of a spell - for instance if Arcane sight made permanent on someone was the target of a dispell, the visible part would be the arcane sight spell, permanency has no visible aspect so would remain on the target

Now since the arcane sight is gone (rather than surpressed) but the permanency isnt, the affect of permanency could techically hold another recasting of Arcane sight.

So a player could regain his Arcane Sight permanent in the following ways...

Find/Ask the same spellcaster who did the original casting to recast arcane sight on you, or
Cast Arcane sight yourself

To add some form of balance (or cost) you could say that a permanency without a targeted spell has a 5% cumulative chance per day that it will not hold the original spell it was intended for, or simply give it a 20% chance flat that it becomes dispelled also.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This thread's feeling fairly House-Rulesy, so I'll just flick it across...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[ARandomGod]

As I mentioned in the other thread on permanency, one of our GMs had an interesting interpretation. (The first used Scion's suggestion of making it like an item, able to be suppressed for 1d4 rounds.)

She ruled that, sure, you can use dispel magic to take away a permanent spell. And at that point, the xp spent to power that permanent spell reverts immediately and instantly to its caster. She was going with the rationale that the xp spent to maintain a spell perpetually upon you is like a little packet of personal power earmarked for that task, and if the spell isn't being maintained any longer, that power you'd set aside for the spell goes right back to you.

In play, this meant that it made sense to dispel magic on people with permanent magical effects, because it got rid of the spell, period. But at the same time, people were actually willing to have permanent magical effects on them, because if they were dispelled, they just needed a day of downtime to put the spells back on and they weren't kicking themselves for wasting thousands of xp.

--
and lo, everyone was happy
ryan

I was actually about to suggest just such a rule. It makes infinite sense (to me).

Unfortunately Saeviomagy says: "Not really suitable for general consumption though, because it's extremely abuseable."
Which is only unfortunate because it makes me wonder about my infinite sense statement. I mean, that's a lot of sense. Yet he doesn't seem to see any of it...
Do tell, Seav (or anyone with a similiar opinion), what do you think makes this abuseable? Perhaps my question is what can be done with this that you would define as abuse?

For instance, andargor says his group has felt that the higher XP cost was worth it for an arcane sight spell.. I wonder if it wouldn't have been more worth it for lenses of arcane sight? Less XP and you can still add other enchantments, or have it be the enchantment added.

I also like the rule that the permanency part is permanent, can't be dispelled, but then the arcane sight (or the target of the permanency) CAN be dispelled, then you can have it recast, still permanent later. Similiar to the virtual XP rule, but with less potential to say: "I want that XP back, hit me with a dispell."