Permanency: How often do you see that spell?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So usually I'm playing spell casters (arcane most of the time). For the first time, I'm going with a barb and was looking at what I could buy.

I was planning on getting some permanency spell on me and while I was looking at the list, I wanted some opinions:

How often do you see that spell in your games?
is it common?
Is your DM the kind of guy to spam that dispel magic?
Is it mostly a tools for DM to guard stuff (like permanent prismatic sphere or stinking cloud) or do players use them also?


Foxdie13 wrote:

So usually I'm playing spell casters (arcane most of the time). For the first time, I'm going with a barb and was looking at what I could buy.

I was planning on getting some permanency spell on me and while I was looking at the list, I wanted some opinions:

How often do you see that spell in your games?
is it common?
Is your DM the kind of guy to spam that dispel magic?
Is it mostly a tools for DM to guard stuff (like permanent prismatic sphere or stinking cloud) or do players use them also?

I've never seen it come up. Only wizards would ever cast that spell, and there's so many casting classes now that wizards are rare.

No, but my DM prefers fighters.

I would expect players would use it for things such as permanent darkvision and the like. Instead of a permanencied Stinking Cloud, I'd expect the DM to use the trap rules instead.

Silver Crusade

How often do we see it? Hardly ever on behalf the the PC's. Generally, I've noticed that players tend to feel that it's not worth the 'investment risk'.

After all, generally in order for a BBEG to be a significant challenge to a party of adventurers, it has to be several levels/HD above the individual party members. And if it can cast Dispel Magic, then good chance on every enemy caster, (or at least 'boss fight' ones) that the investment requirement of the Permanency spell is destroyed.

Furthermore, at most levels, the cost (roughly 2,500 gp worth of diamond * level of spell) + (finding a caster high enough level to permanency that specific spell, if the PC's are not already mid-high level) is just expensive, difficult, and players would tend to prefer to have items that are going to be more reliable, and keep their value. 'I could pay the wizard to permanency the See Invisibility, or I could save up and get a Lantern of Revealing.... Less risk of problems on the Lantern, let's save up guys.' (Assuming a GM allows See Invisibility to be cast on someone other then self). The Lantern might cost 3 permanency'd See invisiblities to make, 6 worth at 'full market value' buuut... Is not destroyed and a loosing investment to the first greater dispel.

It generally becomes an NPC specialty, whether it's BBEG's or just powerful wizards. Our table has debated a home-brew rule of allowing a permanency'd spell to 'come back' after 24 hours of being dispelled, or some such, to make it a more useful option, but then again, RAI, it would be generally about 7,500 for a permanent Fly spell, and allowing a player to have that, even at mid levels, is just asking for game balance to be thrown out.

*shrug* Just .02 cents


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.


My Barbarian 1/Oracle of Lore 15 keeps See Invisibility and Tongues Permanencied on himself. And Animate Objects permed on a tiny construct (using the Ultimate Magic alternate rules).

So far no one has managed to dispel the personal permed spells. Whenever he enters battle, he's already glowing from several Extended long term buffs (Contingency, Wind Walk, Life Bubble, Delay Poison, Heroism, Air Walk) and probably a few minutes duration buffs (Shield, Shield of Faith, Bless) and maybe Divine Power and Righteous Might.

With all that magic clinging to him, any dispels that come his way have a decreased chance of 'poofing' his permed spells.

No one has bothered trying to dispel the tiny construct yet. More of a vanity creature/artificial familiar anyway.


Permanencied Shrink Item on a stone mantlet is nice. Reusable instant improved cover can be very helpful. Very little reason for anyone to dispel it in combat since it remains a mantlet.

Scarab Sages

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

Silver Crusade

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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Roughly a third of my casters have it, and even a few noncasters.


As someone who enjoys littering his hideout with glyphs, symbols, etc., I use Permanency quite a bit. Best with gestalt Oracle of Lore/Alchemist, so I can (eventually) get the Philosopher's Stone grand discovery and have a source of income to cover permanency and symbol costs...

Scarab Sages

Natrim wrote:

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've always felt like you should be able to re-permanency an effect without spending the cost again.

Or use Blood Money.


I originally read this as:

Pregnancy: How Often Do You See That Spell?

...and my brain kind of broke.


Ruggs wrote:

I originally read this as:

Pregnancy: How Often Do You See That Spell?

...and my brain kind of broke.

In related new, some Aasimar can detect pregnancy within 30'.


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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

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 ?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Quote:
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.

Silver Crusade

That's sort of the point of discussion on the spell for PC's, though, isn't it Ravingdork? Generally the BBEG, or his caster subordinates, in order to provide a challenge for the PC's, are going to be a level or three higher then the PC's. And short of either a generous GM interpretation of a Limited Wish or full Wish/Miracle, or bizarre-unspecified-ritual-magic, or whatever finagling to change it, the (caster) level-to-beat is whatever it was when it was first cast. Which is, especially if the PC's have leveled since then, lower then the usual BBEG...

Whether or not it's an issue can depend on the GM. I have one friend whose gm'ing style is fond of his mid-to-high level casters opening with Greater Dispels. After all, that 11th level enemy cleric knows very well how much he can buff himself, why would he not expect the skilled adventurers who've made it into his guarded sanctuary to not be similarly protected? And other GM's who don't particularly ever use that particular spell... YMMV, right?

Also, the last line on Permanency:

Permanency wrote:
Spells cast on other targets are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal. The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent.

And another example, Demiplane can be made permanent, but can also be dispelled, although only from within the demiplane, and only through specific means and does not state that the one dispelling must be of higher level.

So even more restrictive, the only time it requires someone of higher caster level is when it's one of the specified 'personal' spells? Hide my 17th level wizard's lair, with his permanent symbol magical traps from the 7th level magus with arcane sight, spell recall and dispel magic! (just the lair. Said wizard would giggle, and proceed to rewrite reality as any wizard with 9th level spells can do).

...Anyone else feeling a desire for a ruling in favor of 'suppressed'?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With blood money it's not that big a deal anymore if it gets dispelled.

Silver Crusade

Er, hardly. How many arcane casters have, say, 15 points of strength to damage to permanency an Arcane sight? Blood money has to be cast first, and if the Str. damage would be more then the caster has strength, then the caster is knocked unconscious, doesn't get a chance to cast the permanency... Also, that might not work, considering the casting time of Permanency is 2 rounds, and Blood Money specifies that the created components turn back into blood at the end of the round if not used as a component by that time. Thoughts everyone? Would this spell work?

Sure, most casters have a fair chance of being able to use Blood Money and not get knocked out by trying to, say, get Darkvision, and it's a valid option for avoiding the 'wasted investment' argument I've made here -thank you, it's always good to know about more options- it's not a complete solution. Assuming it works in the first place, which I'm not sure it would.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The game developers have contradicted themselves over the casting time issue, Natrim. Currently, it seems to be up to the GM.


Natrim wrote:

Er, hardly. How many arcane casters have, say, 15 points of strength to damage to permanency an Arcane sight? Blood money has to be cast first, and if the Str. damage would be more then the caster has strength, then the caster is knocked unconscious, doesn't get a chance to cast the permanency... Also, that might not work, considering the casting time of Permanency is 2 rounds, and Blood Money specifies that the created components turn back into blood at the end of the round if not used as a component by that time. Thoughts everyone? Would this spell work?

Sure, most casters have a fair chance of being able to use Blood Money and not get knocked out by trying to, say, get Darkvision, and it's a valid option for avoiding the 'wasted investment' argument I've made here -thank you, it's always good to know about more options- it's not a complete solution. Assuming it works in the first place, which I'm not sure it would.

Summon Monster, Magic Jar, Blood Money + Spell. Though this doesn't work for Personal spells. For that you'll want to buff up your own strength.

Tongues is the most expensive personal spell, and would require 16 strength. If you start at 7 strength, that's quite easy to achieve. Bull's Strength (+4) and Form of the Dragon II (+6) for 17 strength. Plenty of other ways to do this though. Enough for casting and then healing.

Spell failure rules imply you waste the spell and in places that this includes all components (e.g. "as if you cast the spell to no effect"). That implies components are used up immediately when you start casting.

If you pretend the components stick around throughout the casting, Blood Money doesn't say that the casting needs to be done by the end of the round, just that you need to use the components to cast a spell. The verbiage there is unclear, as "cast a spell" can mean both having cast a spell as well as the process of casting a spell.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why wouldn't personal spells work? Don't personal spells target YOU whether your are polymorphed, physical, disembodied, or possessive?


Ravingdork wrote:
Why wouldn't personal spells work? Don't personal spells target YOU whether your are polymorphed, physical, disembodied, or possessive?

Hmm. If you cast shield and then magic jar, are you saying the shield follows you?

I guess the rules don't really say. I'd think it would stay with the body, but I can see how someone would decide it stays with the mind. Never thought of that before. Most spells certainly don't specify that sort of thing -- e.g. whether they are attached to the body or mind or whatever.

Hmm, you magic jar into a person 50' away. You cast Anti-Magic Field. What happens?

Silver Crusade

Drachasor: on the magic jar & antimagic, that's rather straight forward to answer, the antimagic field suppresses the spell/magical effect. Or prevents it from happening in the first place.

Antimagic Field wrote:

An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration.

(Bolding mine)

So you'd...leave an antimagic field on your target of possession from the magic jar. Which would presumably get it's soul back, but is stuck in an antimagic field, centered on them. That's actually rather clever. *applaud*

However, wouldn't a spell with a range of personal stay with the body of the caster? That is the 'You' described under the Range rules for spells, no? The person/body of the caster? I'd love to see a clarification on this though, because it is not clear at all.

Back to the Permanency, so the casting time issue comes down to a GM call. Hmm, I can see both potential rulings being useful/in the player's favor, as, say the blood money idea works (the components need only be there at the start of the casting of the spell) then, well, hey, blood money, or if not, then hey 'I'm casting a permanency without using blood money, and that patient rogue with ranks in Spellcraft uses the 2 round casting time to sneak attack, but hey, I didn't loose all those thousands of gold worth of diamond dust'. *shrug*


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:

PRD: Blood Money wrote:


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.
PRD: Permanency wrote:


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.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Natrim wrote:
However, wouldn't a spell with a range of personal stay with the body of the caster? That is the 'You' described under the Range rules for spells, no? The person/body of the caster? I'd love to see a clarification on this though, because it is not clear at all.

That is ultimately the question. One I hadn't considered before. Before the Raving One brought it up, I would have assumed it would stay with the body. Of course "you" isn't clearly defined.

Possibilities with Magic Jar + AMF:

1. AMF goes up on the creature, you are kicked back to the jar.

2. As per (1), but the creature is not "You" so the target is no longer valid. AMF ends.

3. As per (2), but when the AMF ends your possession is no longer suppressed and you are tossed back into the body. You just wasted a 6th level spell.

4. AMF stays with the "soul". It returns to the magic jar, suppresses that, and you are kicked back to your body with an AMF active around you.

Ordinarily I would think it is (1), but now (2) and (4) seem like possibilities that cannot be easily dismissed. (3) seems too questionable (in terms of mechanical implications) to allow.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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


Ilja wrote:

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.


Umbranus wrote:

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.

RAW is actually quite unclear. If it bothers you, then we'll have Blood Money used with Fabricate first. Because that's 100% rules legal!

Personally, if I was playing I'd avoid that particular can of worms.

In any case, it's really up to the DM how he wants to interpret the rules on this. I only brought it up because getting a permanent spell dispelled is really lame after all that investment, imho. Getting similar effects via magic items is not all that significantly different in price, I would note.


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.

The Exchange

Ruggs wrote:

I originally read this as:

Pregnancy: How Often Do You See That Spell?

...and my brain kind of broke.

You too? Obviously at a second glance I got the point, but my first impulse was, "Wow, even I'm not that evil as a GM!"

Anyhow... I tend to add a few spells with permanency to high-level NPC wizards when I stat 'em: they see no reason not to go around with arcane sight or comprehend languages in place. I don't think I've ever run a wizard of such a level as a PC, but if I did, the usual wizard mottos of "Be Prepared" and "Waste Nothing" would apply; the fact that my darkvision might be dispelled someday is no reason not to have it Right Now.


I don't want your blood money!


I tend to skip Permanency and pick up Limited Wish. It costs a bit more, but it allows a bit more versatility.


Ilja wrote:

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.

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.


Drachasor wrote:


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".


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Natrim wrote:


...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.


Ravingdork wrote:
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). :)


Ravingdork wrote:
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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've been trying to get a clear answer on the magic jar body/soul target issue for over two years.

1 to 50 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Permanency: How often do you see that spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.