|
Because every wizard would be a walking pile of spell effects if it was allowed. Tongues, Arcane Sight, Darkvision, See Invisibility. Arcane Sight being the big one. With Arcane Sight, you get a free shot at identifying all spell effects in your line of sight as a reactive check(free action). For a standard action you learn if someone is a spell caster and how powerful of a spell they can cast. Imagine how many people would be running around with Large size Fighters and Barbarians because their friend cast a permanent Enlarge Person on them. I'm glad they took the temptation away because if they didn't my Wizard would be saving up some ridiculous shenanigans.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just to make sure we're on the same page here, getting arcane sight locked in with permanency would cost 7500 gp for the materials, plus 550 gp for the services of an 11th-level caster and a 5th-level spell. If you impose the fame limit for spellcasting (reasonable in this case, since a permanent spell is like a magic item) you're talking about the same limits that apply to a +2 weapon: 27 fame.
I'm not seeing any spell that can help wizards at the 1-3 level, CWheezy. The cheapest really powerful spell, let's say enlarge person, carries significant penalties. And it costs 2500 + 450 = 2950 gold, which requires 13 fame. It would be better cast on the front line fighters, so it makes the warriors better in combat.
And it would probably reduce the number of aasimar and tieflings running around the Society these days.
The ban has been in place ever since Season 0, which makes me think that it was causing problems in earlier Organized Play environments.
I don't see a problem with allowing characters to have a single permanencied spell on them, the same restriction as on spells like masterwork transformation and continual flame, and subject to Fame restrictions.
|
This has come up several times before. I'm thinking of keeping a file on my desktop so I can cut and paste from that instead of previous threads:)
The simplest reason why permanency is banned is that it makes it harder to create a scenario which plays identically for every group. The issue is the same one that shows up all the time in organized play: You can adjust things to deal with player power in a home game with the same 4-6 players all the time but not in a campaign with thousands of widely separated people.
How do you design a scenario if things can be permanent? You basically have to assume that every wizard or sorcerer of 10th level has permanent see invisibility. And that a lot of 9th level melee types will be permanently enlarged. (Enlarge person is uniquely difficult in that only the caster can dismiss it. If you find yourself needing to get through a small space and the spell was cast on you in a previous scenario, you may have to wait outside and not get to participate.) To counter these assumptions you have to ramp up the difficulty somewhat. But the encounter becomes very hard for those that don't have them.
And a very big thing is that you've taken away dispel magic as a possible spell for any NPC to have memorized. Because the first time a permanent see invisibility is dispelled every player that happens to is going to cry foul about being "cheated" out of 5000 gp.
edit: Yes, I know the original poster suggested that only sorcerers and wizards should be able to have a permanent spell. Just pointing out some of the issues with permanency in general. And yes, I did look and see that the original poster's highest level character is a level 9 wizard. I don't think it matters, we all see things from our own perspective.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Belafon, those are some good points.
(I am unsympathetic to the enlarged fighter who has to wait outside. You make your choices and you take your chances. As I said, it carries penalties.)
Do you think that, if allowed only one permanent spell, all arcanists would choose see invisible?
|
One problem I always thought about allowing permanency regarded the logistics and day-to-day life of a permanently reduced or enlarged person. You couldn't buy new gear, and you couldn't ever set down the gear you have. You'd have to sleep in the same clothes from day to day. Forget ever having your gear enchanted. And imagine sitting down for a family meal with one person that either needs a booster seat or their own table. Keeping track of what items were what size would be a nightmare.
I'm totally fine keeping the ban on permanency. It means parties still have to deal with action economy and strategy. Darn.
|
Belafon, those are some good points.
(I am unsympathetic to the enlarged fighter who has to wait outside. You make your choices and you take your chances. As I said, it carries penalties.)
Do you think that, if allowed only one permanent spell, all arcanists would choose see invisible?
No, I would already have glitterdust memorized.
Given access to 1 permanent spell, I would most likely choose either darkvision or reduce person
|
|
And a very big thing is that you've taken away dispel magic as a possible spell for any NPC to have memorized. Because the first time a permanent see invisibility is dispelled every player that happens to is going to cry foul about being "cheated" out of 5000 gp.
That is a really good point. Rule decisions that seem "so easy" often have impact far beyond the mechanics of the game itself.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Just as a note: there are work-around ways to get similar continual effects without permanency. They're more costly, but they do the same thing.
Juggernaut's Pauldrons - 40,000 gp - enlarge yourself at will.
Goggles of Night - 12,000 gp - gives the wearer darkvision 60 ft.
Helm of Comprehend Languages and Read Magic - 5,200 gp - gives the wearer tongues -- effectively.
Truesight Goggles - 184,800 gp - gives you arcane sight continuously.
Heavyload Belt - 2,000 gp - gives you ant haul permanently.
There's a few others, but you get the idea.
|
|
Belafon, those are some good points.
(I am unsympathetic to the enlarged fighter who has to wait outside. You make your choices and you take your chances. As I said, it carries penalties.)
Do you think that, if allowed only one permanent spell, all arcanists would choose see invisible?
No, I would already have glitterdust memorized.
Given access to 1 permanent spell, I would most likely choose either darkvision or reduce person
The reason I picked see invisibility is because it ties into my main point about scenario design. I can think of at least two scenarios that have something which is invisible when you unexpectedly meet it (usually due to being alerted ahead of time). That "surprise" factor is worth +1 or +2 or more to the CR (depending on tactics and terrain). So if 10% of tier 10-11 groups (making up a reasonable number) have at least one person who can permanently see invisible things, 10% of groups just turned that fight into a cakewalk. There went the "consistent experience" that PFS strives for.
I'm sure someone will nitpick holes in my example, but the point is that permanency unbalances things. NOT unbalances the game, but unbalances from group to group. If you start assuming that groups will (for example) have a permanent see invisibility, you have to design scenarios in such a way that character won't trivialize them and it really hurts groups that don't have that ability.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Belafon, you might have a good point, but see invisibility probably isn't the best example. It's reasonable to expect a 10th-level wizard has a rod of extend spell, lesser. With that item, see invisibility lasts 200 minutes. We should expect that a 10th-level wizard who wants to walk into every room with see invisible already up, can do so.
If that breaks a high-tier scenario, it's not the fault of permanency.
And I'm afraid I'm at a loss. Could you walk me through how opening up a single permanency to everyone advantages some parties over others? If a fighter chose not to spend the gold on a permanent enlarge person, then he presumably spent that gold on something that he believed to be of greater advantage to him.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If permanency is banned as a cut-and-paste from other organized play, it's worth revisiting for PFS because the fundamental problem for permanency in organized play environments is gone in PF.
In 3.5, Permanency required XP expenditure. Any method of bleeding XP in organized play is problematic as the result is obscenely wealthy PCs for their level. PF doesn't require XP for permanency. Problem gone.
What remains is the possibility of power bloat.
Are there any atypical issues associated with adjudication during game or during the acquisition transaction?
|
|
They would have to add a lot of spells to the list of spells that you are allowed to carry over to different scenarios. All spells end at the end of a scenario unless they are one of the four spells that get to make an exception. They would have to add at least 5-10 spells to that list. Unless you are saying make permanent spells end at the end of the scenario as normal. It would be like spending a consumable if you did it that way.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just as a note: there are work-around ways to get similar continual effects without permanency. They're more costly, but they do the same thing.
With the note that they can be shared, sold for half price, etc.
Truesight Goggles - 184,800 gp - gives you arcane sight continuously.
I'm not sure how you mean that, Walter. The goggles grant true seeing, a 5th/6th level spell with an expensive material component, continuously and analyze dwoemer, another 6th-level spell that reveals all sorts of things, once a day.
That doesn't seem to allow arcane sight, a 3rd-level spell, continuously. It does seem to do far, far more.
|
|
Also remember you LOSE THE SPELL AND ALL THE MONEY if you get targeted by dispel magic there is a pretty great risk to permanency.
We may be reading this now and thinking "that's true, it's a risk" but do you really think all players are going to be accepting of that? You're going to see shouting from people who think it's unfair. And quite a few GMs are going to be really reluctant to use it, if only because of the hurt feelings it might cause.
I think "you only get 1" would be an excellent treatment of the spell.
OK, what spells are allowed? Just like the rulebook states or can anyone get arcane sight? You do realize you just gave a monk going into Eyes of the Ten a +3 Amulet of Mighty Fists for 7,500 right? (See recent FAQ.) I'm going to put a permanent symbol of slowing on my shield and give my allies the password.
My main point is that permanency really changes the game.
|
They would have to add a lot of spells to the list of spells that you are allowed to carry over to different scenarios. All spells end at the end of a scenario unless they are one of the four spells that get to make an exception. They would have to add at least 5-10 spells to that list. Unless you are saying make permanent spells end at the end of the scenario as normal. It would be like spending a consumable if you did it that way.
Hence the reason to treat as a magic item. Magic items do not function for a single scenario (that would be some serious martial hate if their armor and weapons became mundane at the end of the scenario).
That said, I'm not sure if I would support such a move. It would be nice to have a permanent comprehend languages, but I don't know if it would really add any benefit to the game itself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@howie23
I think you missed the point.
With a single group the gm can adjust to whatever the party does or has available.
In organized play the gm does not have that option.
-----
Permenency could be implemented in the same fashion as status effects or items. Basically you spend the money and write it down on the sheet as an ongoing status effect.
However this would require altering the spell list that can be made permenant. Things like darkvision or tongues should be fine for organized play. Things like see invisibility can be cut from the list.
Doing that can give a reasonable result. True much of the usefulness is gone but it is still useful in some places, such as being the only player without darkvision, makes permenant darkvision spell quite useful, and it is already expected that someone in the party is going to have darkvision anyway.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, PCs do not need yet another option to be better than their CR indicates, and GMs do not need another set of wild cards to interpret during a game by letting players circumvent many of the tactics or encounters (like the see invisibility examples Belafon mentioned.
Also - PFS is NOT a campaign, it is an ORGANIZED campaign. There is no play that happens between scenarios - no downtime, no regular life (other than day jobs, which are just ways to get around the WBL limits anyway). There is no way for the down-sides of these choices to become apparent (like permanent invisibility, enlarge person, or so on.)
I don't know why it was banned in the first place, but personally I think it's better left that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for rewriting what spells work with it or putting in arbitrary limitations - why does that make sense? PFS tries not to change rules; it's either in or it's out as much as possible. If GMs have to check the CRB for permanency, and then the latest Guide to see which spells from the rules actually aren't allowed, it turns into a mess. There are already ways for players to gain these sort of effects, in item choices. If you want to be a fighter that can cast enlarge person all the time, then buy potions or an item.
|
|
As for rewriting what spells work with it or putting in arbitrary limitations - why does that make sense? PFS tries not to change rules; it's either in or it's out as much as possible. If GMs have to check the CRB for permanency, and then the latest Guide to see which spells from the rules actually aren't allowed, it turns into a mess. There are already ways for players to gain these sort of effects, in item choices. If you want to be a fighter that can cast enlarge person all the time, then buy potions or an item.
First, my suggestion doesn't require a bunch of searching. Permenancy would work just like items or status effects which means the GM already knows what to do there, and having a limited list would be nice and short and the GM can go straight there without checking the CRB first. Besides there are many that are already allowed or disallowed to check on, and frankly it would be simple enough to just make a call andwait till the end to check, or do so at the beginning, so as to not be interrupting play with searches.
Simple.
|
|
I'm 100% in the boat with Belafon and Scott. Permanency just opens another can of worms, and like Walter mentions above a lot of options are available as magical items.
You want them slotless you say? Well tough cookies. Part of the fun of the game is prioritizing what you want for your character and what items you would like to end up with in each slot. There are even options for the same spell in some cases. Hand of glory can get you see invisibility for a neck slot. Or if you want slotless you can get the pillbox from UE. One of the pills grants see invisibility.
|
|
@howie23
I think you missed the point.With a single group the gm can adjust to whatever the party does or has available.
In organized play the gm does not have that option.
Maybe I have missed the point, because what I'm questioning is whether there is some fundamental difference between the inherent variability between PCs that show up for a given adventure and how it would be different with the addition of permanency.
Maybe I've lost some perspective in the midst of the "too hard"/"too easy" wars. :)
|
|
Mostly it's the fact that a level 5 PC character can range from cr 2 to cr 8 depending on the build, and how well the player uses that build (I often make the weakest characters mechanically speaking and yet am one of the characters as far as fighting or defeating puzzles go)
A GM has room to adjucate with his own group which remains consistant. He can give a +2 sword to the player who is falling behind to keep him with the group. In organized play you can't do that.
Options have to be carefully weighted to prevent people from falling behind or rushing forward of the power curve set by the authors of the AP, while at the same time keeping gains and loses about even.
It's never fun to arrive at a table with all new who somehow have three times your gear because their last GM thought they needed the help.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
On the other hand, I am all in favor of giving players myriad opportunities to spend their characters' resources. Every 8,050 gold a character spends on a permanent arcane sight spell is 8,000 gold she isn't spending on something else.
Belefon and Scott have expressed concern that opening up a single permanent spell will make for tougher characters, but I have the sense that they're comparing Character A, as is, to Character A, as is but now also with a new ability. Well, sure, but you need to compare Valeros with enlarge person to Valeros with a magic weapon.
Belefon is wise to look at a monk going into Eyes of the Ten with a +3 greater magic fang (cast by a 12th-level wizard for 7860 gold). That's way less than the amulet of mighty fists +3. But, help me out: that's not unique to the organized play environment. That difference, between permanent magic fang and amulet of mighty fists is a deliberate design choice by the development team, yes?
He (Belefon, "he", yes?) also acutely observes that a permanent symbol of slowness on a shield is a mighty thing. It is; I absolutely don't want to suggest that it's not all that great, but it costs a total of 11,720 gold -- just under the limit for 27 fame -- and there's a lot of other great things a character can buy for that. (Like, say, 28 scrolls of slow.)
Maybe that's why we don't see symbol of slowness being cast all that often in Pathfinder Society, permanency or not.
So far, and with all due respect, I remain unconvinced that a single permanency per character would be broken in Pathfiner Society.
|
|
Mostly it's the fact that a level 5 PC character can range from cr 2 to cr 8 depending on the build, and how well the player uses that build (I often make the weakest characters mechanically speaking and yet am one of the characters as far as fighting or defeating puzzles go)
A GM has room to adjucate with his own group which remains consistant. He can give a +2 sword to the player who is falling behind to keep him with the group. In organized play you can't do that.
Options have to be carefully weighted to prevent people from falling behind or rushing forward of the power curve set by the authors of the AP, while at the same time keeping gains and loses about even.
It's never fun to arrive at a table with all new who somehow have three times your gear because their last GM thought they needed the help.
My point is that there already is a substantial power variance. The entire point of the the "Is PFS too hard/easy" threads is due to the fact that the variance is so wide. We may already be in the "too wide of a spread to build cookie cutter modules" zone.
We talk about carefully weighing the power curve, and yet the range is quite broad as it stands merely between build options and wealth management. There is a concept in military planning regarding operating inside the command and control cycle of the opponent. Being able to do so is a fundamental change, because it effectively means that the opponent's plan can't change in response to threats. When talking about this kind of fundamental change, smaller tactical finesses don't impact the big picture.
My question is whether this is merely a matter of degree or whether it is something that is fundamentally different. Does having the option of paying for some number of permanent divination spells or buffing spells have a fundamental impact? Or, does it just mean that, as now, a tricked out character plays at a higher effective level than an iconic character or something else that is somehow designating a standard?
Chris has provided some of the data with respect to possible controls for permanency via fame. Permanency could be implemented in various forms, from none (what we do now), to minor options (one effective permanency per character), to wide open options (get what you're willing to pay for).
Opinion has been presented that writers would have to write to the assumption of the tricked out character. What's the difference between writing for a CR2 5th level character, a CR8 5th level character, or a character that has the most egregious permanency effect?
|
|
My main concern is that adding permanency is going to take away options from scenario writers, not necessarily that it will make it too easy (I suppose I could have done a better job explaining that). Here's some things that might be in a scenario; see if you think permanency might make these unworkable or pointless.
- A clue at the end of the dungeon says "those who see the unseen shall see that the beginning is the end." Turns out there's an invisible obelisk outside the dungeon. The inscription on it has the information the Society desperately desires.
-The passageway in front of you is sized for small creatures. 40 feet ahead you can make out a right turn, and there are several shadowed alcoves along the way.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are plenty more - and better - examples.
-Yes, it's he.
-I think the reason we don't see more symbols is the 10 minute cast time and the material component cost (for a one-time use)
Edit: I'm still not saying it quite right. Permanency is more than just power.
|
|
Well, permanency on one of the boons on the Chronicle, not anything you want. Scared me there for a minute, Saluzi!
Bottom line for me: players already have lots of options to do things "outside" their class, using items, multi-classing, boons, etc. Adding more isn't required to improve game play; it only allows some players to even further optimize their character's abilities, while the GMs remain stuck in the "run-as-written" mode, unable to adapt to the group at the table. Anything that takes PCs farther above the "average party" the scenarios are written for, does nothing but make for shorter games and more "wins" where the scenario breaks down.
(I should state my underlying assumption here, that simply walking through scenarios with nary a scratch and adding bigger numbers to a character sheet is not the prime reason people play PFS. This may not be universal.)
|
|
ehh, if you get a permanent enlarge and do not take potions of reduce person or a way to prevent it then You deserve to sit outside.
I think belafons idea is silly. I bang off detect magic everywhere any of my casters go. So that invisible object would radiate an illuision aura. These spells already exist.
I have no problem with The society organizers limiting the spell to increase the cost of those abilities. A reach fighter should drool over a permancy. I dipped my in cleric so I could enlarge person. I know he is asking for only wiz and sorc to get this, but that complicates the issue. I think disallowing such a powerufll spell and requiring people to spend other resources for them is a fine idea.
|
|
We're just about to leave civil discourse, so this will be my last post on the topic.
Permanency can seriously alter the game. In addition to my symbol of slowing example, here's some other things I could put on my shield (or other item):
-permanent gust of wind Nothing small or smaller (including swarms) can even get to me.
-permanent web and a ring of freedom of movement (enough said).
-permanent stinking cloud for a class with immunity to poison (druid, alchemist, monk, etc.). I'll buy a goz mask.
In a home game any GM that allows this in the first place will adjust enemies and encounters to account for it. Most probably wouldn't even allow me to put that stuff on a shield.
Long story short, there's two problems. One is the scenario design issue I tried to bring forward earlier. The other is GM adjudication. What that boils down to is:
We'd need at least half a page just to say what can and can't be done with permanency.