|
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.Permanency spell has been out(banned) of the organized play campaign from the onset (7-8 years). Several people have pointed out that it is currently not available.
Permanency IS a less expensive way to gain semi-permanent spell effects compared to a magic item. PFS is all about cost (every PC pays for everything). Anything that circumvents normal costs is going to get banned (eventually). Amusingly I don't know why clearly overpriced items aren't banned. Shoot, PFS doesn't have magic item crafting and some GMs complain when a familiar pulls out a wand. IMO handling permanency is a wart that PFS just isn't going to do, ever.
First line is why I suggest the rule should be examined. Legacy rule of the campaign but outdated in my opinion.
I don't agree that it is clearly less expensive. Permanency See Invisibility (since people are using this in their examples) costs 450 + 5000 gp. A wand of the same spell costs 4500 gp. A wand of see invis provides 1500 hours of See Invis. This is no small amount and will most likely cover the entirety of games you play from the time you could purchase it through seeker tiers. The wand can even be used by allies as well so they can gain the benefits. If it is dispelled simply cast another.
Honestly I can't speak on behalf of scenario design. I have tried my hand at creating an encounter but I assumed the party is ridiculously prepared. The fact is if scenario writers are NOT assuming people have access to a spell you get at 3rd level at 10+ there is a disconnect between what they are writing and the game itself. I still don't know what kind of difficulty ramp you are referring to. If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the difference that I have to 'ramp it up' for from a design perspective?
Items can be sundered, destroyed by acid, fireballs, or characters can die and lose wealth by level too. Dispeling permanency is just a drawback for the benefits people chose much like the drawbacks other items face. People complain when all those things happen. They are still here.
|
Using a wand takes an action (and often some skill points in UMD); permenant spell doesn't. Messing with action economy also messes with scenario design.
Of course, the reason every scenario doesn't assume everyone is ridiculously prepared is that, campaign-wide, most people aren't. A lot of PFS is run at conventions for new players. A lot of groups don't optimize their PCs. Assuming a higher level of player skill leads to dead newbies and ultimately kills the campaign.
This is a design feature of an Organized Play campaign, not a disconnect. When I was more involved at the campaign level I got to see a much bigger cross-section of the player base than my own group. Once I realized the (perhaps obvious) fact that the campaign wasn't just for me and my group, a lot of decisions made a lot more sense.
|
If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the difference
A wand of See Invisibility is 25 hours.
(50 charges) x (Caster Level 3) x (10 minutes)
|
|
If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the differenceA wand of See Invisibility is 25 hours.
(50 charges) x (Caster Level 3) x (10 minutes)
Yikes I meant minutes, its 1500 minutes. That's what I get for waking up and typing. Still if you use a couple charges a scenario (this is a pretty aggressive use of see invis) you'll probably never run out as I said.
Example: Using 3 charges a scenario (90 minutes) after buying it as soon as you reached 7 you would still have charges remaining into seeker tier. This can be divided up to allies as needed too.
|
|
If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the differenceA wand of See Invisibility is 25 hours.
(50 charges) x (Caster Level 3) x (10 minutes)
Yikes I meant minutes, its 1500 minutes. That's what I get for waking up and typing. Still if you use a couple charges a scenario (this is a pretty aggressive use of see invis) you'll probably never run out as I said.
Example: Using 3 charges a scenario (90 minutes) after buying it as soon as you reached 7 you would still have charges remaining into seeker tier. This can be divided up to allies as needed too.
One of the examples in the linked threads describes an invisible creature that spies on the party over an extended period of time. The author can assume that the party will be unaware of it until suspicions lead to that possibility, at which point they can confront the creature.
But that storyline would be disrupted with permanent See Invisibility.
Nobody walks around burning through one wand a day. You use it when you suspect you'll need it.
|
If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the differenceA wand of See Invisibility is 25 hours.
(50 charges) x (Caster Level 3) x (10 minutes)
Yikes I meant minutes, its 1500 minutes. That's what I get for waking up and typing. Still if you use a couple charges a scenario (this is a pretty aggressive use of see invis) you'll probably never run out as I said.
Example: Using 3 charges a scenario (90 minutes) after buying it as soon as you reached 7 you would still have charges remaining into seeker tier. This can be divided up to allies as needed too.
One of the examples in the linked threads describes an invisible creature that spies on the party over an extended period of time. The author can assume that the party will be unaware of it until suspicions lead to that possibility, at which point they can confront the creature.
But that storyline would be disrupted with permanent See Invisibility.
Nobody walks around burning through one wand a day. You use it when you suspect you'll need it.
Just get an improved familiar with a constant see invisibility. ^_~ Disrupt all the storylines!
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I play a lot of casters and extended see invis from a rod is pretty standard. I like the 2 pp 5 use scroll idea though.
I've never seen it be at all useful or weirdly necessary outside of one?? two??? scenarios. Usually, they find some worst way to gain total concealment that completely negates that spell.
|
|
I play a lot of casters and extended see invis from a rod is pretty standard. I like the 2 pp 5 use scroll idea though.I've never seen it be at all useful or weirdly necessary outside of one?? two??? scenarios. Usually, they find some worst way to gain total concealment that completely negates that spell.
A variety of devils, genies, fey, undead, serpent, and undead monsters can often use invisibility slas. Enough that it is useful in dangerous combats. That is why I said even abnormally aggressive use of the spell from a wand is still cheaper than getting it made permanent. I think it is perceived to be more cost effective than it really is at least for the practical amount of time you would have the spell up in a relevant area.
|
|
Where I play tends to be pretty well prepared even if the tone of the games has shifted a little in recent years (winding down from seasons 4-5 and the beginning of 6 to how it is now). Adding additional options gives more opportunity for people to also have their characters prepared for the challenges they meet.
Generally leadership allows options unless it would meet certain criteria which wouldn't fit the campaign. I suspect this banning is a holdover from a time where we had less clear rules for spell-casting services, spells and effects which persist between scenarios, and a developed scenario design structure and philosophy. As such I think permanency should be re-examined.
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 7 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.
This covers some good reasons why permanency is not a regular part of the organized play campaign. I'm very doubtful that we'd overturn the spell's ban.
|
A variety of devils, genies, fey, undead, serpent, and undead monsters can often use invisibility slas. Enough that it is useful in dangerous combats. That is why I said even abnormally aggressive use of the spell from a wand is still cheaper than getting it made permanent. I think it is perceived to be more cost effective than it really is at least for the practical amount of time you would have the spell up in a relevant area.I suspect that the online crowd are just really very paranoid and miss no opportunity to prebuff wherever possible. I see it less in face to face convention games which more often have players with a slightly more casual approach to things.
Quite true. My use of prebuffs has increased with my knowledge of the system, although I do generally wait until my character has a reason to cast them. (hour/level go up at the start of the adventure past 5th or 6th level, 10/level go up when delving a dungeon, min/level when I think I'll need them.) There really is no reason not to have endure elements, life bubble, or other such buffs up when you have access to them.
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John's spoken; we're good.
But let me ask: if the campaign allowed each PC to carry a single permanencied spell, which one do you think would be most often employed? Magic fang?
It's worth noting that my input here doesn't represent a team decision ex cathedra; it's my advising that it's unlikely to change. You're welcome to make cogent arguments for its inclusion, and we'll read and weigh them.
There are numerous decisions made by past developers and campaign administrators that the current team has revised or overturned, often because we're acting with the hindsight of having seen a well-intentioned policy in action (sometimes our very own). If you're arguing for the addition of permanency based on the idea that opinions have evolved with time, you might be disappointed; I suspect banning permanency makes as much sense today as it did at the campaign's earliest days.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus it always lends itself to a great boon on a Chronicle sheet especially if you can control which spell can be made permanent. Imagine a chronicle where one of the rewards was the person make one item of your choice, excepting something like weapons, invisible.
Something like that might work and be a lot of fun to play around with.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
A variety of devils, genies, fey, undead, serpent, and undead monsters can often use invisibility slas. Enough that it is useful in dangerous combats. That is why I said even abnormally aggressive use of the spell from a wand is still cheaper than getting it made permanent. I think it is perceived to be more cost effective than it really is at least for the practical amount of time you would have the spell up in a relevant area.I suspect that the online crowd are just really very paranoid and miss no opportunity to prebuff wherever possible. I see it less in face to face convention games which more often have players with a slightly more casual approach to things.
Its less that and more its really not that annoying to deal with. I've seen worst tactics in the new evergreen though in fairness they do give you the item to counteract it.
|
|
Just from my own experience, I have my investigator pop an extract of see invisibility right as we're about to enter a dungeon/ruin/potentially dangerous area all the time. L10 for 100 minutes. Oh, there's an ambush hidden by invisibility? Sorry about that ...If a player always has see invis from a wand (1500 hours) and another always has it from a permanency what is the differenceA wand of See Invisibility is 25 hours.
(50 charges) x (Caster Level 3) x (10 minutes)
Yikes I meant minutes, its 1500 minutes. That's what I get for waking up and typing. Still if you use a couple charges a scenario (this is a pretty aggressive use of see invis) you'll probably never run out as I said.
Example: Using 3 charges a scenario (90 minutes) after buying it as soon as you reached 7 you would still have charges remaining into seeker tier. This can be divided up to allies as needed too.
One of the examples in the linked threads describes an invisible creature that spies on the party over an extended period of time. The author can assume that the party will be unaware of it until suspicions lead to that possibility, at which point they can confront the creature.
But that storyline would be disrupted with permanent See Invisibility.
Nobody walks around burning through one wand a day. You use it when you suspect you'll need it.
Perfect example of "You use it when you suspect you'll need it".
|
|
I can't find the example in the threads about the creature that spies. I suspect I may remember it from a long time ago but can't recall which scenario. If I remember correctly they were invisible in the room with us, I had detected magic, and they ran away because of this. I'm fairly sure this was in a dungeon though (wasn't there a magic mouth or something too...? I don't know.) and I could have easily just had the spell see invis on there. Either way detect magic ended up finding them.
|
|
I can't find the example in the threads about the creature that spies. I suspect I may remember it from a long time ago but can't recall which scenario. If I remember correctly they were invisible in the room with us, I had detected magic, and they ran away because of this. I'm fairly sure this was in a dungeon though (wasn't there a magic mouth or something too...? I don't know.) and I could have easily just had the spell see invis on there. Either way detect magic ended up finding them.
That was from an author's point of view, for writing scenarios.
But I can think of several scenarios and modules where the PCs are spied upon, and not a single one occurs in the confines of a dungeon crawl.
Most occur over hours or days.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I can't find the example in the threads about the creature that spies. I suspect I may remember it from a long time ago but can't recall which scenario. If I remember correctly they were invisible in the room with us, I had detected magic, and they ran away because of this. I'm fairly sure this was in a dungeon though (wasn't there a magic mouth or something too...? I don't know.) and I could have easily just had the spell see invis on there. Either way detect magic ended up finding them.
This reminds me of the goofiest spy which on two separate occasions of playing the scenario was sundered and suffocated to death.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Here's the thing:
In this game, characters pay money for magical effects. People on this thread complain about the advantage that a permanent spell has, but I keep comparing the benefits against magic items that cost a similar amount. And they're not much better, personal spells can't be shared or lent out, and they're much more fragile.
Azothath, why don't those silly uses break the (non-PFS) game?
|
|
Here's the thing:
In this game, characters pay money for magical effects. People on this thread complain about the advantage that a permanent spell has, but I keep comparing the benefits against magic items that cost a similar amount. And they're not much better, personal spells can't be shared or lent out, and they're much more fragile.
But they're always on. It's not the effect it's the action economy.
|
|
My cloak of protection and ioun stones are always on, too, BNW.
But many other effects are not Some other effects are far cheaper as spells.
If the spell is more expensive than the magic item, then people won't use the spell. if the spell is cheaper they would. There's also some things you can't do with items (permanent see invis?)
|
|
Dispel Magic and magical effects are always in a form of balance. As a historical note in 3.5 Mord's Disjunction(now Mage's Disjunction) destroyed that balance. Mage's Disjunction has been toned down.
... Just as sunder is technically a balance to magical items, but recall the outcry whenever a GM or scenario uses such things? Apparently it is a "jerk" move for an intelligent opponent to recognize a powerful item as a threat and use their abilities to neutralize that threat.
I think there are three good reasons why permenancy doesn't fit PFS.
First, it increases action economy in favor of the PCs, when most parties already outgun the opponents in actions and in power. This makes it harder to design scenarios that can challenge such PCs while not killing new characters.
Second, record-keeping: we already have a bunch of exceptions that need to be recorded on a Chronicle, and it takes time to do all of that. Makes it harder to check for any errors, as well.
Third, power creep. Items cost gp, permenant spells cost generally less and don't take up item slots.
None of these issues are eliminated by keeping permenancy out of the game, but all of them are prevented from getting worse by doing so. Sometimes all you can do is hold the line on such things.
|
|
Dispel Magic and magical effects are always in a form of balance. As a historical note in 3.5 Mord's Disjunction(now Mage's Disjunction) destroyed that balance. Mage's Disjunction has been toned down.
Dispel Magic can still cause magic items to cease functioning for a round to a few rounds whereas permanent items can be dispelled. It is a significant difference and empowers Dispel Magic. For a crafting wizard in a home game the gold cost was halved due to feats and there is a time cost to re-craft the item. The crafting option is not available to PFS players. Make Whole and Greater Make Whole open a 'repair' loophole and I believe most GMs would not allow it to work on permanentized magical items (applications of Permanency).
Dispel magic doesn't take off every effect like it used to. Very likely you'll lose one of your 20 buffs before you get down to the lower spell level permanancies
|
|
You also get that same effect by creating the permanency at some point in your career and then getting an additional caster level later such as by leveling up. The spell will naturally make itself safer against dispels over time.
Also targeted dispels are exceedingly rare from what I've seen. Normally at best there can be an area greater dispel but a high level caster doing targeted dispels isn't normal. They have to be extremely confident of their position to waste time in a fight for something like that.