Permanent Mage Armor


Advice

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Snowlilly wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Bracers of Armor were always pointless for anyone capable of casting Mage Armor it takes very little effort to maintain the spell 24/7 by the time you can afford/cast a Permanency.

At most I would not charge more than it takes to maintain with spell without expending other resources already available to the caster.

i.e. a spell slot and a spell usage.

Anything past that is semantics. It has no affect on gameplay.

Except that other characters have to spend a lot more feats and/or money to have a comparable AC bonus that also blocks incorporeal touch attacks even when the character is sleeping.

Semantics: you can change how say you achieved the result. The result itself is unchanged.

1. Purchase a Runestone + Page of Spell Knowledge = 24/7 Mage Armor.

2. Pay 3,000 for Permanency = 24/7 Mage Armor

Arguing against option #2 is pointless. Option #1 has always been legal. The only difference is thematic; how the character chooses to present himself. It has no affect on gameplay.

Then go with option #1 and stop asking for special treatment.

Rule #[arbitrary] of DMing: Don't house rule things that don't need to be house ruled, if an option already exists in the book to achieve what you need then use that option.

Marshmallow Fallacy rears its ugly thread churning head again.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I still think it would have made FAR more sense for them to say "spell level" rather than "caster level."

I've even seen official modules and publications say it's spell level, but those are likely wrong (though I hope not).

Depends on how it is used.

A targeted greater dispel magic works like dispel magic where it functions against the highest CL first, but then works its way down the list from highest spell level first. If the caster names the spell effect, then that is targeted first. I assume if you can name multiple spells, then you can pick and choose which spells to target, but still must check in order of spell level.

An area greater dispel magic would check against the highest caster level effect on each target in the area. It does not say how to handle tie breaking in that case.

Where is the rule that says you go by spell level if the caster level is equal? I'm not aware of any such rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thought I had removed that bit. Replace it with the last sentence of my post.


Snowlilly wrote:
As a kensai standing on the front line, the difference vs. incorporeal touch attacks has been life saving on several occasions.

Kensai have to jump through such hoops to get the spell themselves. It is good to have on, but it doesn't come as easily as it might. Thus making the haramaki approach rather appealing.


Mighty Squash wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
As a kensai standing on the front line, the difference vs. incorporeal touch attacks has been life saving on several occasions.
Kensai have to jump through such hoops to get the spell themselves. It is good to have on, but it doesn't come as easily as it might. Thus making the haramaki approach rather appealing.

You mean Spell Blending, one of the most useful magus arcana which includes two spells?

Hoops? Nonsense.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
The only difference is thematic; how the character chooses to present himself. It has no affect on gameplay.
Well, the runestone and page are vulnerable to theft, whereas the permanency can be dispelled and require another expenditure of funds.

You can always come up with corner cases (Dispel Magic, unable to recover spells, stolen equipment. Most should be extremely rare.)


master_marshmallow wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Bracers of Armor were always pointless for anyone capable of casting Mage Armor it takes very little effort to maintain the spell 24/7 by the time you can afford/cast a Permanency.

At most I would not charge more than it takes to maintain with spell without expending other resources already available to the caster.

i.e. a spell slot and a spell usage.

Anything past that is semantics. It has no affect on gameplay.

Except that other characters have to spend a lot more feats and/or money to have a comparable AC bonus that also blocks incorporeal touch attacks even when the character is sleeping.

Semantics: you can change how say you achieved the result. The result itself is unchanged.

1. Purchase a Runestone + Page of Spell Knowledge = 24/7 Mage Armor.

2. Pay 3,000 for Permanency = 24/7 Mage Armor

Arguing against option #2 is pointless. Option #1 has always been legal. The only difference is thematic; how the character chooses to present himself. It has no affect on gameplay.

Then go with option #1 and stop asking for special treatment.

Rule #[arbitrary] of DMing: Don't house rule things that don't need to be house ruled, if an option already exists in the book to achieve what you need then use that option.

Marshmallow Fallacy rears its ugly thread churning head again.

It's not even a house rule.

Permanancy wrote:
The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent.

The spell itself allows DM arbitration rather than making an exhaustive list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is always a good idea to look at what a player wants to make permanent and what the repercussions might be.

But mage armor is fine, as AC for mages is not very useful. They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight, and bracers or certain robes grant it too (its not as if bracers of armor are a terrible item to wear; there aren't that many good items for that slot for a caster). I wouldn't worry much about it costing a level 1 slot either...with my oracle I can do with my eight 1st level slots as I please, since those spells become somewhat irrelevant with level.

As long as someone isn't planning on seriously abusing something, let them have some fun...it is a game after all ;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...

I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.


Snowlilly wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

Bracers of Armor were always pointless for anyone capable of casting Mage Armor it takes very little effort to maintain the spell 24/7 by the time you can afford/cast a Permanency.

At most I would not charge more than it takes to maintain with spell without expending other resources already available to the caster.

i.e. a spell slot and a spell usage.

Anything past that is semantics. It has no affect on gameplay.

Except that other characters have to spend a lot more feats and/or money to have a comparable AC bonus that also blocks incorporeal touch attacks even when the character is sleeping.

Semantics: you can change how say you achieved the result. The result itself is unchanged.

1. Purchase a Runestone + Page of Spell Knowledge = 24/7 Mage Armor.

2. Pay 3,000 for Permanency = 24/7 Mage Armor

Arguing against option #2 is pointless. Option #1 has always been legal. The only difference is thematic; how the character chooses to present himself. It has no affect on gameplay.

Then go with option #1 and stop asking for special treatment.

Rule #[arbitrary] of DMing: Don't house rule things that don't need to be house ruled, if an option already exists in the book to achieve what you need then use that option.

Marshmallow Fallacy rears its ugly thread churning head again.

It's not even a house rule.

Permanancy wrote:
The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent.

The spell itself allows DM arbitration rather than making an exhaustive list.

DM purview is by definition, house rule.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.

I find that this really depends on level - at level 1 for example, a wizard could be rocking a 20 AC easily, between Dex, shield, and mage armor, and rare is the martial that can match that at level 1.

But at higher levels a martial that actually cares about AC can absolutely outpace a wizard. Magic full plate and magic heavy shields are some of the most efficient gp->AC in the game. Nothing else gets you 14 AC for 26650gp. That's cheaper than the wizard is paying for +8 bracers, even at half cost for CWI.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
DM purview is by definition, house rule.

No it is. Just like the custom item rules, it explicitly lays out how to do it for GMs and leaves it open ended for them to do it themselves. They're going by the book rules, but just GM controlled. Book rules by definition is not house rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ryric wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.

I find that this really depends on level - at level 1 for example, a wizard could be rocking a 20 AC easily, between Dex, shield, and mage armor, and rare is the martial that can match that at level 1.

But at higher levels a martial that actually cares about AC can absolutely outpace a wizard. Magic full plate and magic heavy shields are some of the most efficient gp->AC in the game. Nothing else gets you 14 AC for 26650gp. That's cheaper than the wizard is paying for +8 bracers, even at half cost for CWI.

It definitely will vary by level. I still think it is disingenuous when people say "there's no point in a spellcaster having AC, because they can't keep up." That is demonstrably untrue at nearly all levels.


Texas Snyper wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
DM purview is by definition, house rule.
No it is. Just like the custom item rules, it explicitly lays out how to do it for GMs and leaves it open ended for them to do it themselves. They're going by the book rules, but just GM controlled. Book rules by definition is not house rule.

But it only works in that DM's game, and may not in others.

Of course the mechanics exist, very few mechanics don't anymore.

I'm not arguing that it cannot be done, but rather that it shouldn't as it invalidates the options already available at a lower price. Unless the price to achieve the same result (permanent slotless +4 armor bonus to AC which blocks incorporeal touch attacks) is exactly the same then it creates problems.

But at that point, why bother house ruling or invoking DM purview if the results can be replicated with existing rules? Marshmallow Fallacy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
The only difference is thematic; how the character chooses to present himself. It has no affect on gameplay.
Well, the runestone and page are vulnerable to theft, whereas the permanency can be dispelled and require another expenditure of funds.
You can always come up with corner cases (Dispel Magic, unable to recover spells, stolen equipment. Most should be extremely rare.)

I with take that as admission of the difference being more than thematic.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

Should cost bare minimum 32,000 gp.

If they're cool with that, then go for it.

+1

Saves on bracer slot and +4 is normally 16,000 gp = 32,000 gp.


Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.

Where does that argument go in a campaign where magic item creation is simply forbidden?


James Risner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Should cost bare minimum 32,000 gp.

If they're cool with that, then go for it.

+1

Saves on bracer slot and +4 is normally 16,000 gp = 32,000 gp.

Facepalm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Greater Dispel is just a standard tactic, not GM whim, and can easily take down your permanent spells when a BBEG does it. I agree that a targeted basic dispel just against a typical permanent spell is poor tactics and GM BS if it happens.
In the 20 years of play I've experienced, I've not ever been targeted by that spell.

Our party gets hit with Dispel/Greater Dispel so often a standard tactic is to cast a bunch of low level, long buffs at CL (endure elements, prot arrows, etc...), and all important buffs at CL-1


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.
Where does that argument go in a campaign where magic item creation is simply forbidden?

I simply don't play in games with such damned dirty disgusting house rules as that. ;)

A spellcaster can still make his AC competitive, it just takes longer to pull off, and would likely require the grace of the GM (at which point, if he can't keep up, it's not the system, it's the GM and game table).


Ravingdork wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.
Where does that argument go in a campaign where magic item creation is simply forbidden?

I simply don't play in games with such damned dirty disgusting house rules as that. ;)

A spellcaster can still make his AC competitive, it just takes longer to pull off, and would likely require the grace of the GM (at which point, if he can't keep up, it's not the system, it's the GM and game table).

Idk man, polymorphing into small/tiny things with natural armor already, coupled with shield and mage armor, haste, displacement, blur, mirror image, and/or invisibility all make spellcasters pretty hard to hit. Also fickle winds and bullet shield, because ranged is a thing.

A lot of this needs to happen very early in the fight. Luckily at the level that these are all online, he'll have a few quickens. Insightful parties know what to use as prebuffs and what not to.

I suppose a fair point to the OP would be to consider what benefits mage armor grants other than AC, and determine whether or not those abilities have value in YOUR game. If incorporeal enemies aren't going to show up, then mage armor permanently helping with that really isn't worth anything.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Vatras wrote:
They never get it high enough to matter in a serious fight...
I've heard this several times before across the boards, and I just gotta' call BS on this. I've played plenty of spellcasters that had higher ACs than their fellow martials. It's as easy, or easier for them to get their AC up, in no small part due to their ability to create their own items, unlike many martials.
Where does that argument go in a campaign where magic item creation is simply forbidden?

I simply don't play in games with such damned dirty disgusting house rules as that. ;)

A spellcaster can still make his AC competitive, it just takes longer to pull off, and would likely require the grace of the GM (at which point, if he can't keep up, it's not the system, it's the GM and game table).

Idk man, polymorphing into small/tiny things with natural armor already, coupled with shield and mage armor, haste, displacement, blur, mirror image, and/or invisibility all make spellcasters pretty hard to hit. Also fickle winds and bullet shield, because ranged is a thing.

A lot of this needs to happen very early in the fight. Luckily at the level that these are all online, he'll have a few quickens. Insightful parties know what to use as prebuffs and what not to.

I suppose a fair point to the OP would be to consider what benefits mage armor grants other than AC, and determine whether or not those abilities have value in YOUR game. If incorporeal enemies aren't going to show up, then mage armor permanently helping with that really isn't worth anything.

Saying they don't need AC because of the availability of alternative options is totally different than saying they can't get AC high enough to be competitive. I was arguing against the latter statement, not the former.


James Risner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Should cost bare minimum 32,000 gp.

If they're cool with that, then go for it.

+1

Saves on bracer slot and +4 is normally 16,000 gp = 32,000 gp.

Permanent mage armour is in no way worth 16000 gp let alone 32000 gp, just because bracers of armour are expensive doesn't mean this should be. A far more reasonable comparison is saving a spell known and spell slot, so a runestone of power and page of spell knowledge, at 3000gp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
412294 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

Should cost bare minimum 32,000 gp.

If they're cool with that, then go for it.

+1

Saves on bracer slot and +4 is normally 16,000 gp = 32,000 gp.

Permanent mage armour is in no way worth 16000 gp let alone 32000 gp, just because bracers of armour are expensive doesn't mean this should be. A far more reasonable comparison is saving a spell known and spell slot, so a runestone of power and page of spell knowledge, at 3000gp.

Not even that. The formula for permanency is pretty well established:

Permanent darkvision is 5000, not 24000 (Googles of night 12k x 2)

Permanent greater magic fang +5 is 7500, not 200k (Amulet of mighty fists +5 x 2)

If you look at the Paizo chart for permanency

they have 39 spells listed, and all of them are priced:

Spell Level (min. 1) x 2500gp

So a permanent mage armor should cost 2500gp. Now that said, a GM can of course deviate from any formula at their whim, rule 0 always applies. But people who are pricing permanent spells using magic item formulas are doing it wrong. They are not magic items.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mage armor isn't on the chart of permanent spells.
All of the spells on the list are non mechanical spells you'd never bother using even in 20th level PVP combats.
If Mage armor were on the list at 2500 then every non heavy armor class would save the cash and do permanent Mage armor.
So if you are not charging 16,000 gp or more, it's wrong.


Yeah, because a permanent mage Armor would be so much better on my Summoner than the Leather Lamellar for 60gp that she started with...
The only classes that can't neither cast mage armor nor wear light armor is the monk (not exactly the most powerful class in the game). Every class wearing light or heavier armor could buy a light armor with +5AC for less than 2500gp. Sure, if you are fighting incorporeals every day it might be worth it, but that's not exactly the norm.

You are completely ignoring what we are actually talking about. We are talking about a fairly high level Sorcerer. The only reason the player wants a permanent Mage Armor is because he loves the Permanency spell. No one is trying to cheat the system or anything like that. Are you really trying to say that "sorry <player>, what you want is mechanically bad, but you still need to pay a ton of money just to have a little fun with your new spell" is the right thing to say (you do realize the GM is sasking and not the player, right?)?

The choise isn't between Bracers and permanent MA, but between permanency and a f*$*ing Runestone of Power for 2k. Permanent MA for 2500gp is 500gp more than that and carries the risk of getting hit by Dispel Magic. That's already enough downsides.

Mage Armor (self only) 2500gp
There. Problem fixed.


master_marshmallow wrote:


DM purview is by definition, house rule.

In this case, GM discretion to add spells is explicitly called out in RAW.

Rules text have already been cited.


James Risner wrote:

Mage armor isn't on the chart of permanent spells.

All of the spells on the list are non mechanical spells you'd never bother using even in 20th level PVP combats.

A purely subjective argument that means nothing. Furthermore, an argument that is contradicted by the examples I already provided.

Permanent darkvision is a perfect example. It's useful enough that many PC often buy Googles of Night for 12k. This is despite the fact that they can get a permanent spell for only 5k (not 24k as per your 'calculation').

Or the other example, greater magic fang. I suppose a +5 to your natural attack is useless?

Really, I'm not what the point of your argument is here, since it's fundamentally wrong.

Quote:

If Mage armor were on the list at 2500 then every non heavy armor class would save the cash and do permanent Mage armor.

So if you are not charging 16,000 gp or more, it's wrong.

Wrong. Dispel magic is a thing. Permanent spells can't be upgraded, sold, traded, or loaned to another PC.

I'll say it again since it didn't sink in the first time. Permanent spells ARE NOT MAGIC ITEMS. They don't use the magic item cost chart, they don't use the magic item cost guidelines, such as they are. To suggest that they are at all comparable to magic items in utility and/or cost is ridiculous, and not supported by the rules anywhere.

Again, that's why a permanent greater magic fang costs 7500gp instead of 200k, despite your claims that it is a 'non-mechanical' spell, whatever you even mean by that.


Greater magic fang is hugely inferior to a +5 AOMF because it can't overcome any form of (non-magic) DR, so that's not a great comparison. It's modestly inferior because it can't provide any non enhancement enchantment bonuses.


AOMF also applies to ALL unarmed/natural attacks, which is good news for those natural attacking Barbarians. AOMF seems expensive until you realize it can be affecting 5-6 attacks. Then it seems like chump-change compared to how much it would be to actually enchant them individually.

Now, granted, casting a permanent Greater Magic Fang on each one would still be cheaper than the AOMF, but the thing about DR has already been pointed out, which is of great concern to a build that relies on several smaller attacks.

Skipping the argument about a permanent spell being dispelled, since that seems to have a lot of table variance due to it being a DMs whim as to if a party deserves that to happen to them or not (maybe it does if they try to spam permanency, maybe it doesn't; variation), I agree that not being able to share, sell, or recover the effect makes it viable to have a reduced cost-to-benefit ratio than magic items.

Granted, at our table, we try to not treat a dead characters items as party loot, since the new character replacement will be coming in with their own gear, and this would quickly lead to character deaths being an opportunity for wealth creep. But again, variation. And the character still can't recover the spent money in any way if they later come by an even better option; this would be the equivalent of the money lost when a character sells an item back at only 50% what they bought it at. So if nothing else, that at least qualifies the character to a 50% discount as compared to a magic item.


We're talking about making a level 1 spell with modest benefits permanent (barring dispel) at a reasonable price. I'm rather surprised that it's generated this much debate. It's not unbalanced for the player, I can't see it spoiling the fun of the other gamers at the table, and by rules as written ("The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent" is a written rule.), it appears to be permissible. I can't really see another GM looking at the character sheet and saying, "Y'know, Tom, this permanent +4 bonus to AC on your 9th level sorcerer is really game-breaking. I know that your last GM allowed it, but I'm afraid you can't use it at my table."

Not Game-breaking: Passes test.
Rules-permissible: Passes test.
Balanced benefits to risks: Passes test.
Does not interfere with the fun of other players: Passes test.
Reasonable cost (at 2,500 gp): Passes test.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Greater magic fang is hugely inferior to a +5 AOMF because it can't overcome any form of (non-magic) DR, so that's not a great comparison. It's modestly inferior because it can't provide any non enhancement enchantment bonuses.

Hugely inferior? A factor of 20 inferior? Would you allow a slotted item of constant Greater Magic Fang +5 to be priced at 3250, because that's essentially what James is arguing with his claim that permanent spells == slotless magic items.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bodhizen wrote:
I can't really see another GM looking at the character sheet and saying, "Y'know, Tom, this permanent +4 bonus to AC on your 9th level sorcerer is really game-breaking. I know that your last GM allowed it, but I'm afraid you can't use it at my table."

That's where I landed as well. And this character won't even be seen at anyone else's table. The sorcerer is a PC in my RotRL game. When it's over, he'll spin up something new for the next AP I run.

And the people who argued against even the slight price increase I settled on are right—there is no way he's getting to the end of this without this getting dispelled once or twice. There's a certain cranky 10,000 year old wizard in his future.


Imbicatus wrote:
Mighty Squash wrote:

I don't understand people who treat permanent Mage Armour as equivalent to slotless +4 bracers.

The big difference is dispel magic. Magic items survive being dispelled, permanent spells may not.

If you are unlucky your permanent mage armour might get wiped on the first encounter and leave you with nothing.

Two reasons: one, the magic item economy is designed on permancy only being available on the spells covered. Two: yes it can be dispelled, but I view dispelling a permenant effect in the same category as sundering a fighter's weapon, a wizard's spell book, or forcing a paladin to kick a puppy. It's a loss of character power at GM whim, and players hate that. I'd rather disallow something up front than allow it and then take it away and make the player deal with the lost resource.

So all someone has to do is permanency a spell on themselves and opponents are then forever enjoined from using dispel magic on them?


Gisher wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
My sorcerer rocks +3 silken armor and doesn't bother with mage armor. Not really practical, but totally in character.

I prefer haramaki myself. ;)

I would rather have actual armor than either Mage Armor or the Bracers because I really like a lot of the flat-priced special abilities like Hosteling and Slick.

It's simple, you get a +1 haramaki of [insert list of features here] and then mage armor. The AC bonuses don't stack, but it makes all of the plus-equivalent bonuses cheaper. You still have some protection after a dispel, and you get the bonus vs incorporeal.


RDM42 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Mighty Squash wrote:

I don't understand people who treat permanent Mage Armour as equivalent to slotless +4 bracers.

The big difference is dispel magic. Magic items survive being dispelled, permanent spells may not.

If you are unlucky your permanent mage armour might get wiped on the first encounter and leave you with nothing.

Two reasons: one, the magic item economy is designed on permancy only being available on the spells covered. Two: yes it can be dispelled, but I view dispelling a permenant effect in the same category as sundering a fighter's weapon, a wizard's spell book, or forcing a paladin to kick a puppy. It's a loss of character power at GM whim, and players hate that. I'd rather disallow something up front than allow it and then take it away and make the player deal with the lost resource.
So all someone has to do is permanency a spell on themselves and opponents are then forever enjoined from using dispel magic on them?

To me, it's all about what the character's motivation. An invisible character dispelling the permanent See Invisibility? Sure. An incorporeal character dispelling the permanent Mage Armor? Sure. The evil cultist cleric who casts dispel magic instead and targets the permanent spell that has no effect on combat instead of Mirror Image? Messed up.


Well, obviously the GM shouldn't be metagaming anymore than the good guys. That said, the bad guys throw a greater dispel to get rid of some buffs and the mage armor happens to get hit? Them's the breaks.

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Permanent Mage Armor All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.