If my DM allows it, would a fair price to make True Seeing permanent be 15,000gp, the same as Symbol of Fear, which is the same level?
Thanks!
My gut reaction is hopefully that is a big "if" in 'If my DM allows it'. Otherwise I see no variation in cost to account for things like Material and Focus components (and the Symbol of Fear is actually more costly in this respect anyway) so yes it would seem "fair". Not sure about how wise ... but not my campaign or decision either. Who knows you may suddenly find yourself the target of more Dispel Magics than previously.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Considering an ITEM that allows you to get the effect of permanent true seeing costs 184 000 gp, 15000 is WAY too low. It is one of the most powerful spells in the game (despite it's level) and I personally, would not let it be permanecied at less than 360 000gp, since this is basically the previous item, but SLOTLESS.
The item:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/goggl es-truesight
There is a reason there is a limited amount of spells allowed by permanency.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I have to totally agree with williamoak, That spell is way too powerful for 15,000gp to even touch.
williamoak wrote: Considering an ITEM that allows you to get the effect of permanent true seeing costs 184 000 gp, 15000 is WAY too low. It is one of the most powerful spells in the game (despite it's level) and I personally, would not let it be permanecied at less than 360 000gp, since this is basically the previous item, but SLOTLESS.
The item:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/e-g/goggl es-truesight
There is a reason there is a limited amount of spells allowed by permanency.
Well there is one substantial difference ... it can be dispelled and bye bye to the effect (not suppressed like would happen to the Goggles). But your reasoning is exactly why I have my doubts on the wisdom of allowing such a permanency. Cost aside True Seeing is well above the required caster level and spell level of the other vision enhancing spells allowed in the description of Permanency. If this were the "Advice" forum I'd be saying "Bad idea".
EDIT: PS: 360,000 gp is well into the territory considered 'Epic' by 3.5 rules for magic item creation. And I say that as another indication why this is probably a bad idea to allow True Seeing to be made Permanent. 180,000 gp itself is nearly into that territory.
While not perfect I would prefer see invisibility and arcane sight instead. It's slightly cheaper, and covers most of what you'll need...
Generally anything that will fool those spells is going to fool true seeing too, and this way it's spread between two spells so getting rid of everything is a bit harder.
Mage's disjunction can destroy the magic item, too. Nothing is permanent in Pathfinder.
williamoak wrote: Considering an ITEM that allows you to get the effect of permanent true seeing costs 184 000 gp, 15000 is WAY too low. +1
If the GM is listening, just say no.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Buri wrote: Mage's disjunction can destroy the magic item, too. Nothing is permanent in Pathfinder. That's a far cry from dispel magic, though, something that any party is likely to see somewhat frequently if they battle casters and have a recognizable caster in their party.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Buri wrote: Mage's disjunction can destroy the magic item, too. Nothing is permanent in Pathfinder. True, but you have an item:
"Can be destroyed magically, but only by a level 9 spell, and only by a wizard or sorc, and it gets a Will save." That costs 184,000 GP.
Or you have a permanent spell:
"Can be dispelled by almost every class that gets spells, and a common SLA, with a dispel check."
The spell is slotless, but far more vulnerable.
The simplest comparison, though, is resistance. Costs 2500 for the spell, or 1000 for a cloak. It's not just the slotlessness in and of itself, it's the fact that you can have infinite slotless effects, and true seeing is incredibly powerful when available permanently, rather than for a few minutes per casting.
Buri wrote: Mage's disjunction can destroy the magic item, too. Nothing is permanent in Pathfinder. I don't ultimately think anything is permanent especially in a world of fanatasy and magic ... even a concept might be 'destroyed'. In addition to Disjunction there's Disintegrate, Acid Fog, Wish and Miracle all of which clearly have the ability to destroy magic items (i.e. objects, but see a recent thread in this forum concerning unattended vs attended items). There are creatures capable of destroying magic items without using any of the spells above. Magic items for that matter can be Sundered, something that can't happen to the True Seeing made permanent. In fact, in theory, any spell which causes hp damage could in fact destroy a magic item (starting with target fails rolling a 1 on the save etc.). Even getting destroyed is not necessarily a permanent thing (i.e. Make Whole). In this case that works against Permanent True Seeing, while it can't be Sundered it also can't be subject to Make Whole.
The general problem of answering the question posted is while Permanency indicates that other spells might be made permanent it gives very few real guidelines. The costs near as I can tell are not effected by things like the material component, focus or the base spells duration. It starts at 9th for 2500gp and increments upward by a flat 2500gp for each increase in minimum necessary caster level (which also appears to be a very simple pattern, anyone see an exception?). Couple of the allowed spells aren't even on the Sor/Wiz spell list they're off a divine caster list --> Magic Fang and Greater Magic Fang, so how does one even make them permanent as the Wizard can't do this: You first cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell.?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The argument is that the party is more likely to be hit by dispel magic than mage's disjunction, not that they could not be hit by the latter. Will you argue that in all but a vanishingly small minority of games, dispel magic is cheaper and more prevalent than mage's disjunction?
The cost of the effect reflects that. A magic item is not truly permanent--nothing is--but it is more permanent than permanency.
Besides, the window when you are vulnerable to Disjunction and can't cast Aroden's Spellbane is small (assuming the latter is allowed, which it should be, because Disjunction is ridiculous hax).
Drachasor wrote: Besides, the window when you are vulnerable to Disjunction and can't cast Aroden's Spellbane is small (assuming the latter is allowed, which it should be, because Disjunction is ridiculous hax). You just convinced me to allow Disjunction, by presenting me to that spell. Thank you for that.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mage's disjunction is ridiculous hax? It's a 9th level spell. This is one of the strongest magics a mortal wizard can bring forth. It's supposed to be ridiculous hax.
It's more powerful than most other 9th level spells. If you fight anyone that uses buffs or magic items, then it should be the very first offensive spell you cast. You need to prepare defenses against it in particular as well -- which is not true of most 9th level spells.
It shuts down enemy magic items, buffs, etc. That's the biggest potential debuff possible in the game, especially considering no save for buffs.
In 3.5 it was considered a Nuclear Option because it was ridiculously powerful but it destroyed magic items. Terrible to use on players or enemies, but very, very powerful. PF changed it so the magic items are just temporarily depowered, which means there's no reason NOT to use it on enemies who have them.
It was bad in 3.5 and worse in PF. Too powerful even for a 9th level spell.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drachasor wrote: It's more powerful than most other 9th level spells. If you fight anyone that uses buffs or magic items, then it should be the very first offensive spell you cast. You need to prepare defenses against it in particular as well -- which is not true of most 9th level spells.
It shuts down enemy magic items, buffs, etc. That's the biggest potential debuff possible in the game, especially considering no save for buffs.
In 3.5 it was considered a Nuclear Option because it was ridiculously powerful but it destroyed magic items. Terrible to use on players or enemies, but very, very powerful. PF changed it so the magic items are just temporarily depowered, which means there's no reason NOT to use it on enemies who have them.
It was bad in 3.5 and worse in PF. Too powerful even for a 9th level spell.
The good disjunction spell swings both ways. No reason for the enemy casters not to use it on YOU either.
LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: It's more powerful than most other 9th level spells. If you fight anyone that uses buffs or magic items, then it should be the very first offensive spell you cast. You need to prepare defenses against it in particular as well -- which is not true of most 9th level spells.
It shuts down enemy magic items, buffs, etc. That's the biggest potential debuff possible in the game, especially considering no save for buffs.
In 3.5 it was considered a Nuclear Option because it was ridiculously powerful but it destroyed magic items. Terrible to use on players or enemies, but very, very powerful. PF changed it so the magic items are just temporarily depowered, which means there's no reason NOT to use it on enemies who have them.
It was bad in 3.5 and worse in PF. Too powerful even for a 9th level spell.
The good disjunction spell swings both ways. No reason for the enemy casters not to use it on YOU either. Yes, and so definitely it should be the first offensive spell cast by any enemy caster that can cast it.
When a spell is so good that everyone should take it and use it...that's how you know it is overpowered.
Drachasor wrote: LazarX wrote: Drachasor wrote: It's more powerful than most other 9th level spells. If you fight anyone that uses buffs or magic items, then it should be the very first offensive spell you cast. You need to prepare defenses against it in particular as well -- which is not true of most 9th level spells.
It shuts down enemy magic items, buffs, etc. That's the biggest potential debuff possible in the game, especially considering no save for buffs.
In 3.5 it was considered a Nuclear Option because it was ridiculously powerful but it destroyed magic items. Terrible to use on players or enemies, but very, very powerful. PF changed it so the magic items are just temporarily depowered, which means there's no reason NOT to use it on enemies who have them.
It was bad in 3.5 and worse in PF. Too powerful even for a 9th level spell.
The good disjunction spell swings both ways. No reason for the enemy casters not to use it on YOU either. Yes, and so definitely it should be the first offensive spell cast by any enemy caster that can cast it.
When a spell is so good that everyone should take it and use it...that's how you know it is overpowered. Exactly my point for banning it from my games. Now that it has a counter (it didn't before) I might be convinced to let it back in... MIGHT.
It can permanently destroy a single magic item. The item even takes -5 to its save.
*dirty, dirty thoughts using mage's disjunction to ruin a wizard's shiny toys*
This is when you teach your players to counterspell the evil Abjurer.
Or you play an arcanist who can counter your counter as an immediate action supernatural ability so that it, itself, can't be counterspelled.
Trump. Oooo.... haha j/k :)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
One of the first thing any self-respecting caster with 9th level spells does is pick up Aroden's Spellbane, targeting Mage's Disjunction, Maze and a couple of other things, depending on your particular weaknesses.
Thus, casters with 9th level spells (and their allies within range) can't be disjuncted.
Dispel magic is the first spell I cast in any combat with a caster, and all of my casters keep it handy. Clearly, dispel magic is too powerful.
blahpers wrote: Dispel magic is the first spell I cast in any combat with a caster, and all of my casters keep it handy. Clearly, dispel magic is too powerful. Why on earth would that be your first spell? It can dispel a grand total of ONE spell... Not enough for me to waste my spell slots on it on a regular basis.
Before Aroden's Spellbane, Mages Disjunction was almost an automatic win (and at least better than any other 9th lvl spell). When Aroden's Spellbane was made, suddenly Mage's Disjunction went from completely insane to still very acceptable.
Lifat wrote: blahpers wrote: Dispel magic is the first spell I cast in any combat with a caster, and all of my casters keep it handy. Clearly, dispel magic is too powerful. Why on earth would that be your first spell? It can dispel a grand total of ONE spell... Not enough for me to waste my spell slots on it on a regular basis.
Before Aroden's Spellbane, Mages Disjunction was almost an automatic win (and at least better than any other 9th lvl spell). When Aroden's Spellbane was made, suddenly Mage's Disjunction went from completely insane to still very acceptable. Assuming everyone gets Aroden's Spellbane and prepares it for Mage's Disjunction. And they need to stay near the Spellbane caster. So...I think it is still a pretty awful situation.
Wow
1) Be aware of the opponent's capabilities. If they are capable of casting Disjunction do not enter the fight buffed to heck and gone unless you are prepared to lose them all. There's a reason I routinely memorize Greater Magic Weapon at high level. This is one of them.
2) The magic items on the target all get Will saves to avoid being suppressed. Will saves vs a spell caster? Not sure that will end up more effective than hitting them with Greater Dispel and its caster level check.
3) Don't let the Disjunction caster hit everyone, it's a burst not a spread. Use (or create) cover. Make the Disjoiner expend resources to NOT hit an illusion.
4) In addition to Spellbane, there's AMF, Ready Action (Teleportation magic of choice) and/or counter-spelling (and probably other options I haven't thought of off the top of my head).
5) And of course what seems to be all casters favorite option ... Go First.
Call me crazy, but when one spell dominates tactical considerations, then that's pretty clearly unbalanced to me.
If it does for many players of differing styles of game play then likely yes it needs tweaking or perhaps other spells 'around it' need tweaking (i.e. should it really one-shot destroy a Prismatic Sphere). But in the case of Disjunction I've never really felt my characters tactical thinking was dominated by the spell. Yes it is a potent, powerful and scary nasty spell but I no more worried about it generally than any other debuff/controlling spell. It probably inspired more consideration as a GM used tool much along the lines of Sunder ... one nasty streak of luck and a characters favorite item may get destroyed while leaving the player feeling deliberately targeted.
Are Fly and Overland Flight overpowered? They probably dominate my tactical thinking far more than Disjunction particularly outdoors. Stealth, Darkness and Invisibility type spells again dominate my thinking more. Disintegrate and death effects again probably altered my thinking on which spells to select when leveling and what sort of magic items to try to obtain more than Disjunction ever has.
Being prepared to deal with Disjunction and thinking about it tactically is not the same as it dominating my thinking.
There are dozens of ways to get flight, stealth, darkness, invisiblity, etc. In fact, any character can get them and get ways to deal with them.
Disjunction is not like that. It's something only one spell list gets and that only one spell list can defend against. That' dramatically different from your other examples. It's also overwhelmingly powerful able to strip away defenses against all other big concerns. Defense against it is extremely limited and specific as well.
There are several ways to get it. Spellscar oracles are one way to get it. Yes, you can cast that as divine clad in armor with no penalty.
Drachasor wrote: There are dozens of ways to get flight, stealth, darkness, invisiblity, etc. In fact, any character can get them and get ways to deal with them. Kind of my point. Lot more time and thought put into something when it's a far more common situation or threat. Even in high level play a foe able to use Disjunction isn't exactly common ... one that flies or uses stealth not so much.
Quote: Disjunction is not like that. It's something only one spell list gets and that only one spell list can defend against. That' dramatically different from your other examples. It's also overwhelmingly powerful able to strip away defenses against all other big concerns. Defense against it is extremely limited and specific as well. Can't agree with most of this. Very little of my 'list' above is very specific or particular to a class. "Use (or create) cover" is a pretty darn universal tactical ability and works against a lot of things besides Disjunction. While I agree it is a very dangerous and potent 9th level spell it's also a long long long way from an "I WIN" button in my experience.
Disjunction has been around from the beginning why on earth would you get rid of it? It exists for a reason just like anti-magic. The point is that if you can make powerful magic you should also be able to get rid of powerful magic. The only time it'd be a problem is if you let your players use it to death. Stick them in a null magic or wild magic zone or use it against them repeatedly, they'll stop. Or make things that it won't matter, oh hey no magic treasure! As to True Seeing considering that it costs 250gp per casting it's not a spell that should EVER be made permanent.
Kayerloth wrote: Drachasor wrote: There are dozens of ways to get flight, stealth, darkness, invisiblity, etc. In fact, any character can get them and get ways to deal with them. Kind of my point. Lot more time and thought put into something when it's a far more common situation or threat. Even in high level play a foe able to use Disjunction isn't exactly common ... one that flies or uses stealth not so much. Except if the party or foe can use it, then it dominates everything.
Kayerloth wrote: Quote: Disjunction is not like that. It's something only one spell list gets and that only one spell list can defend against. That' dramatically different from your other examples. It's also overwhelmingly powerful able to strip away defenses against all other big concerns. Defense against it is extremely limited and specific as well. Can't agree with most of this. Very little of my 'list' above is very specific or particular to a class. "Use (or create) cover" is a pretty darn universal tactical ability and works against a lot of things besides Disjunction. While I agree it is a very dangerous and potent 9th level spell it's also a long long long way from an "I WIN" button in my experience.
Unless you are creating cover as an immediate action and can have it completely surround you (at which point...what do you do AFTER that?), then it isn't nearly as useful against disjunction as you seem to think it is. A burst can be centered to go off behind you, in which case that cover in front of you isn't doing anything.
Completely stripping all buffs and disabling a high number of magical items in a standard action is far and away the most powerful debuff in the game. It's far more powerful than other 9th level debuffs (or buffs, for that matter).
And my point exactly was that Disjunction is very unique in that it is pretty specific in who can use it, yet you always have to be ready for it once you get high enough. You aren't always going to know for sure the enemy can't use it, and if they can and you aren't ready...the results won't be pretty. There's not nearly so much you can do to defend against it as you think.
Drachasor wrote: ... Unless you are creating cover as an immediate action and can have it completely surround you (at which point...what do you do AFTER that?), then it isn't nearly as useful against disjunction as you seem to think it is. A burst can be centered to go off behind you, in which case that cover in front of you isn't doing anything. ... Hopefully, however, by following the advice one or more party members did not get hit by the same burst. Hitting all the members of a party with a burst should not be as easy as hitting the same party with a spread effect unless the area has little or no cover to utilize. That was point of advice.
Getting stripped of my buffs and having a number of random magic items suppressed for the fight doesn't change things for my wizard offensively all that much. If my foe didn't win initiative then he likely has some hard choices to make when deciding whether stipping off my buffs takes a higher priority than doing something which might actually prevent me from hitting him with another round of spells. Can the random loss of a specific magic item hurt me ... absolutely, lose extradimensional access to any of several items and I might have my choices narrowed quite a bit. But the spell as powerful as it is doesn't suppress my ability to use spells or the 'fighter' from swinging his sword (backed by all those feats even if luck means it's now masterwork effectively). The foe is still well behind the curve ball of action economy and Haste like effects are about the only thing Disjunction is likely effecting where action economy is concerned (and Haste rather notably does not effect spell casting itself).
Kayerloth wrote: Drachasor wrote: ... Unless you are creating cover as an immediate action and can have it completely surround you (at which point...what do you do AFTER that?), then it isn't nearly as useful against disjunction as you seem to think it is. A burst can be centered to go off behind you, in which case that cover in front of you isn't doing anything. ... Hopefully, however, by following the advice one or more party members did not get hit by the same burst. Hitting all the members of a party with a burst should not be as easy as hitting the same party with a spread effect unless the area has little or no cover to utilize. That was point of advice.
Getting stripped of my buffs and having a number of random magic items suppressed for the fight doesn't change things for my wizard offensively all that much. If my foe didn't win initiative then he likely has some hard choices to make when deciding whether stipping off my buffs takes a higher priority than doing something which might actually prevent me from hitting him with another round of spells. Can the random loss of a specific magic item hurt me ... absolutely, lose extradimensional access to any of several items and I might have my choices narrowed quite a bit. But the spell as powerful as it is doesn't suppress my ability to use spells or the 'fighter' from swinging his sword (backed by all those feats even if luck means it's now masterwork effectively). The foe is still well behind the curve ball of action economy and Haste like effects are about the only thing Disjunction is likely effecting where action economy is concerned (and Haste rather notably does not effect spell casting itself). Getting stripped of around 6-12 buffs including very important defensive buffs is a pretty massive deal. Behind an the action economy? You have to be joking. They just obliterated minutes of buffing in one standard action. Now you're vulnerable to energy drain. Now you're vulnerable to mind control. The fighter has probably had his damage cut in half at the very least -- and that might well include his capability for dealing with damage reduction; he'll fail the vast majority of his saves to keep his magical items active, as will most with poor will saves.
Your wizard might have lost a bunch of prepared spells if he failed the save for his headband. But that said, Wizards have a decent chance of making the save overall.
Still, there's a good chance susceptibility to save-or-lose effects has gone up a great deal. Losing Cloaks of Resistance matters quite a bit. Of course, if you lost whatever buff or item protects you from grapples, you might end up not casting very much.
Seems like you aren't very familiar with how important buffs are at high levels.
Yes I've just lost 12 or so spells, most of which are long duration buffs (often day long or better by the time I'm likely facing a foe capable of Disjunction).
As to the action economy yes I overlooked the loss of the buffs ... but I also think counting the long duration 'daily' buffs largely doesn't apply. Unless it is a long term buff I badly need to recast during the encounter *shrug* i.e. I really don't care if he has stripped me of Detect Scrying or Non-detection at this point. Mind Blank perhaps but I have gone many an encounter without the benefit of Mind Blank (a high Will save has its advantages)
He has cost me Haste, Displacement and perhaps anywhere from 1 or 2 other spells to several more short duration buffs depending on the circumstances of the encounter but then again see my first piece of advice above. Assuming I'm totally boned however by the loss of those buffs means I'm also totally boned by getting surprised by a foe as well. Don't know about you but while I try not to get surprised I also try to set myself up so getting surprised is a survivable happenstance.
Minutes (really?) of buffs I can only hope is hyperbole assuming they are standard action cast times or you are playing a very different style of game than I am.
So again yes getting hit by Disjunction is a very nasty effect. So is getting hit by a Maximized Disintegrate or Meteor Swarm or ... any other 9th level spell (never mind the possibility the foe just hit me with both given the presence of Quicken). Because that is quite possibly what is going to happen to him, he is very likely to be eating 4+ spells from myself and my two companions the next round (2 arcane casters each with Quicken) and getting Disjoined isn't going to change that output much was the point of action economy statement.
Frankly from what I've read lately I'd be more concerned about getting double tapped by a buffed up pair of Dazing spells.
Quote: Stick them in a null magic or wild magic zone Try a malfunctioning Mythal/wild magic area ... my Living City Archer can tell you he'd much rather have suffered through getting Disjoined than dealing with randomness that dealt to his equipment and buffs (and the ability to rebuff).
Anyway tangent done, we are starting to run in circles.
If someone casts Disjunction on me, I'd just planeshift and gate the enemy in. They'll be under my control with no save and you just murder them.
Disjunction is just not as good as broken spells like gate.
Rikkan wrote: If someone casts Disjunction on me, I'd just planeshift and gate the enemy in. They'll be under my control with no save and you just murder them.
Disjunction is just not as good as broken spells like gate.
Though you need to know the subjects name, fork over 10,000 gold and you have to have a higher caster lvl than their HD.
Rikkan wrote: If someone casts Disjunction on me, I'd just planeshift and gate the enemy in. They'll be under my control with no save and you just murder them.
Disjunction is just not as good as broken spells like gate.
Except basically no DM would ever let you use Gate that way (or at least not let you do it twice). It's also clearly not how the spell was intended to work.
On the other hand, Disjunction's brokenness comes from using it precisely how it was intended. So in practical terms, Disjunction is probably worse.
Is there some reason you felt the need to play a "what spell is the most broken" game? It's kind of irrelevant.
Drachasor wrote: Rikkan wrote: If someone casts Disjunction on me, I'd just planeshift and gate the enemy in. They'll be under my control with no save and you just murder them.
Disjunction is just not as good as broken spells like gate.
Except basically no DM would ever let you use Gate that way (or at least not let you do it twice). It's also clearly not how the spell was intended to work.
On the other hand, Disjunction's brokenness comes from using it precisely how it was intended. So in practical terms, Disjunction is probably worse.
Is there some reason you felt the need to play a "what spell is the most broken" game? It's kind of irrelevant. To be fair, I kinda forgot what the thread was about alltogether.. what does any of this have to do with making true seeing permanent ?
AnnoyingOrange wrote: Drachasor wrote: Rikkan wrote: If someone casts Disjunction on me, I'd just planeshift and gate the enemy in. They'll be under my control with no save and you just murder them.
Disjunction is just not as good as broken spells like gate.
Except basically no DM would ever let you use Gate that way (or at least not let you do it twice). It's also clearly not how the spell was intended to work.
On the other hand, Disjunction's brokenness comes from using it precisely how it was intended. So in practical terms, Disjunction is probably worse.
Is there some reason you felt the need to play a "what spell is the most broken" game? It's kind of irrelevant. To be fair, I kinda forgot what the thread was about alltogether.. what does any of this have to do with making true seeing permanent ? Err, someone will disjunction it?
Easier to just make a simulacrum of something with True Seeing always on, then take it's soul and put it into something easier to heal (and expendable). Well, assuming it has a soul. The game's a bit vague on what has souls and what doesn't. Like...can you make a Soulbound doll of a puppy?
Gating and Lesser Planar Ally would be too expensive for such services, relatively.
Anyhow, 15k per permanent true seeing, if allowed. So after 6 dispels it is the same cost as Goggles of Truesight (if you make them yourself).
Or you could just go around with a Symbol of Revelation if one wanted. Though I guess you'd want a permanent version for 10k (since a temporary one is 1k). Just put it away if combat starts, or having it covered up and periodically expose it for a round (cover will block dispels). That's a cheap solution that does most of the same stuff...and it helps everyone in the party.
We did get a little off track though. This isn't the thread to go into how it is bad if everyone loses their buffs, and everyone with a bad will save loses most of their magic items...then you're pretty screwed.
Umbral Reaver wrote: One of the first thing any self-respecting caster with 9th level spells does is pick up Aroden's Spellbane, targeting Mage's Disjunction, Maze and a couple of other things, depending on your particular weaknesses.
Thus, casters with 9th level spells (and their allies within range) can't be disjuncted.
I, for one, would rule that a spellbane keyed to disjunction would have the same probability of being disjoined as an antimagic field (1% per caster level of the disjunction), as long as the disjunction is cast from outside the spellbane area (it certainly couldn't be cast within the area); which would mean that spellbane does not grant you total immunity to disjunction (it still grants you a much greater degree of protection, particularly since the disjunction can't affect anything inside the spellbane area unless it successfully disjoins the spellbane effect).
Regarding true seeing and permanency, I agree with many of the other comments here that 15,000 is certainly too low. However, I also believe that 360,000 is excessive, particularly considering permanency is much more vulnerable to dispelling than the goggles. I'd probably put the price at around 100,000; maybe slightly less.
The goggles can get plucked off your face pretty easily* even by non casters, which is less the case for permanent buffs. The “but it gets dispelled so easily” line of argument is not news relative to permanencied buffs, but they are still in general more expensive than equivalent slotted magic items.
*mileage is prone to being highly variable
If the enemy is close enough to pluck off your goggles, you've already messed up in a major way.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
