Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9802540" data-attributes="member: 23751"><p>That's a pretty common mistake you are making there. That automatic loss of con pertains to the spells made permanent in the spell description, not all castings of permanency. The spell does not talk about magic item creation.</p><p></p><p>"The magic-user casts the desired spell and then follows with the permanency spell. Each permanency spell lowers the magic-user's constitution by 1 point. The magic-user cannot cast these spells upon other creatures. In addition to personal use, the permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area effect spells lasting:"</p><p></p><p>Making magic items does not involve making spells cast on yourself or others permanent. Under Enchant an Item it says that there is<strong> a risk of con loss</strong> if Permanency is used. Con loss isn't guaranteed the way it is with spells cast under the Permanency spell itself. And of course, you can always use Wish to get the con points back if you're high enough to be enchanting items.</p><p></p><p>From Enchant an Item</p><p></p><p>"No magic placed on or into an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch, <strong>and this always runs a risk of draining a point of constitution</strong> from the magic-user casting the spell."</p><p></p><p>Interestingly, I can't recall ever seeing the odds of losing or not losing that con point printed anywhere.</p><p></p><p>As I said, I really don't know what the rules were. However, the existence of Glantri means that NPCs can and do make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells.</p><p></p><p>They are relevant, because it shows that D&D continues to feature magic item creation in numbers sufficient to generate a setting such as Eberron.</p><p></p><p>3e only assumes the same rules to an extent. Magic Item creation in 3e cost XP. NPCs have it in infinite supply since the DM isn't running millions of NPCs through adventures to gain that XP. PCs will make fewer items as a result, and magic items will have been being made for thousands of years, generating a TON of magic items out there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9802540, member: 23751"] That's a pretty common mistake you are making there. That automatic loss of con pertains to the spells made permanent in the spell description, not all castings of permanency. The spell does not talk about magic item creation. "The magic-user casts the desired spell and then follows with the permanency spell. Each permanency spell lowers the magic-user's constitution by 1 point. The magic-user cannot cast these spells upon other creatures. In addition to personal use, the permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area effect spells lasting:" Making magic items does not involve making spells cast on yourself or others permanent. Under Enchant an Item it says that there is[B] a risk of con loss[/B] if Permanency is used. Con loss isn't guaranteed the way it is with spells cast under the Permanency spell itself. And of course, you can always use Wish to get the con points back if you're high enough to be enchanting items. From Enchant an Item "No magic placed on or into an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch, [B]and this always runs a risk of draining a point of constitution[/B] from the magic-user casting the spell." Interestingly, I can't recall ever seeing the odds of losing or not losing that con point printed anywhere. As I said, I really don't know what the rules were. However, the existence of Glantri means that NPCs can and do make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells. They are relevant, because it shows that D&D continues to feature magic item creation in numbers sufficient to generate a setting such as Eberron. 3e only assumes the same rules to an extent. Magic Item creation in 3e cost XP. NPCs have it in infinite supply since the DM isn't running millions of NPCs through adventures to gain that XP. PCs will make fewer items as a result, and magic items will have been being made for thousands of years, generating a TON of magic items out there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting
Top