New spell idea - Permanency, Greater

[Magnema]

Permanency, Greater
Universal
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Casting Time: 1 minute

As permanency, except the following:

It my be cast on any spell, except the exceptions listed. However, the caster must give up an XP cost of 1000 times the level of the spell to be made permanent. Level 0 spells count as 1/2 level for this purpose.

This spell may not be cast on a spell with a duration of Instantaneous or Permanent, or on a spell that changes targets or a spell that will still allow a saving throw (such as mass hold person).

If the spell is discharged (such as someone triggering a rune of death or attacking with a permanent invisibility), it will reactivate in 10 minutes.

If someone attempts to dispel the permanent spell and succeeds, they must also dispel the Greater Permanency, or the spell will come back in 10 minutes.

If someone fails to dispel the permanent spell, they may attempt to dispel the permanency - if it succeeds, the duration continues from the amount of time left on the spell at the end of the last casting.

XP cost: see text



Any comments? (for example, level limit? Willing targets only? Higher/lower level? Different casting time? Different XP cost? Different dispel rules? Overpowered/underpowered?)

[Stycotl]

right off the bat, i think the xp penalty is too high, but i'd have to go look at other spells to compare.

[ericgrau]

The xp penalty is going to lead to serious balance issues without a specific xp list like the permanency spell. And some spells might be open to abuse if made permanent. See: persistent spell.

[DanielLC]

You should also specify that it doesn't work on spells that cast other spells, such as glyph of warding. Otherwise, there's nothing keeping you from casting it with a healing spell to be able to heal every 10 minutes for free.

As written, it can be used with False Life to give 10d10+1 permanent hit points, that heal ten minutes after you lose them.

Using it with implosion would be a horrible game-breaker. As would Time Stop, though that one is at least temporary (you'd have to dispel it yourself eventually).

Epic spells should obviously be exempt.

You should probably leave it up to the DM what spells you can actually use it on.

[Dagren]

Permanent Greater Invisibility? Of course, by the time you get 9th level spells, most things have true seeing, but still...

Permanent Greater Dimension Door? At least with persistent spell it takes a level 11 slot.

[Zeta Kai]

I hate to poo-poo concepts outright, but without a very explicit list of which spells can be affected (&, more importantly, which spells cannot), then this will be a horribly broken DM-breaking game-breaker.

[Kellus]

I agree with what Zeta Kai said. For example, as written right now you can apply it to Time Stop. And then the universe explodes. :smalleek:

[Zeta Kai]

I agree with what Zeta Kai said. For example, as written right now you can apply it to Time Stop. And then the universe explodes. :smalleek:

From what I can tell, this spell can be used on wish. As in "this is an infinite wish-loop".


AND THEN THE UNIVERSE EXPLODES.
:eek:

[Kellus]

From what I can tell, this spell can be used on wish. As in "this is an infinite wish-loop".


AND THEN THE UNIVERSE EXPLODES.
:eek:

Actually, I don't think wish would be too bad. Most of the effects of it are permanent to begin with, and most DMs wouldn't allow you to wish for more wishes. Unless you come up with a custom use of the spell, I can't really see too many possibilities for abuse with greater permanency. That being said, I have NO idea what would happen if you permanencied a casting of wish that replicated a lower-level spell. Who knows? :smallconfused:

Gate would be another bad one, though. That spell's just MADE for abuse.

[Zeta Kai]

Actually, I don't think wish would be too bad. Most of the effects of it are permanent to begin with, and most DMs wouldn't allow you to wish for more wishes. Unless you come up with a custom use of the spell, I can't really see too many possibilities for abuse with greater permanency. That being said, I have NO idea what would happen if you permanencied a casting of wish that replicated a lower-level spell. Who knows? :smallconfused:

Gate would be another bad one, though. That spell's just MADE for abuse.

Well, yes, gate would be ruinous to any game in which it was combined with permanency. But, according to this, a permanent wish with recast after 10 minutes. Which means ANY ability that CAN be used can be spammed EVERY TEN MINUTES. And it could be argued that since wish is allowable as-written, & wish can emulate lower-level spells with less restrictions than greater permanency, then you can use a permanent wish to wish for instant-duration spells, thereby weaseling you're way around one of the only restrictions to this uber-cheesy abomination.

And using the "DM won't allow it" clause is not a valid excuse for poorly-written rules. I could write a spell that says "the player of the character that cast this spell must immediately punch the DM in the junk, like, really hard". The DM won't allow it, but that doesn't make it an acceptable rule. The DM is the filter for the game's faucet, but that faucet can get clogged with crappy rules very quickly.

[ericgrau]

I think a series of permanent versions of common spells is in order that either permanently consume a spell slot until dismissed or have an xp cost.

The spell could perhaps use the magic item creation guidelines and divide the gp value by 5 to get the xp cost. But since the magic item creation guidelines are open to abuse, the spell would have a specific list of exactly which spells may be made permanent and at what cost. Like magic items, the spells would return later if dispelled.

[Draken]

Removing the part about recasting the spells is a good idea in my opinion.

Or at the very least making the recasts consume the usual needs of casting the spell. So the wizard basically got himself a spell he can spontaneously cast and the sorcerer got one extra spell on his list (in case he changes his list in the near future, that is).

Also, increasing the cast time from one minute to ten minutes makes sure that round/level spells will not be permanencied any time soon. Save shenanigans that are easily solved with this line:

Target: One active spell.

[Zaq]

I have to say I don't like it. This takes all the problems inherent in Persistent Spell, applies them across the board (no limit on what kind of spells this can affect, compared to Persistent), and then makes it so that you don't have to base your entire build around making everything last all day forever. Yeah, the XP cost makes a difference, but not enough of one, I would say.

I'm no homebrew expert. I'm bad at determining balance. But I don't see any way to make this balanced, without making another exhaustive list like the original Permanency.

[Magnema]

With all of these restrictions, it's getting so complicated - but yes, I agree with them.

I haven't played any characters above lvl. 5 (besides a lvl. 15 duskblade, made specifically for high-level adventuring), so I don't know about high level balance.

Limit to 6th level?

[Dagren]

With all of these restrictions, it's getting so complicated - but yes, I agree with them.

I haven't played any characters above lvl. 5 (besides a lvl. 15 duskblade, made specifically for high-level adventuring), so I don't know about high level balance.

Limit to 6th level?Both the ones I mentioned are less than 6th level. I don't want to be a naysayer, but I can't really see the point of this spell. The regular permanency spell already says that it can work on ones off the list if the DM approves, so why bother with a spell that can do more that the DM would also have to approve?

[Zeta Kai]

With all of these restrictions, it's getting so complicated - but yes, I agree with them.

I haven't played any characters above lvl. 5 (besides a lvl. 15 duskblade, made specifically for high-level adventuring), so I don't know about high level balance.

Limit to 6th level?

Here's a tip: Play before you 'brew. If you haven't played the game, changing the rules is a fool's errand.

[Jane_Smith]

Well, yes, gate would be ruinous to any game in which it was combined with permanency.


.... Am i the only one having daja veu? Oh, no wait... thats just Elder Scrolls: Oblivion flashbacks. >.>

[Magnema]

Both the ones I mentioned are less than 6th level. I don't want to be a naysayer, but I can't really see the point of this spell. The regular permanency spell already says that it can work on ones off the list if the DM approves, so why bother with a spell that can do more that the DM would also have to approve?

Really? Didn't see that. :smallbiggrin: Guess that renders this pointless then.

And Zeta, I'm just trying to be prepared - although I suppose that is a fair point. A very fair point.