Blood Money for nearly free Permancy spells?

In a Rise of the Runelords campaign, with a character with blood money, permanency, and various spells allowed on the permanency list.

I'm curious what others would do in their game:

• Allow a moderately optimized PC to use these to get free permanent spells for himself and the other PC's.
  
• Block the PC from this using some Rule 0 house rule.

Full disclosure, I'm not the GM. I'm the player with blood money.

I'd mostly allow it used to get several of the effects, but if the PC in question started to push the ceiling with it i'd have an after session chat about expectations. A 7500 gp permanency is 16 STR damage. Most wizards don't have that. If you took it to the next level and started talking about magic jarring into giants and burning their STR or some other behavior... (yes, i consider that exploitive) i'd say no.

While a savvy player could use permanency with blood money, the minimum str damage they will be taking is 5 points for the 2500gp costs, plus whatever the spells cost for their materials. The next level of cost for permanency is 5k gp which is 10 str damage...which in many wizard cases will mean unconscious. Hope for a cleric and plenty of time...

Not sure what I would do because I think I would get bored with a permanent spell.

But as a GM I would have a BBEG use blood money to permanency an area of mages disjunction...

I have a fairly short list of approved sourcebooks, and anyone who wants to use anything from outside of this list (Paizo or otherwise) needs to ask for GM approval first. I usually say yes to my players, but handling things this way allows me to swat down stuff like Blood Money without having to worry too hard.

Being part of a campaign, I'm more curious how you came across the spell. Campaign spells usually serve a particular role in the campaign elsewhere and aren't for general consumption. If you ran across it, identified it, did the research and acquired it "on your own," then have at it.

Yes blood money didn't have the best conversion from 3.5 to PF, i suggest either heavy house ruling it or banning it.

Wouldn't strength draining giants be a pretty effective way of making them less destructive? If it happens to supply permanent spells for a party of do-gooders in the process, that's just efficiency...

I'd mostly allow it used to get several of the effects, but if the PC in question started to push the ceiling with it i'd have an after session chat about expectations. A 7500 gp permanency is 16 STR damage. Most wizards don't have that. If you took it to the next level and started talking about magic jarring into giants and burning their STR or some other behavior... (yes, i consider that exploitive) i'd say no.

Pretty much this.

You want to either personally have your Wizard invest in strength, or use it for relatively small-scale savings? Go for it.

You want to have your Wizard throw his mind into a dragon's body in order to abuse its Strength score to make gold from nothing via Fabricate? No.

To be fair, a dispel magic can cause all sorts of havoc when it comes to "permanent" spells. Ran into a caster who tossed an AoE dispel to debuff the party? Go down the list of items and effects to see what sticks around, lost a "permanent" spell? Going to need to do it again.

And this isn't even really "targeting" you out, it is just sound tactics for any intelligent/experienced caster who might be outnumbered by the party. Or any creature, summoned by a caster, who might have the ability for that matter.

I'm fairly certain our group would be fine with you having it, just don't expect to stop the party every time something happens and you need to redo the spells. And expect to "share" when there is downtime ;)

Rathendar wrote:

I'd mostly allow it used to get several of the effects, but if the PC in question started to push the ceiling with it i'd have an after session chat about expectations. A 7500 gp permanency is 16 STR damage. Most wizards don't have that. If you took it to the next level and started talking about magic jarring into giants and burning their STR or some other behavior... (yes, i consider that exploitive) i'd say no.

Pretty much this.

You want to either personally have your Wizard invest in strength, or use it for relatively small-scale savings? Go for it.

You want to have your Wizard throw his mind into a dragon's body in order to abuse its Strength score to make gold from nothing via Fabricate? No.

STR isn't so difficult to come by, especially temporarily, remember that when using blood money the wizard needs the STR for a couple of minutes at best (enough time for several castings of lesser restoration).

Especially in Runelords there is a reason to restrict access to blood money, considering the only copy of the spell in existence is in

When I run Golarion it's just not a generally available spell.

This is where the DM needs to step in from day one and rule that the only spells available for PC acquisition are:
- CRB spells and
- spells found in loot, captured spellbooks and the like.

This allows the DM to selectively make avaiable a carefully chosen selection of spells, provided by NPC allies, magic shops and treasure drops. And of course to surreptitiously restrict access to undesired spells.

This said, if you've already allowed the spell to be acquired, a very simple limitation would be that the spell only functions off a single draw on the caster's base (unmodified) strength score. After all, it says right in the spell description that it only lasts a single round, only enough time for that one extra spell.

And, speaking of a single round, I see that permanency requires 2 rounds casting time. That right there would seems to disallow using blood money on it. Not to mention the extra round for the spell that permanency is cast on. RAW would hence appear to prohibit blood money + permanency exploits.

And Bob's your uncle.

It's not true. There is one other way to get Blood Money in the RoTRL

And to answer the question: most GMs disallow Permanency in general. And Magic Jar + Blood Money is a non-bo because of the wording; so luckily even in the worst case you need a 15 Str (you can go to 0 during the casting).

As a GM I would personally ask the player not to do it since it will destroy the wealth cap; and as a player if you have a hesitation on doing something like this it is probably good to "not do it"... the object is not to make the game a cakewalk or frustrate your GM.

And Magic Jar + Blood Money is a non-bo because of the wording; so luckily even in the worst case you need a 15 Str (you can go to 0 during the casting).

Could you elaborate on that?

Also... with 0 strength you are unconscious and the spell is not cast.

Again, permanency with blood money simply won't work, given the 2-round casting time of permanency, and the fact that the expensive material component created by blood money disappears at the end of the first round.

Again, permanency with blood money simply won't work, given the 2-round casting time of permanency, and the fact that the expensive material component created by blood money disappears at the end of the first round.

Careful, I've seen some heated arguments about whether material components disappear at the beginning or end of casting multi-round spells.

Not a faq or anything but:

James Jacobs wrote:

When you cast blood money, you do so with a swift action. You create the needed components, and must then IMMEDIATELY (in the same round) cast the spell you want to use those components with. You don't need to finish casting the spell in the same round, though; once you start casting the spell, the components (and the prepared spell itself) are committed and used.

post

Aha! And here I was convinced I'd actually stumbled on a rules loophole that gimped blood money in an important way that was actually written in RAW.

<sigh>

Still, it *sounds* like a valid argument. I don't recall ever reading anything about when material components are consumed in multi-round spells. I mean, there aren't many of them, are there.

Blood Money has to be cast before a spell to affect it.
Permanency has to be cast after a spell.

So you'd need some shenanigans to make Blood Money affect Permanency.

I banned blood money a long time ago.

It's not true. There is one other way to get Blood Money in the RoTRL

** spoiler omitted **

And to answer the question: most GMs disallow Permanency in general. And Magic Jar + Blood Money is a non-bo because of the wording; so luckily even in the worst case you need a 15 Str (you can go to 0 during the casting).

As a GM I would personally ask the player not to do it since it will destroy the wealth cap; and as a player if you have a hesitation on doing something like this it is probably good to "not do it"... the object is not to make the game a cakewalk or frustrate your GM.

Also in book 5 where the players find a ton of ancinet thassilonian spellbooks, and probably in Mokmurian's (book 4) spellbook

To be fair, a dispel magic can cause all sorts of havoc when it comes to "permanent" spells. Ran into a caster who tossed an AoE dispel to debuff the party? Go down the list of items and effects to see what sticks around, lost a "permanent" spell? Going to need to do it again.

And this isn't even really "targeting" you out, it is just sound tactics for any intelligent/experienced caster who might be outnumbered by the party. Or any creature, summoned by a caster, who might have the ability for that matter.

I'm fairly certain our group would be fine with you having it, just don't expect to stop the party every time something happens and you need to redo the spells. And expect to "share" when there is downtime ;)

This. Even without blood money, there is the possibility to abusing permanency. In many cases, you can use it to get effects that are cheaper than an equivalent magic item, and slotless.

Any enemy who studies the party would be stupid to not target the party with dispels. Dispel magic can be made into a trap, and so on. Any party that I felt was over using permanency would definitely find some enemies shooing for their achilies heel.

This. Even without blood money, there is the possibility to abusing permanency. In many cases, you can use it to get effects that are cheaper than an equivalent magic item, and slotless.

Any enemy who studies the party would be stupid to not target the party with dispels. Dispel magic can be made into a trap, and so on. Any party that I felt was over using permanency would definitely find some enemies shooing for their achilies heel.

Permanency can only make a small list of personal spells permanent. Spending your action in combat to try and get rid of something like permanent tongues or see invisibility is a terrible idea, especially as most caster enemies will already be facing serious action economy issues.

Why does it matter that you do not have to invest money into spell components to make your spells permanent?

-Nearyn

Charender wrote:

This. Even without blood money, there is the possibility to abusing permanency. In many cases, you can use it to get effects that are cheaper than an equivalent magic item, and slotless.

Any enemy who studies the party would be stupid to not target the party with dispels. Dispel magic can be made into a trap, and so on. Any party that I felt was over using permanency would definitely find some enemies shooing for their achilies heel.

Permanency can only make a small list of personal spells permanent. Spending your action in combat to try and get rid of something like permanent tongues or see invisibility is a terrible idea, especially as most caster enemies will already be facing serious action economy issues.

Sure, getting rid of tongues would be useless.

OTOH
See Invisibility
Magic Fang/Greater Magic Fang
Enlarge Person
Darkvision
Resistance

These are a different story, and that is just the spells from the CRB. I am pretty sure there have been spells from later books that have the "This spell can be made permenant via permanency" line in them.

Further, Greater Dispel magic can be used on an area to hit multiple targets or take multiple buffs of a single target. Maybe the enemy isn't going for the permanent tongues spell, but they are after the displacement spell on the party wizard, so their mooks can gang up on him. The tongues spell was just collateral damage. Maybe the bad guy was just trying to get rid of the see invisibility buff so they could go invisible and escape. Smart enemies will have reasons to use dispels on the party, and a trap that dispels the wizard's mage armor can be deadlier in the long run than one that hits him with a 5d6 lightning bolt.

Being part of a campaign, I'm more curious how you came across the spell. Campaign spells usually serve a particular role in the campaign elsewhere and aren't for general consumption. If you ran across it, identified it, did the research and acquired it "on your own," then have at it.

Many people seem to think because the spell is mentioned once in an obscure setting document, that means it's instantly available as a general spell.

@LazarX
I am not sure i would call the RotRL AP an abscure book but i agree that the thassilonian spells aren't readily available.

@Charender
Who has permanent Resistance?

@LazarX

I am not sure i would call the RotRL AP an abscure book but i agree that the thassilonian spells aren't readily available.

@Charender
Who has permanent Resistance?

Anyone who wants the same +1 to save they get from a +1 cloak of resistance, but want to be free to wear a different cloak.

Cloak of resistance +1 -> 1k
Amber Spindle Ioun Stone +1 -> 10k
Flawed Amber Spindle Ioun Stone +1 -> 6k
Permanent Resistance +1 -> 2.5k

When it costs 12k or more to get a slotless +2 to saves, dropping 2.5k on a +1 to free up your back slot isn't out of the question.

Not saying it is the best choice, because eventually you will want to go higher, but if you are using the blood magic trick to make it free, then why the hell wouldn't you get it?

Because by the time you can afford to spare a fifth-level spell slot you should have a better Cloak than +1?

Because by the time you can afford to spare a fifth-level spell slot you should have a better Cloak than +1?

Again, assuming you to not want to use your cloak slot for something else.

kestral287 wrote:

Because by the time you can afford to spare a fifth-level spell slot you should have a better Cloak than +1?

Again, assuming you to not want to use your cloak slot for something else.

Also assuming that you survived to level 9 (minimum) without any sort of saves-booster. Possible, but requires a fair bit of luck.

Safer option would be to buy the Cloak, upgrade it once or twice, sell it off later for an Otherworldly Kimono (we are a Wizard, right?), then pick up your other Cloak.

Charender wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

Because by the time you can afford to spare a fifth-level spell slot you should have a better Cloak than +1?

Again, assuming you to not want to use your cloak slot for something else.

Also assuming that you survived to level 9 (minimum) without any sort of saves-booster. Possible, but requires a fair bit of luck.

Safer option would be to buy the Cloak, upgrade it once or twice, sell it off later for an Otherworldly Kimono (we are a Wizard, right?), then pick up your other Cloak.

Resistance is specifically on the list of spells a wizard could put on others, so no this is not just for the wizard. The cloak of elvenkind would be probable the single best reason for not wanting a cloak of resistance. Of course around level 9 is when the ring of chameleon power becomes an option for stealth characters, but assumes you have an open ring slot(ring of protection + ring of invisibility).

Not saying it is super common, but I have had character concepts where taking a cloak of resistance wasn't a no brainer.

also there's the cloak that gives you blur for the 20% miss chance. and permanency with that is far cheaper than a kimono. So while it might not be the best most optimal way. It definitely is something that has reasons it could be done.

BLood money can't be combined with Permanancy. Either your casting order is <Blood Money> <Spell> <Permanancy, in which case blood money can only be used to get the components for the spell, or <Spell> <Blood Money> <Permanancy>, in which case the permanancy fails because it applies to the blood money, not the spell.

also there's the cloak that gives you blur for the 20% miss chance. and permanency with that is far cheaper than a kimono. So while it might not be the best most optimal way. It definitely is something that has reasons it could be done.

Minor Cloak of Displacement-- I love that thing. One of the best items ever. Aaand... I'd do exactly what I outlined above to get it.

If you can craft-- not any kind of stretch stretch in a game where Blood Money + Permanency is a thing-- the Kimono is actually available as early as level 8 (slightly sooner with Int investment or intentionally grabbing requirements; my calculations assumed Int 18 to start and Resistance but no Heighten Spell or Maze). At that level it's a huge chunk of your change, but at level 9-- the earliest you're doing Permanency + Resistance-- it's less than half your WBL; at 10th about a quarter. Without crafting it's slower, but if we're cheesing the system on one end we should be cheesing it all the way through to compare.

So... wait one level, get +3 more on your saves, a conditional +2 more on top of that, an 8th level spell 1/day, and +4(+6) vs. SR and dispel checks.

Yeah... I'm not seeing any reason to Permanency Resistance. Taking a Cloak of Resistance might not be a no-brainer, but taking some noticeable save-booster is, and a 0th level spell is not it.

BLood money can't be combined with Permanancy. Either your casting order is <Blood Money> <Spell> <Permanancy, in which case blood money can only be used to get the components for the spell, or <Spell> <Blood Money> <Permanancy>, in which case the permanancy fails because it applies to the blood money, not the spell.

Why do you think that you must cast permanency right after casting the spell you want to make permanent?

burkoJames wrote:

BLood money can't be combined with Permanancy. Either your casting order is <Blood Money> <Spell> <Permanancy, in which case blood money can only be used to get the components for the spell, or <Spell> <Blood Money> <Permanancy>, in which case the permanancy fails because it applies to the blood money, not the spell.

Why do you think that you must cast permanency right after casting the spell you want to make permanent?

You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell.

Presumably that's why. That's always been my interpretation of that line too.

casting blood money and then permanency still has permanency following/after the spell you want permanent. So the question is is it immediately following or can it just be following?

BLood money can't be combined with Permanancy. Either your casting order is <Blood Money> <Spell> <Permanancy, in which case blood money can only be used to get the components for the spell, or <Spell> <Blood Money> <Permanancy>, in which case the permanancy fails because it applies to the blood money, not the spell.

This line of thinking is the best. It blocks blood money on permanency without worrying about the question of whether or not the material component lasts for more than 1 round when used.

casting blood money and then permanency still has permanency following/after the spell you want permanent. So the question is is it immediately following or can it just be following?

If true, why not wait a couple hours? Days, if the spell has sufficient duration? If it doesn't have to be immediately after then think of the implications.

Chess Pwn wrote:

casting blood money and then permanency still has permanency following/after the spell you want permanent. So the question is is it immediately following or can it just be following?

If true, why not wait a couple hours? Days, if the spell has sufficient duration? If it doesn't have to be immediately after then think of the implications.

What implications?

Chess Pwn wrote:

casting blood money and then permanency still has permanency following/after the spell you want permanent. So the question is is it immediately following or can it just be following?

If true, why not wait a couple hours? Days, if the spell has sufficient duration? If it doesn't have to be immediately after then think of the implications.

You just have to do it during the duration. If the spell lasts for days anyway then why are you concerned about it being permanent? The longer the duration, the less the issue with permanency.