So I have looked as thoroughly as I can in the rules and around the internet, but haven't found any specific answer.
A player in my game would like to find a spellcaster in the city whom he can contract to cast the Permanency and Reduce Person spells. Following the pricing in the book of Caster Level x Spell Level x 10 gp I've come to a total of:
Reduce Person spellcasting service
9 x 1 x 10 = 90 gp
Permanency spellcasting service
9 x 5 x 10 = 450 gp
Additional cost described in Permanency for Reduce Person
2500 gp
Total: 3040 gp
To provide some context, the player is a level 3 rogue in my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign in the city of Korvosa which is a big enough city he should be able to 9th level caster without to much trouble.
My main question is should there be any kind of level restriction for game balance sake on characters finding and paying for spellcasting services for spells that only characters 6 levels higher than them would be able to cast?
My initial thought is that this is addressed by the fundamental limitation of gold characters have access to at any given level. So the spellcasting services and the Permanency spell were designed with the players buying power according to the Wealth by Level table in mind.
Would there be any other considerations that should be made specifically regarding these effects and game balance?
One of the stats in a settlement stat block is the maximum spell level of spellcasting services available. If that number is less than 9, then some spells simply won't be available. If that number is less than 5, then Permanency wouldn't be available (going by your post -- I am not personally double checking that part).
But if you are in a settlement that offers spellcasting services of at least level 5, then the only limitation on buying that combination of spells would be your ability to pay for them.
the big If is always finding a spellcaster of the right level, and available for commercial casting... My impression may be a holdover from AD&D but I feel that the higher the caster's level, the less available they are, and the more likely to negociate for fees in excess of the standard to compensate the inconvenience of having to cater to adventurers... my personal feeling is that commercial spellcasters (with the possible exception of professional item makers) are genrally levle 1-8. lvl 9 and higher tend to have other goals than merely using their lore for financial gain
my personal feeling is that commercial spellcasters (with the possible exception of professional item makers) are genrally levle 1-8. lvl 9 and higher tend to have other goals than merely using their lore for financial gain
I think this is a really good approach. Being "available" doesn't necessarily mean "available at your convenience". You are within your right as GM to tell the player it will take a few days or a couple of weeks, and to charge more if they need it sooner than that.
It could even be a good hook for some RP from the player. Have them convince the spell caster that they need it sooner, and do Diplomacy check modified by how well they RP the encounter.
One of the stats in a settlement stat block is the maximum spell level of spellcasting services available. If that number is less than 9, then some spells simply won't be available. If that number is less than 5, then Permanency wouldn't be available (going by your post -- I am not personally double checking that part).
Yes sir, I had previously looked over the city's stat block in the new CotCT Hardcover and it does normally allow for up to Spellcasting 9th level spells. But since you called my attention to it this adventure actually has four different stat blocks depending on the state the city is in throughout the campaign, and there is at least one point in the adventure where the available spellcasting actually does drop down to 3rd level. So thank you very much for that! :)
My impression may be a holdover from AD&D but I feel that the higher the caster's level, the less available they are, and the more likely to negotiation for fees in excess of the standard to compensate the inconvenience of having to cater to adventurers.
I certainly agree, supply and demand and all. I'll let the context of the story really drive this aspect of the pricing, but definitely something I'm going to be keeping in mind.
"See spell description for additional costs. If the additional costs put the spell's total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available."
If you follow that rule, it wouldn't be possible unless you factor the cost of the two spells separately (which is debatable).
Good catch! I missed this the first time I read over Permanency. This would make all but the cheapest Permanency spells unavailable using a simple spellcasting service. I definitely feel like this restriction should really only apply for each individual spell cast. From a RP standpoint I just don't buy that the average spellcaster would suddenly not do a job just because you offered him more work, especially when this service is certainly a premium income compared to profession check incomes he might otherwise do. That said, I could see a spellcaster turning down a job (or at least negotiating a much better rate) if the individual spell that was being asked for was exceptionally costly (I wouldn't want to take the risk of screwing up a half million dollar project because I made a mistake unless the reward was genuinely worth it). This feels like a great excuse to for me as a DM to say "Yes you can do this, but..."
Don't stress too hard about this decision by the player...One targeted Dispel Magic, and that 3,000 GP investment is permanently lost.
Permanency is pretty well limited. The buffs it provides aren't that game breaking... They just need to be aware that A) being a tiny version of a normal person is going to raise some eyebrows and B) one little dispel magic and all that money is gone forever...
Thanks! This was the direction I was leaning. Most of what I did manage to find on the subject talked a lot about how vulnerable Permanency is to Dispel Magic. I do feel like I have a very straight forward way of dealing with it if things do start getting out of hand.
And reduce person probably won't break your game too badly. It's definitely a cheap way to get some small bonuses, but it comes with penalties too, in particular a weakness to combat maneuvers and weapon damage.
That is a great point! I'll certainly keep this in my back pocket along with Dispel Magic.
Thank you all for some great advice! I feel like based on what you've all said, and what I know from the books, the only thing that would really make me say no is just how much of his total wealth he would be spending to acquire the spell. I remember either the CRB or the Gamemasters Guide specifically saying to be cautious about or possibly even not allowing a character to spend more than half his total wealth on a single item. Or at least something along those lines. I'll ponder over that, perhaps steer him through some RP of trying to find a spellcaster of a high enough level given the circumstances of the story until he reaches level 4 himself and has more than 6,000 gp to his name.
So I have looked as thoroughly as I can in the rules and around the internet, but haven't found any specific answer.
A player in my game would like to find a spellcaster in the city whom he can contract to cast the Permanency and Reduce Person spells. Following the pricing in the book of Caster Level x Spell Level x 10 gp I've come to a total of:
Reduce Person spellcasting service
9 x 1 x 10 = 90 gpPermanency spellcasting service
9 x 5 x 10 = 450 gpAdditional cost described in Permanency for Reduce Person
2500 gpTotal: 3040 gp
To provide some context, the player is a level 3 rogue in my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign in the city of Korvosa which is a big enough city he should be able to 9th level caster without to much trouble.
My main question is should there be any kind of level restriction for game balance sake on characters finding and paying for spellcasting services for spells that only characters 6 levels higher than them would be able to cast?
My initial thought is that this is addressed by the fundamental limitation of gold characters have access to at any given level. So the spellcasting services and the Permanency spell were designed with the players buying power according to the Wealth by Level table in mind.
Would there be any other considerations that should be made specifically regarding these effects and game balance?
One, those charts are guidelines not mandates. It does not mean that every single spell is equally available. It's up to YOU whether the player finds such a spell available.
Also keep in mind the consequences... assuming he uses appropriately sized weapons, weapon dice goes down and encumbrance takes a major hit.
Encumbrance for a Small character is a mixed bag, as normally equipment made for a creature of your size is reduced in weight more than your encumbrance is. You only have problems if you are trying to carry a lot of stuff that cannot be downsized for you.
I don't think reduce person is game breaking as they could have rolled up as a small character. If they are going tiny, that is probably worse than staying small as you lose 5' reach at tiny.
I assume we're talking about a caster if they want Tiny. Tiny arrows wouldn't do much more than scratch, and as you say, a Tiny melee opponent is a bit of a laugh unless they're using poison -- and even then, they have to close. However, a Tiny caster does get a lot more benefits than drawbacks. It's something for a GM to keep in mind.
Try imagining this reduced rogue's romantic life:
Partner
Rogue: Produces a wand of reduce person
PartnerKnowledge(Arcane)
Mechanically there is nothing wrong with letting the character purchase the spell (provided a caster is available), just make sure they are aware of the downsides so that they don't come as a 'gotcha' moment. It is a little ahead of the bonus per gold curve, but it has downsides. Fair trade.
There are times when the story benefits from limited access to services but since you described the city as having different stat blocks depending on the timeline, it sounds like that is already accounted for.