My preferred method* is to purchase a scroll of it at a high caster level, as high as you can get and still cast it from the scroll without fail, and then do that. It can't be dispelled except by casters of higher than your level when you cast it (i.e. the scroll's level; though the text can be interpreted ambiguously, so maybe it's the target spell that should be done at the higher level, same approach either way), so it's pretty safe, probably until you get to high levels, unless the campaign is caster-heavy. It's mainly good for See Invisibility and Arcane Sight. That said, it's only practical when you have pretty good wealth.
* Only done on one character so far, a sorcerer. But I'd probably do it again if the conditions were right.
1st AD&D and 2nd AD&D = Say the spell all the Time... in making magic items.
3rd ed onward = Almost never. Item Creation feats do not require it.
................
Spell is a hold over spell, from earlier editions. The relative cost and restriction, on the spell, make the spell almost unheard of as a PC spell. As a Wizard, you might find it in an old book or scroll, and acquire it that way. But i do not see player searching out this spell, like in earlier edition.
|
Remember, a permanent spell is not dispelled, just suppressed with a dispel magic.
And my answer to the original poster is that we don't see enough of that spell being used.
See invis, dark vision, magic fang are the ones of note for me. If I wiz it up, my companions will be benefitted from my permanent spells. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love permanency blood money makes sure the price is right.
Don't see it that often but one of the players in my group does tend to think of it more often and pay for nifty abilities to be permanent and spare the spell slot. Also as a DM my NPcs don't use dispel magic that often unless it makes sense for them to have those abilities
Roughly a third of my casters have it, and even a few noncasters.
|
|
Riia, that's not quite true. The description of permanency reads as changing a spell's duration to a 'infinite/permanent' duration. Whether it's the Permanency or the spell that is the target of the Permanency, whichever you decide is the spell effect, both result in an ongoing spell effect, and therefore, if dispelled, gone forever. Until the spells are recast, which doesn't restore the investment of the material component cost expended in the permanency. The diamond dust is an material component cost after all.
There is nothing in the spell description of Permanency that makes it follow the rules for magic items being dispelled. Merely an ongoing spell effect. And the real fear of the 'wasted investment' is the Greater Dispel Magic spell. And given Permanency is a 5th level arcane spell, fighting BBEG's with 6th level spells is not at all imbalanced, assuming the PC's are the ones casting Permanency.
Personally, as I mentioned previously, I'd like to see it function a bit more like a magic item. Our table keeps coming back to the spell and debating making it 'somehow worthwhile'. However, we haven't. And with my above Fly example, we keep putting it off, knowing what a massive headache it would end up being.
I will totally agree with you that if permanency can be dispelled and gone for ever, then hell yes, it is not worth it at all. Why would we spend 7500gp on something that can be dispelled so quickly.
It would seem that the wizard would need a few feats to up caster level and dc vs dispel before ever dreaming of doing this.
Spell perfection seems like the feat that would help on this:
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 15 ranks, at least three metamagic feats.
Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
but then you are waiting for 15th level before ever doing this, and if you are playing an AP, that gives you 1, maybe 2 levels of enjoyment without fear of a possible dispel? Arg, this definitely changes my mind on permanency.
However, if you have specialized spell for the spell that is cast for permanency (+2 caster level) that would make it a +4 caster level for that spell, which would make it un dispellable for anyone under 20th level caster (if cast at 15th character level).
Just seems like such a waste of feats to achieve this.
I originally read this as:
Pregnancy: How Often Do You See That Spell?
...and my brain kind of broke.
With the changes that had been made to dispelling (Like Greater Dispel Magic capping at 5 spells dispelled), the odds of actually losing a permanancied spell are pretty low.
There's always Disjunction, but Disjunction will never even come up in most games.
Since most permanent spells are low level divination effects, it'd be extremely unusual for the spells to be targeted for dispelling, too.
My wizard uses it as her caster level and money allow. She has permanent see invisibility and darkvision, and she just hit 11th level and will have permanent arcane sight and permanent tongues as soon as she has the money to spare for that.
Keeping dispel magic/greater dispel magic in a ring of counter spelling could help a lot.
Personally, I would house rule that it works as a suppression. Maybe for longer than the usual 1d4 rounds... 1d4+3 ?
I don't think I've ever seen dispel magic (or its more powerful cousins) used in our games.
Also, isn't permanency immune to such things unless the caster is higher level than you?
Note that Dispel Magic is significantly weaker than in 3.5.
We see it more often than any other 5th or higher-level spell, but we usually play E6-E8 and access to other spells are only through specific rituals. We don't see it often for personal buffs, it's used more on area effects. We also allow a few more spells than the standard permanency allows, nearly all area spells with duration for example.
Well, my PC has permanent Arcane Sight, Darkvision, See Invisible, and Tongues, and is planning a personal demiplane . . .
Ravingdork that is only true if you cast the spell on yourself. If another caster does it, then that rule does not apply.
You can make the following spells permanent in regard to yourself. You cannot cast these spells on other creatures. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With blood money it's not that big a deal anymore if it gets dispelled.
The game developers have contradicted themselves over the casting time issue, Natrim. Currently, it seems to be up to the GM.
Why wouldn't personal spells work? Don't personal spells target YOU whether your are polymorphed, physical, disembodied, or possessive?
I _think_ it makes most spells to affect the body rather than the soul, since for most spells you have to have line of sight to the target's body to affect it.
BTW would blood money really work with permanency?
Permanency states you cast it immediately after the spell you want to permanent. Say you want to permanent tongues. The way you have to cast it is Tongues>Permanency. Now, blood money is cast before the spell you need the components for, so before permanency. But you can't cast it directly before, because then Permanency will apply to Blood Money (which isn't viable), so you have to cast it before Tongues. So you have to cast Blood Money>Tongues>Permanency, which would make blood money affect Tongues instead of permanency and you have to pay it anyway.
I don't get this to work, or am I missing something? Relevant text:
You cast blood money just before casting another spell. As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell.
This spell makes the duration of certain other spells permanent. You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell.
Maybe, maybe you could twist the intent by saying like "well it doesn't say explicitly that you cannot cast anything in between" but when it uses the wording "just before" and "and then follow it" I think the intent is crystal clear and working.
I like to think that it is caster's choice. For example, I could cast disguise self on me to look like a passed out drunk, cast shield for protection, then magic jar into a nearby target in preparation for an assassination attempt. In transferring to the new body, the shield spell would travel with me to the host, while the disguise self spell would stay on my old shell.
Went ahead and marked Drachasor's post for faq
BTW would blood money really work with permanency?
Permanency states you cast it immediately after the spell you want to permanent. Say you want to permanent tongues. The way you have to cast it is Tongues>Permanency. Now, blood money is cast before the spell you need the components for, so before permanency. But you can't cast it directly before, because then Permanency will apply to Blood Money (which isn't viable), so you have to cast it before Tongues. So you have to cast Blood Money>Tongues>Permanency, which would make blood money affect Tongues instead of permanency and you have to pay it anyway.
This is just what I was thinking.
Permanency seems to be one spell that can't be used with blood money without any errata, just because of timing problems.
I don't see how the rules are "unclear" with regards to permanency/blood money. You have to deliberately ignore the wording.
With the kind of rules-twisting you have to make to call blood money+permanency "unclear", it's easy to completely rip apart using blood money+fabricate to make it for free:
1. Material components are annihilated in the casting process.
2. Fabricate needs "the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created" as a material component, so if you want a to fabricate a diamond into diamond dust you need a diamond as a material component.
3. Fabricate needs a target to transform.
4. Due to 1 and 2, the diamond is annihilated and cannot be a valid target for transformation, thus the target in 3 has to be another diamond.
5. Thus, to cast fabricate you need double the amount of the final result - one diamond as a component, and one diamond as a target.
6. And so, if you need 500gp worth of diamond dust, you still need 500 gp worth of diamond as a target (though blood money means you don't need the 500 gp diamond for component)
^That isn't only completely valid according to RAW, it's not even far-fetched or requires any leaps or ignoring obvious intent.
I tend to skip Permanency and pick up Limited Wish. It costs a bit more, but it allows a bit more versatility.
You are misreading the spell. Fabricate is an exception to the usual rule. The Material Components ARE the materiel that gets converted; they are the target. That's why they are called "the original material" -- it is a phrase that ONLY makes sense if that material is the target to be changed. So yeah, your reading DOES require ignoring obvious intent given the wording on the material component.
Where is that written in the rules? It's not called out as an exception; my interpretation is not in any way against the implied rules, and not even against implied RAW. Material can just as easily refer to the type of object.
It's far more probably than "just before" not meaning "just before".
I do not believe that fabricate is meant to work that way, and it's not the ruling I use in my games (though I've considered using it for balance reasons), but it is a 100% legal interpretation, at least as RAW as assuming fabricate is an exception (even though it doesn't say it is) and that it doesn't annihilate the component (even though the component chapter says it does).
Compare that to calling blood money + permanency "unclear".
I believe Drachasor has the right of it. However, if you were to post your interpretation as a question in the rules forum, Ilja, I would happily hit the FAQ button.
...Anyone else feeling a desire for a ruling in favor of 'suppressed'?
Not me. Even magic items can be destroyed and these spells cost even less, and dont take up a slot.
Permeancy at your own risk. Now I dont use it for all of my casters, but it does come up enough for it to not be a good idea, but if a GM never or almost never uses it, then it could be a good investment.
The game developers have contradicted themselves over the casting time issue, Natrim. Currently, it seems to be up to the GM.
You have quotes?
edit:I am mostly asking because you admittedly forget things, and I have never seen them speak on the casting time issue, and I used to almost live here(on the boards). :)
I like to think that it is caster's choice. For example, I could cast disguise self on me to look like a passed out drunk, cast shield for protection, then magic jar into a nearby target in preparation for an assassination attempt. In transferring to the new body, the shield spell would travel with me to the host, while the disguise self spell would stay on my old shell.
The rules are hardly ever that flexible. If we FAQ this I think they would say the body.
I've been trying to get a clear answer on the magic jar body/soul target issue for over two years.