Permanency: A proposal for PFS


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I'd like to note I am only making a new thread on the topic because I am unable to edit the original post. Sorry in advance if re-posting the topic is a problem but I want my proposal to be easily seen.

When talking about the spell Permanency, many people get excited, it's power can range from very subtle to over-powering depending on the spell(s) that it can affect. In a home game, it falls upon the GM to decide if they will allow it and what spells can be used in conjuction with this spell.

Currently, this spell is not allowed in PFS (organized play for those not aware). I understand that this spell when paired with specific spells would make the game VERY unbalanced, but that isn't to say it shouldn't be allowed at all. Some argue it would be abused if allowed while others such as myself feel if altered (like many things in PFS) could be used without causing a drastic shift in a player characters ability. Before I go any further, let's look at the spell description and what it currently allows.

Permanency:

School: Universal; Wizard/Sorcerer 5

Casting time: 2 rounds

Components: V, S, M

Range: See text

Target: See text

Saving throw: No; Spell Resistance; No

This spell makes the duration of other spells permanent. You first cast the desired spell followed by Permanency. Depending on the spell, you must be of a minimum caster level and expend a specific gp value of diamond dust as a material component. You can make the following spells permanent in regards to yourself:

Spell/ Minimum caster level/ GP Cost

*Arcane sight/ 11th/ 7,500 gp

*Comprehend languages/ 9th/ 2,500 gp

Darkvision/ 10th/ 5,000 gp

Detect Magic/ 9th/ 2,500 gp

Read Magic/ 9th/ 2,500 gp

*See invisibility/ 10th/ 5,000 gp

*Tongues/ 11th/ 7,500 gp

This application of Permanency can be dispelled by a caster of higher level. Rules as written, it sounds as if this would get rid of the permanent effect and not the spell itself. Dispel Magic would have to be cast to first remove Permanency status and again to then remove the effect the target was under. Even if dispelled, would there be any harm in a player spending gold to have the effect re-cast on them? Just because these affects would always be going does not also mean they would be good either. It could be just as much of a risk as a benefit given a situation.

Let's look at the spells I marked with an asterisk beside them. Those are spells that have the most potential to make the game unbalanced. Permanency has a lot of potential to be a utility spell, if ever given the chance. It would be very easy to simply note those spells could NOT be used and made permanent. Detect magic is on the fence for me.

When making a character I always go to the 'Additional Resources' page to see if anything I want to use with a character is allowed or not. All players are assumed to have the PDF guide to society play, in addition to the Core Rulebook and the Pathfinder Field Guide. It was brought to my attention that Permanency in addition to a select few other spells are mentioned in the guide as illegal for play, but not also in the same location where everything else (legal or not) is. If still viewed as something that cannot be used in PFS at least add it to the Additional Resources page to cut down on any misunderstandings?

When looking at the lists of spells that could be cast on other players, objects, or items I would only consider Resistance for the following reasons: It's a more expensive Cloak of Resistance +1 that also wouldn't stack with the cloak. And as it stands, the other spells couldn't even be cast and made permanent because of the current level restriction that PFS has. This idea could work as a gold-sink, or maybe allow Permanency to be purchased using the Fame/Prestiege system. Any other spells would be pointless and/ or over-powering.

Because this versatile spell is in Core Rulebook, I feel it should be allowed (even if restricted). Some have argued that the CRB isn't "balanced". Some view it as balanced, others not so much. That is a matter of perception. I don't think I'd be talking this much about the spell if it were in one of the supplemental books. But it is in the CORE rulebook. The most classic, iconic, and basic abilities that each class is capable of are represented in this book. Why take away something like Permanency away from those who have the ability to cast it? Should classes who are capable of bring the dead back to life lose that ability in PFS? No. The same line of logic could be applied in this case too. Each class is known for different iconic abilities, why lessen this class? I know this is my own perception of the game and how a certain spell works in organized play, but I've given it some thought. I've also proposed ideas that could allow its use without breaking any currently existing mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not convinced this will make Permanency legal in PFS, but it might give Paizo ideas on how to make it legal in the future? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?

I understand those who posted in the other thread I made in regards to this spell may not want to re-post something they have already said. I understand. This is just one possible idea that might work, but wanted to thank those who offered feedback.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Silh wrote:
I feel it should be allowed (even if restricted)

Personally, I would prefer to see it remain banned, but I can understand those who wish to see it restored to legal status. What I would be totally against, is making it legal, but modifying the spell such that it is kinda legal, kind not. I really dislike changing core rules for organized play.

Liberty's Edge

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Silh wrote:
I feel it should be allowed (even if restricted)
Personally, I would prefer to see it remain banned, but I can understand those who wish to see it restored to legal status. What I would be totally against, is making it legal, but modifying the spell such that it is kinda legal, kind not. I really dislike changing core rules for organized play.

That's understandable, but it isn't like this is the first thing in the core rule book that has been changed for PFS.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I followed the other thread and after thinking about it quite a bit have landed on the "keep it banned" side of the fence. Just because it is in the Core rulebook (which was designed for any Pathfinder game, btw, not organized play in particular) doesn't mean it is above being banned from PFS. Comparing raise dead to permanency is not exactly comparing apples to apples- I understand you consider it "iconic", but there are restrictions applied to all classes in the cases where a particular ability might cause unbalanced situations.

After reading the other thread, I side with not having to deal with the possible abuses of permanency... my 2cp, but that is my personal preference. Also, I am with Bob on *really* being against modifying the spell to make it organized play legal.

Grand Lodge

I don't want to see Permanency in PFS.

As you allude to, if Permanency were to become legal it would invalidate a large number of permanent character building choices, such as seen with the linguistics skill or choosing a race with Darkvision. It would also create a new situation in PFS where characters would start losing big chunks of wealth whenever dispel magic is targeted on them.

It would be cool to have a character with perma-magicked eyes, but introducing permanency for PFS characters seems to create more problems than it solves. Especially if we're only doing it to get resistance cast on us.

Liberty's Edge

Whiskey Jack wrote:

I followed the other thread and after thinking about it quite a bit have landed on the "keep it banned" side of the fence. Just because it is in the Core rulebook (which was designed for any Pathfinder game, btw, not organized play in particular) doesn't mean it is above being banned from PFS. Comparing raise dead to permanency is not exactly comparing apples to apples- I understand you consider it "iconic", but there are restrictions applied to all classes in the cases where a particular ability might cause unbalanced situations.

After reading the other thread, I side with not having to deal with the possible abuses of permanency... my 2cp, but that is my personal preference. Also, I am with Bob on *really* being against modifying the spell to make it organized play legal.

And that's fine, I knew this was not a fool-proof argument. Like I said, this is just how I view something specific about the game, but we as players view things differently. All I wanted to do is express my idea and I've done that. It's not really necessary I post anymore, but I also understand why it might remain banned. Thanks for the input.

Liberty's Edge

I'm still mulling over Bob's post in the other thread, but I understand the objection to customizing the spell.

Silh, there are other things in the CRB that have been changed. However, each of these things needs to be taken on its own merits. I'm not a encyclopedia-of-what's-allowed-or-not kinda guy, but I'm having trouble thinking of a similar rules resource that has been permitted with exception. As Bob has said, these tend to be take-it-or-leave-it decisions. (cue someone providing the example of a modified modular rules resource)

Contrast that with something like the substitution for a Wizard's Scribe Scroll feat...it isn't exactly like the entire Wizard class can be scrapped.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
What I would be totally against, is making it legal, but modifying the spell such that it is kinda legal, kind not. I really dislike changing core rules for organized play.

So are you saying that you're against the limitations that PFS places on such spells as masterwork transformation, ever-burning torch, et al?

Regardless, I think that we agree in spirit.

The permanency spell likely should go in with minimal adjustment if there is any bit of it that requires adaptation for organized play. I don't see anything about the nature of organized play that should stand in the way of the pathfinder permanency spell. Does anyone else?

My take on organized play is that it strives to deliver the core rules as unaltered as possible. These cries of the sky would fall seem to be quite hyberbolic to me. I would say something slightly different than Bob's position: I really dislike organized play changing core rules when it is not needed. (For example getting rid of arcane/divine designations for scrolls has no organized play reason for existing.. it is a normal complexity of the game)

-James

Lantern Lodge

KestlerGunner wrote:

I don't want to see Permanency in PFS.

As you allude to, if Permanency were to become legal it would invalidate a large number of permanent character building choices, such as seen with the linguistics skill or choosing a race with Darkvision. It would also create a new situation in PFS where characters would start losing big chunks of wealth whenever dispel magic is targeted on them.

It would be cool to have a character with perma-magicked eyes, but introducing permanency for PFS characters seems to create more problems than it solves. Especially if we're only doing it to get resistance cast on us.

Characters already lose large chunks of wealth when dispel magic is cast (unless something changed recently that i missed)

Edit: after verifying, dispel magic appearently only suppresses magic items (and ive lost too many magic items i guess) so the cost in wealth isn't as big for spellcasters but it still costs alot for UMDers.

Though truthfully i would have treated permenancy as magic items but thats just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think allowing Permanency with restrictions should be considered. I understand why it is currently banned because it would be far too easy to abuse it, especially if someone goes around casting Permanent Enlarge Person on all of their barbarian friends, but if you limit it to just a few spells that can be made permanent I see no problem.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I will not endorse any plan that allows permanence to be useable in any capacity in PFS.


1. Drink potion
2. Have wizard cast permanency on you.
3. Profit

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
I will not endorse any plan that allows permanence to be useable in any capacity in PFS.

Why? This is a discussion, not an opinion thread.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
I will not endorse any plan that allows permanence to be useable in any capacity in PFS.

Will you tell us why or is this just a political announcement? :D

Liberty's Edge

I'm also curious what my fellow pathfinders think about the ideas I proposed too.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert A Matthews wrote:

1. Drink potion

2. Have wizard cast permanency on you.
3. Profit

4. Get targeted by Dispel Magic by a caster in a scenario.

5. Go to the boards to complain about how you were being unfairly targeted and how dispelling your permanent spells clearly isnt in the listed tactics.
6. Start a flame war.
7. Ragequit. :P

All that will come of this thing being permanently legal is altered version of the 'Sundering my eqipment isnt fair' arguement.

As cool as is would be to see this legalized, I dont think it's the right move for the campaign. :/

Silver Crusade

Easy solution (assuming someone hasn't proposed it already):

1. Limit the spells that can be made permanent in PFS play. Ban particularly problematic ones, or limit them to the highest tier only.

2. Limit it to one permanent spell per character.

3. In addition to the gold cost, it costs a significant chunk of Prestige Points - say 25 - to get the society to cast it on you.

4. As a side benefit of expending all of that prestige is: if the spell is dispelled during a scenerio, you only lose the effect for that scenerio. The society will recast it on you at the beginning of your next scenerio free of charge (or for a nominal fee).

Thoughts?

Liberty's Edge

Arguments against, as proposed in this thread and here.

Please take a look and see if I've missed anything significant.

1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available.

2. Some permanent effects step on the territories of other character options, such as those with darkvision.

3. The campaign has a general practice of approving or banning rules resources in their entirety rather than modifying them. When rules resources have been modified, this takes place as a judgement call that includes factors such as: a) the degree to which it is necessary for the rule to be present in some form, b) the complexity of communicating the change, c) the balance between the effort to implement without causing further problems in comparison to the benefit of retaining the rules resource in some form.

4) The potential presence of some permanent spells, particularly the divinations arcane sight and see invisibility, have a tendency to broaden the range of resources available for characters. This complicates the writing of level appropriate adventures with respect to plot and regarding appropriate encounter challenges. Current concerns already exist with respect to the range of character effectiveness when viewed from the perspective of level.

5) The rules of permanency are somewhat complex both in the spell description, as well as in adjudicating the peripheral rules associated with acquisition of a permanent spell. Additional complexity arises when dealing with other campaign specific rules, such as scroll acquisition for use via UMD and rules related to spells ending at the end of a scenario.

6) The nature of the campaign places a focus on events during adventures only. There are downsides to some permanent effects outside of adventuring time that are reduced significantly or entirely that are not apparent in PFS. This has the effect of increasing the upside to permanent spells in comparison their downside. Permanent spells in PFS would be better than Permanent spells in an typical play environment.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Howie23 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I will not endorse any plan that allows permanence to be useable in any capacity in PFS.
Will you tell us why or is this just a political announcement? :D

Most of the reasons why not are posted by others on the other thread.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Seth Gipson wrote:


All that will come of this thing being permanently legal is altered version of the 'Sundering my equipment isnt fair' argument.

As cool as is would be to see this legalized, I don't think it's the right move for the campaign. :/

Agreed.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber
KestlerGunner wrote:

I don't want to see Permanency in PFS.

As you allude to, if Permanency were to become legal it would invalidate a large number of permanent character building choices, such as seen with the linguistics skill or choosing a race with Darkvision.

How does being able to do something at 9th or 10th level invalidate something chosen at character creation. All characters can do things at 9th level that they can't do at 1st level. Being a half-orc means you have darkvision for 8 levels more than the wizard with permanency. That is 66% of your PFS life. Do you really think no one will play a race with darkvision because you can be a wizard and use permanency at 9th level? Does being a fighter invalidate being a Tengu? Why bother with a Tengu, all fighters can use swords at first level (don't even wait until 9th)! The fighter class makes Tengu useless! Obviously, I am being silly but I don't see the problem with permanency. As with most things, I think there are trade offs. Vulnerability to Dispel Magic is one of them.


sowhereaminow wrote:

Easy solution (assuming someone hasn't proposed it already):

1. Limit the spells that can be made permanent in PFS play. Ban particularly problematic ones, or limit them to the highest tier only.

2. Limit it to one permanent spell per character.

3. In addition to the gold cost, it costs a significant chunk of Prestige Points - say 25 - to get the society to cast it on you.

4. As a side benefit of expending all of that prestige is: if the spell is dispelled during a scenerio, you only lose the effect for that scenerio. The society will recast it on you at the beginning of your next scenerio free of charge (or for a nominal fee).

Thoughts?

Sounds complicated. Lots of additional rules that could get skimmed over. Far more complicated, of course, than the current rule of "No". Also, not big on the cheap magic item gig. Letting you get it back for free makes that further ridiculousness.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:

Easy solution (assuming someone hasn't proposed it already):

1. Limit the spells that can be made permanent in PFS play. Ban particularly problematic ones, or limit them to the highest tier only.

2. Limit it to one permanent spell per character.

3. In addition to the gold cost, it costs a significant chunk of Prestige Points - say 25 - to get the society to cast it on you.

4. As a side benefit of expending all of that prestige is: if the spell is dispelled during a scenerio, you only lose the effect for that scenerio. The society will recast it on you at the beginning of your next scenerio free of charge (or for a nominal fee).

Thoughts?

Sounds complicated. Lots of additional rules that could get skimmed over. Far more complicated, of course, than the current rule of "No". Also, not big on the cheap magic item gig. Letting you get it back for free makes that further ridiculousness.

Wow, if you think that's complicated, be glad we still don't use THACO. :-)

Seriously, to explain the free reset in #4: one of the problems I've heard thrown around is how does a GM indicate on a chronicle sheet that the permanency has been lost? This solution does away with a recordkeeping issue. The player pays a prestige cost on top of the gold cost, and can keep the ability for the rest of his/her career. Which in convention/gaming shop play probably isn't going to be much longer. I suspect people would pay this cost until 7th level at the earliest.


Howie23 wrote:

1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available.

I know you were mainly looking to catalog the objections, but I'm curious why this is a problem but sundering is not?

Pathfinder did lighten the nastiness of sundering, and I think in part because of the experience they had with organized campaigns in 3/3.5 eds.

I think that rather than have a 'gentleman's agreement' not to sunder, that there should be something in organized play to account for this. Once that's done, of course, it can be freely extended to permanent spells.

-James


sowhereaminow wrote:
Wow, if you think that's complicated, be glad we still don't use THACO. :-).

We don't use fractional BAB because it was considered too complicated too, and that is pretty easy stuff. I don't use "Well THACO was complicated" as an excuse for anything. This is however adding on additional rules to what is currently "No".

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

james maissen wrote:
So are you saying that you're against the limitations that PFS places on such spells as masterwork transformation, ever-burning torch, et al?

Am I against it? Not really. Do I agree with them, not really either. I understand why the decisions were made in regards to those spells. I support the rules and our leadership's Wisdom in such matters. I just don't blindly agree with all their decisions. Nor do I waste my breath railing against them once a decision has been made.

Derail:
james maissen wrote:
getting rid of arcane/divine designations for scrolls has no organized play reason for existing.. it is a normal complexity of the game)

I disagree. If we adhered to the specifics of spell type in organized play, it would make it much more difficult to provide scroll access as a reward. In a home game, the GM can designate the scrolls however needed to cover the classes involved in the game. However, OP GM's do not have such a luxury. It just makes good sense to hand-waive the spell type for the sake of equal rewards and balanced play. Of course, this is largely an opinion-based argument and I doubt that either side will sway the other.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Personally, I don't like the sunder rules for PFS, and wish there was an actual "cost" for sundering. Granted I have not seen a single sunder PC at a PFS table except for mine who (1)just recently gained the ability, (2) has never had a chance to use it, and (3) will soon retire. I have only recall one NPC/enemy being specifically trained in sundering and the tactics were very specific on how/when to use it. So, I have no reason to complain about a rule that never comes up during play.

If permanency was legalized, I would want it to be as printed in the core rules, AND subject to all the risks. If you are an enlarged human, guess what, that just might draw the attention of spellcasters with dispel magic. If that means you just lost your expensive, (semi-)permanent buff, oh well, you knew the risks. Feel free to pay the costs associated with having it re-cast.

Silver Crusade

MrSin wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
Wow, if you think that's complicated, be glad we still don't use THACO. :-).
We don't use fractional BAB because it was considered too complicated too, and that is pretty easy stuff. I don't use "Well THACO was complicated" as an excuse for anything. This is however adding on additional rules to what is currently "No".

Dude, lighten up. It was a joke. Hence the text smiley face at the end. :-)

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available.

I know you were mainly looking to catalog the objections, but I'm curious why this is a problem but sundering is not?

-James

No one said it isn't a problem for sunder.

Lantern Lodge

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Personally, I don't like the sunder rules for PFS, and wish there was an actual "cost" for sundering. Granted I have not seen a single sunder PC at a PFS table except for mine who (1)just recently gained the ability, (2) has never had a chance to use it, and (3) will soon retire. I have only recall one NPC/enemy being specifically trained in sundering and the tactics were very specific on how/when to use it. So, I have no reason to complain about a rule that never comes up during play.

If permanency was legalized, I would want it to be as printed in the core rules, AND subject to all the risks. If you are an enlarged human, guess what, that just might draw the attention of spellcasters with dispel magic. If that means you just lost your expensive, (semi-)permanent buff, oh well, you knew the risks. Feel free to pay the costs associated with having it re-cast.

I would personally agree with this save for the fact that poor spending individuals would fall behind very quickly, and pfs needs to maintain characters within a narrow window of power.

(And of course i would have made permenancy either cheaper or act like items with regard to dispel.)

Note that i have seen sunder used in game and had to houserule it because the rules for sundering are powerful.

With how easy some of these combat options are one wonders why anybody bothers with normal atks at all.

Lantern Lodge

MrSin wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
Wow, if you think that's complicated, be glad we still don't use THACO. :-).
We don't use fractional BAB because it was considered too complicated too, and that is pretty easy stuff. I don't use "Well THACO was complicated" as an excuse for anything. This is however adding on additional rules to what is currently "No".

You don't use fractional bab? Do you at least use fractional saves?

It just isn't worth the work to program excel to not use them. :)


Howie23 wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available.

I know you were mainly looking to catalog the objections, but I'm curious why this is a problem but sundering is not?

-James
No one said it isn't a problem for sunder.

That was my point.. it's not an issue with permanency, but an issue that already exists and should be addressed directly.

The nature of an organized campaign has a very controlled level of PC wealth. Sundering and the like disrupt that to a high degree. High enough that special rules should likely be in place for them already.

-James


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
MrSin wrote:
sowhereaminow wrote:
Wow, if you think that's complicated, be glad we still don't use THACO. :-).
We don't use fractional BAB because it was considered too complicated too, and that is pretty easy stuff. I don't use "Well THACO was complicated" as an excuse for anything. This is however adding on additional rules to what is currently "No".

You don't use fractional bab? Do you at least use fractional saves?

It just isn't worth the work to program excel to not use them. :)

I use them in home games, but thought RAW we didn't use fractional BAB/saves? Am I incorrect?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

What is "fractional" BAB/Saves? I am unfamiliar with this terminology.

In PFS, we use the BAB/Saves on the class charts with bonuses from various different things (abilities, magic items, racial bonuses, et. al.)

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I would assume he's referring to fast/medium/slow BAB progression (and good/poor saves) but it's staggering to me that one could think PFS wouldn't use the same progression as in the book.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'm not sure how that's fractional.

You always use the saves and BAB progression that's listed on the handy charts in the books for each class.

There is no reason or rule that would indicate otherwise.

Has to be referring to something else.


Andrew Christian wrote:

What is "fractional" BAB/Saves? I am unfamiliar with this terminology.

In PFS, we use the BAB/Saves on the class charts with bonuses from various different things (abilities, magic items, racial bonuses, et. al.)

I'm referring to when you add up the totals 1/2, 3/4, and full as fractions. It helps keep 3/4 BAB classes BAB up on par when they multiclass or prestige. If you don't use fractional and follow the charts straight, its possible to mix 12 classes and have 0 BAB. Saves are similar, though they don't follow 1/2, 3/4, and full progression. I'm more keen on using fractional myself, it helps the martials with 3/4 BAB(Monk, Rogue, Alchemist) and makes dipping/multi-classing more friendly and a little less harmful.


Andrew Christian wrote:

What is "fractional" BAB/Saves? I am unfamiliar with this terminology.

In PFS, we use the BAB/Saves on the class charts with bonuses from various different things (abilities, magic items, racial bonuses, et. al.)

A wizard1/rogue1 has a 0 BAB despite both classes having a 1BAB at 2nd level.

This was done in 3.0 because the devs there thought that adding the fractions might be too off-putting. And as people complained about subtraction (i.e. THAC0), that was not an unreasonable conclusion.

A wizard gets 1/2 BAB each level, rounded down.

A rouge gets 3/4 BAB each level, rounded down.

'Fractional' BAB means that you add multiclassed BAB before rounding down. In fact the old 3e Monster Manual kind of spelled this out for those that didn't see the obvious progression in the 3e PhB. Monte Cook's book officially listed it out as a houserule.

Pathfinder made some changes for PrCs based on the problems that you encounter when not using the fractions. That's reflected in the change of save progression for Prestige classes from 3rd edition.

-James

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

Well if that is what fractional BAB/saves means, I have never seen it in play and can only imagine it is not the intention of the rules. I can see the logic of the interpretation, but AKAIK that would be a "house" rule and therefore not legal in PFS.

Lantern Lodge

I guess ill look again but i thought it was simply unclarified. I have always used fractional.

Can't say I would support ignoring fractionals, multiclass characters are weakened enough without dropping a point of bab per class.

Liberty's Edge

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Well if that is what fractional BAB/saves means, I have never seen it in play and can only imagine it is not the intention of the rules. I can see the logic of the interpretation, but AKAIK that would be a "house" rule and therefore not legal in PFS.

It's an optional rule presented in WotC's Unearthed Arcana. I'm not booked up in PF to know whether it is presented anywhere as an optional rule for PF. In any case, if it is an optional rule for PF, it's not one where the option has been exercised in PFS.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

1. The risk associated with obtaining a permanent spell is that it can be dispelled, resulting in a total loss of the wealth invested. The campaign culture is resistant activities that attack character wealth because it results in a permanent gap between expected wealth by level and what is then available.

I know you were mainly looking to catalog the objections, but I'm curious why this is a problem but sundering is not?

-James
No one said it isn't a problem for sunder.

That was my point.. it's not an issue with permanency, but an issue that already exists and should be addressed directly.

The nature of an organized campaign has a very controlled level of PC wealth. Sundering and the like disrupt that to a high degree. High enough that special rules should likely be in place for them already

Point taken. But until, and unless, this is addressed directly, I would disagree that it isn't an issue for permanency. Removing the permanency ban, while this issue exists, removes a large degree of the wealth risk of using permanency. If you have a subsystem that isn't working properly, certainly the overall solution is to fix the subsystem. But, until it is fixed, putting more pressure on the subsystem isn't particularly wise.

Lantern Lodge

Howie23 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Well if that is what fractional BAB/saves means, I have never seen it in play and can only imagine it is not the intention of the rules. I can see the logic of the interpretation, but AKAIK that would be a "house" rule and therefore not legal in PFS.
It's an optional rule presented in WotC's Unearthed Arcana. I'm not booked up in PF to know whether it is presented anywhere as an optional rule for PF. In any case, if it is an optional rule for PF, it's not one where the option has been exercised in PFS.

I never realized it was merely an optional rule in 3.5.

PF core doesn't specify, it just says to add the bonuses, so it could be easily argued either way.

Frankly i support fractions because they make sense, and multiclass weakens a character significantly without needing to worry about falling even further behind on bab and saves. You can lose a point of bonus for every additional class, which can leave a multiclass character far behind the curve with lower bonuses then even the lowest single class progressions in some cases.


How can it be argued either way? The Core Rules mention absolutely nothing about what you are talking about.

Lantern Lodge

It woulddepend on how you view the bonuses to begin with. If you simply view the bonuses as a fraction of your level "I have a bab of 3/4" or not. If you don't it would make sense to you to not use fractionals, but if you you then fractionals makes sense, and neither side needs to be specified to make sense.

For me bab goes like this "3/4 of five levels plus 1/2 of three levels" it makes sense and is faster then the alternative.

The alternative "well the rogue chart says this, the monk chart says this, and the sorcerer chart says this" which requiresa lot of looking at charts and is complex by way of not being simplified down to the formula.

My way giving me a bab of 5 while the alternative gives a bab of 4. The later is equal to having a 1/2 bab despite having majority levels in 3/4 bab classes.

So yeah, mostly the argueablity stems from how you see the bonuses to begin with, and the section on multiclassing doesn't specify and the core book for total class level bonuses shows all the progressions on their own.

Honestly though, the difference is proportional to the number of classes, so for a crazyperson like me who will make three and four class combos it becomes a much larger issue then for simple dual class characters or single class with prestige classes where the maximum loss is 1 point.


Howie23 wrote:

But, until it is fixed, putting more pressure on the subsystem isn't particularly wise.

Depends.. it would be more pressure to fix it for organized play, which frankly has needed it for more than a decade.

The point wasn't that it wouldn't intersect permanency, but rather that it should not be a factor in deciding upon its proper inclusion. The counter point would be in banning the sunder combat maneuver as well as a list of oozes and other creatures that can destroy items.

Personally I think that there are better solutions to both, but c'est la vie.

-James

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
Howie23 wrote:

But, until it is fixed, putting more pressure on the subsystem isn't particularly wise.

Depends.. it would be more pressure to fix it for organized play, which frankly has needed it for more than a decade.

The point wasn't that it wouldn't intersect permanency, but rather that it should not be a factor in deciding upon its proper inclusion. The counter point would be in banning the sunder combat maneuver as well as a list of oozes and other creatures that can destroy items.

An analogy: Picture an organization that conducts a strategic business analysis of itself. Out of this analysis, one of the things that comes up is that they don't do a very good job with safety. Let's also say that out of this analysis they see a couple of opportunities to expand business. One of them is a hazardous operation while another is not. Let's say they have the capitol to invest in one of those two ventures with similar financial expectations.

Certainly, they should look at programs to improve safety in various ways. However, their current weakness in safety favors the less hazardous business venture. There can certainly be other qualitative factors, but to fail to include the safety weakness in the decision would be imprudent.


Seth Gipson wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:

1. Drink potion

2. Have wizard cast permanency on you.
3. Profit

4. Get targeted by Dispel Magic by a caster in a scenario.

5. Go to the boards to complain about how you were being unfairly targeted and how dispelling your permanent spells clearly isnt in the listed tactics.
6. Start a flame war.
7. Ragequit. :P

All that will come of this thing being permanently legal is altered version of the 'Sundering my eqipment isnt fair' arguement.

As cool as is would be to see this legalized, I dont think it's the right move for the campaign. :/

File this under "winnowing the chaff" - I'm starting to come round to the idea.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It woulddepend on how you view the bonuses to begin with.

Read the CRB, its tells you what the bonuses are. Then you add them up.

Funky arithmetic that raises your BAB scores, well... not cool, really...

1 to 50 of 117 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Permanency: A proposal for PFS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.