|
Is there a reason permanency isn't legal? I know this has been on the banned list a while but as long as you stick to the standard list of spells allowed is it a problem? We already have a system for tracking conditions, gear purchases, and a small selection of allowed spells to persist between scenarios.
Is there a reason permanency isn't legal? I know this has been on the banned list a while but as long as you stick to the standard list of spells allowed is it a problem? We already have a system for tracking conditions, gear purchases, and a small selection of allowed spells to persist between scenarios.
Because it's one of those things that contributes to caster/martial disparity at high levels... the crap ton of permanent spells one can load up.
|
Is there a reason permanency isn't legal? I know this has been on the banned list a while but as long as you stick to the standard list of spells allowed is it a problem? We already have a system for tracking conditions, gear purchases, and a small selection of allowed spells to persist between scenarios.Because it's one of those things that contributes to caster/martial disparity at high levels... the crap ton of permanent spells one can load up.
That can't possibly be it. The official Paizo position is that there is no caster martial disparity.
And in a lot of ways permanency would help martials more than casters. They have to psy a bit more but they gain things thry couldn't othereise get
|
I imagine it's not legal for the same reason there's no crafting (of magic items) in PFS:
It'd be impossible to maintain a power by level baseline, and in turn it'd be impossible to write scenarios that aren't underpowered for some PCs yet be impossible for other PCs of the same level.
Also: through deliberate malfeasance or simple error, some hugely impactful and rules-illegal effects can get enshrined into a PC's career. "What do you mean I can't do X? GMs Y and Z let me do it when I played at their tables..." discussions already happen as is. They'd be more profound when you're talking about things that go above and beyond WBL.
|
|
The minimum caster level for most useful spells starts at 10 meaning it be late in a PFS character's career before they could have such an effect (as long as you made NPCs unable to use the spell.) It could also be house restricted to one permanent spell not unlike current effects which persist but we can only have 1 of. It also comes with a drawback of being dispelable and at significant material component costs (with no blood money option available now).
I think scenarios should already be assuming PCs are capable of pretty much anything in the 10+ tiers. It is rare that extended See Invisibility is different than Permanent See Invisibility.
I would be excited to see Permanency made legal with the restrictions of only having one permanent spell in effect and only for the spells specifically allowed by permanency.
|
|
Continual Flame, masterwork transformation, secret chest and secret page are actually more easily dispelled than permanency (which requires the dispel CL to exceed the permanency CL to even attempt a dispel check.) So it is just as practical if not more so to track currently.
This spell actually helps close the perceived martial and caster gap too. A caster can already use the spells required or make use of scrolls and wands to produce the desired effects more easily. A martial has to be pretty good at UMD or requires the caster to be present on that specific adventure to aid them. A single permanency spell makes them better equipped to handle a situation without a caster's help.
Many of the uses for it are very, very abusable. It really deserves the banhammer.
Such as? Again we wouldn't allow the "GM may allow other spells to be made permanent" clause because this creates unanticipated and probably undesired effects. But the standard list looks reasonable.
This spell actually helps close the perceived martial and caster gap too. A caster can already use the spells required or make use of scrolls and wands to produce the desired effects more easily. A martial has to be pretty good at UMD or requires the caster to be present on that specific adventure to aid them. A single permanency spell makes them better equipped to handle a situation without a caster's help.
Except that the spells that people most want for permananecy are Personal range only. So only caster types would benefit from this proposed change.
|
|
permanency plus (greater) magic fang or invisibility or a few other spells is crafting. Of course it is banned.
Invisibility ends if you attack. I guess you could choose to never attack again though. Might not go so well at 10+. Ring of Invisibility at least you can activate again and not lose thousands of gold.
Magic Fang I don't see the issue doesn't bypass DR.
I almost let myself get dragged into a debate about what is "more dispelable" but that's stupid and beside the point. Being more dispelable is a liability and a balancing factor in favor of its use if anything. It requires minimal tracking.
Except that the spells that people most want for permananecy are Personal range only. So only caster types would benefit from this proposed change.
There's a few spells that allow casters to possess bodies and which are available when permanency is available.
|
|
Many of the uses for it are very, very abusable. It really deserves the banhammer.Permanency is also weird in that it creates a permanent effect which requires gold which can also be dispelled off of you.
That's a weird corner case issue that might be more trouble than it's worth to track.
Well, yes, that too...
Geldling the Unchained Eidolon (whose awesome single bite attack is already magic) would really like a buff...
Spell casting service: Greater Magic Fang (CL 20) 600gp
Spell casting service: Permanency on "" (CL 20, 8,500gp)
for +5 to hit and damage from a permanent spell: 9,100gp
vs.
Amulet of Mighty Fists +5: 100,000gp
for +5 to hit & damage...
Permanency is also weird in that it creates a permanent effect which requires gold which can also be dispelled off of you.
That's a weird corner case issue that might be more trouble than it's worth to track.ITS page. Record "Permanent <spell> x gp" record chronicle purchased in appropriate box. If/when dispelled, record chronicle # in expended box.
Zero trouble.
Awesome.
Scenario-1:
"Permanent See Invisibility, 5,000gp, PF ######" as you said.
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some poor GM has to try to resolve what happens when that character is hit with a 16th level greater dispel, and of course they are SURE it must have been a 17th level caster ... 18th level caster ... maybe 19th level caster which cast the permanency?
Scenario-2:
"Permanent See Invisibility, 5,000gp, PF ######" as you said.
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some poor GM has to try to resolve what happens when that character is hit with a 16th level greater dispel. Fortunately, this time the PC has written down on the chronicle, "cast by Blammo!". This GM says "the cost should actually be a 5,850gp as you have to pay for Spellcasting Services" - so, no See Invisibility ... but wait, maybe it was 15th level casting... did you spend 2PP on it instead? ... well, if so that might be in a different spot than the gp purchases... in the meantime, the other players are composing emails about banning permanency again...
Scenario-3:
"Permanent Greater Magic Fang, 7,500gp, PF ######, +1,000gp for spell-casting services, cast by Woodsy the Wandering Druid on <date>"
Then at 1:45am on the Sunday of a convention slot some less charitable GM asks "which claw or bite" does Pouncehate the (chained) eidolon's permanent greater magic fang actually affect?
Your version of "zero trouble" and mine are apparently vastly different.
|
|
scenario 1: bought spells are always at the minimum level, there's no gray area there.
2) same
3) easy enough to write down.
I'm not seeing a problem there. (fluffy getting a +5 greater magic fang on his teeth followed by wearing a holy , shocking, acidy, frosty amulet of mighty fists on the other hand...)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
scenario 1: bought spells are always at the minimum level, there's no gray area there.
A tangent here: page 20 of the guide, Spellcasting Services, 4th bullet, speaks about purchasing spellcasting services from higher level casters.
If a character wants to ensure success with a spell that requires a caster level check or a specific caster level, hired spellcasters are able to cast spells at any caster level as appropriate, such as destroyed magic items that might require an extremely high caster level for make whole to repair them and restore their function. For example, remove curse requires a caster level check with a difficulty equal to the save DC for the curse; a caster level of 14 would be required to ensure success on a curse with a save DC of 15.
|
|
It was implied it did something when someone used it as a reason for ban, led me to think it did something, and I looked again and it continues to not do anything. Excellent.
So now that invis does nothing and we don't have a plethora of 20th casters for our magic fangs are there any other reasons? It seems like a reasonable spell again to be allowed in the campaign.
|
|
The season 8 guide allows the hiring of a 20th level caster for greater magic fang. That reduces the cost of the +5 amulet of might fists by 90,900 g.p.
I do not find that reasonable even before I have to start having to deal with cloaks of invisibility.
I don't know that greater magic fang requires a specific caster level to be cast allowing it to qualify for that clause in the guide. It also doesn't require a caster level check.
An invisible cloak makes you all the easier to see I guess.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
The season 8 guide allows the hiring of a 20th level caster for greater magic fang.I'm really not seeing that there. You can hire a greater spellcaster for condition removal and item fixing, i'm not seeing that option for buffs for hire.
I think it's more open-ended than that. "Ensure success" is what it's about, condition removal is the most obvious example.
I've had L12 mage armor cast on me before going into an adventure where I expected enemies to try dispelling random buffs on me, because if you're not trying to dispel specific things highest CL gets tried first. Sort of a dispel sponge.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
scenario 1: bought spells are always at the minimum level, there's no gray area there.
2) same
3) easy enough to write down.
I'm not seeing a problem there. (fluffy getting a +5 greater magic fang on his teeth followed by wearing a holy , shocking, acidy, frosty amulet of mighty fists on the other hand...)
Now add caster type, whether or not metamagic spells are used, and probably a few other things. In a regular campaign sure its feasible but in a game where there are numerous abilities that interact weirdly with magic its an accounting nightmare.
The season 8 guide allows the hiring of a 20th level caster for greater magic fang.I'm really not seeing that there. You can hire a greater spellcaster for condition removal and item fixing, i'm not seeing that option for buffs for hire.
And it's really not going to do you any good if the adventure begins days or weeks after you travel out of town.
|
|
The season 8 guide allows the hiring of a 20th level caster for greater magic fang.I'm really not seeing that there. You can hire a greater spellcaster for condition removal and item fixing, i'm not seeing that option for buffs for hire.I think it's more open-ended than that. "Ensure success" is what it's about, condition removal is the most obvious example.
I've had L12 mage armor cast on me before going into an adventure where I expected enemies to try dispelling random buffs on me, because if you're not trying to dispel specific things highest CL gets tried first. Sort of a dispel sponge.
The two named things after it have a d20 roll to try to remove the condition, thats the success they're talking about, not the success of your adventure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thread about the subdomain accidentally granting permanency reminded me of this thread. I still think with the right guidelines we could safely implement the spell into the campaign. Some of the rules already in place would allow it to work as is.
Again, aside from boosting the power level of arcane casters, there is little argument that making such a move would benefit the campaign as a whole.
|
|
Please, do not add permenancy to the campaign. The last thing we need is more ways for people to turn gold into permanent magical effects.
Genuine question, is it that different than items people already buy? Those are also permanent magical effects and there are far greater diversity in item choices than the list available for permanency.
The spell is available to anyone buy purchasing the spell casting service (no inequality in class access), the default permanency list is all that is available (clear and equal rules which limit unforeseen abuse), the rules already state these purchased spells must be at minimum caster level outside certain spells which require caster levels for success, and you would track this spell the same way you would track any of the other spells, conditions, and items which all persist between scenarios.
I don't agree that just because something has been banned in the past means it needs to remain so. I don't think there is a reason for this spell to be banned right now.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question has been brought up several times before.
I'm going to make the same statement I always make:
The simplest reason why permanency is banned is that it makes it harder to create a scenario which plays identically for every group. The issue is the same one that shows up all the time in organized play: You can adjust things to deal with player power in a home game with the same 4-6 players all the time but not in a campaign with thousands of widely separated people.
How do you design a scenario if things can be permanent? You basically have to assume that every wizard or sorcerer of 10th level has permanent see invisibility. And that a lot of 9th level melee types will be permanently enlarged. (Enlarge person is uniquely difficult in that only the caster can dismiss it. If you find yourself needing to get through a small space and the spell was cast on you in a previous scenario, you may have to wait outside and not get to participate.) To counter these assumptions you have to ramp up the difficulty somewhat. But the encounter becomes very hard for those that don't have them.
And a very big thing is that you've taken away dispel magic as a possible spell for any NPC to have memorized. Because the first time a permanent see invisibility is dispelled every player that happens to is going to cry foul about being "cheated" out of 5000 gp.