Level Up (A5E) So. Permanency, the spell.

Is the 5% chance to fail cumulative?

I think the cost is fine myself. If anything, it's cheap. A Ring of Regeneration is 35,000 gp and isn't as powerful as the spell. Yes, a +1 weapon or Hat of Disguise is cheaper but they can be taken by a Basic Maneuver that anyone can do whereas this takes a Dispel Magic.

I think there could be so many exceptions based on the group and it is tough to put them into the spell description. Each DM will have to decide if they want to adjust the price or materials.

Does the Dispel Magic have to be equal to or higher than the spell being dispelled?

Does it create a focal point that is visible with Detect Magic or True Seeing? More thinking about what the caster of dispel magic would target. Maybe it can be a tattoo or rune or whatever else they want it to be.

Great discussion! Thanks!

Faolyn said:

Third draft! Which is mostly just clarifications and rephrasing, although I added the following things, which I forgot first time around:

* The thing about it taking an attunement slot.

* Being within the target spell's range to make it permanent.

* Letting spells that could normally be removed with remove curse still be removed that way.

* Giving the option for the Narrator to remove the "cast this spell at the same location every day for a year" and just use permanency instead.

Now, one more (and hopefully last) question: Is this spell too expensive? The list price for a +1 weapon is 500 gp. Making it yourself would probably be about half that, assuming you had to pay for the masterwork sword. Making one through this spell would cost 2,000 gp.

I can very easily see charging 1,000/level for spells that are cast directly on a person--make up some lore about how the raw magic interferes with a person's soul or whatever unless lots and lots of expensive ingredients are used, if you like--but should I cut the cost for casting this spell on an area or object? 250 gp/level?

Click to expand...

I would say permanency isn't necessary for something as simple as a +1 sword. IMO narratively the spell makes enchantments cast on the object permanent. What enchantment are you making permanent on a +1 sword? There's no spell involved. It makes more sense to me to use permanency for magic items that actually do something.

Micah Sweet said:

I would say permanency isn't necessary for something as simple as a +1 sword. IMO narratively the spell makes enchantments cast on the object permanent. What enchantment are you making permanent on a +1 sword? There's no spell involved.

Click to expand...

magic weapon

Micah Sweet said:

It makes more sense to me to use permanency for magic items that actually do something.

Click to expand...

which is ironic, because the effect you're complaining about needing permanency for is the only one you can actually replicate with a spell (without, like, making a whole new spell just to do it, anyway)

evildmguy said:

Is the 5% chance to fail cumulative?

Click to expand...

I would imagine not, although I suppose a Narrator could decide it was.

evildmguy said:

I think the cost is fine myself. If anything, it's cheap. A Ring of Regeneration is 35,000 gp and isn't as powerful as the spell. Yes, a +1 weapon or Hat of Disguise is cheaper but they can be taken by a Basic Maneuver that anyone can do whereas this takes a Dispel Magic.

Click to expand...

Good point on the ring. Mind, I think the average party is more likely to find a ring of regeneration than they are to reach 15th level in order to cast permanency, but still.

Regenerate is a 7th level spell, which suggests that casting permanency on a person would cost 5,000 gp per level. On the other hand, freedom of movement is 4th level and the ring only costs 2,500 gp. So there's no easy conversion between level and cost. To me, this suggests that casting permanency on a person and casting it on an object or area should definitely cost two different amounts. We (meaning Narrators) want (PC-made) castles to be surrounded by lightning moats and (PC-made) fae lands to be covered in illusions a bit more than we want PCs to be permanently regenerating.

The options, as I see it, are:

* The spell costs an increasing amount depending on level, rather than a flat 1k/level. Blue-skying here, cantrips: 500 gp, levels 1-3: 1k/level, levels 4-6: 5k/level, levels 6-9: 10k/level. Maybe half this amount if you're casting on an object or area. This makes the two rings mentioned above far better deals than having the spell made permanent, while still giving the option for people to permanent-ize spells that don't normally have non-conumable magic item equivalents, like enlarge/reduce. (Enlarge is one of the spells you were historically able to make permanent.)

* You can't make a spell cast on a person permanent. Objects and areas only.

Micah Sweet said:

I would say permanency isn't necessary for something as simple as a +1 sword. IMO narratively the spell makes enchantments cast on the object permanent. What enchantment are you making permanent on a +1 sword? There's no spell involved. It makes more sense to me to use permanency for magic items that actually do something.

Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't use permanency for making magic items; I would assume that it's the crafting process and reagents that makes the item magical. I was just comparing the costs of, say, a shortsword +1 and a shortword on which magic weapon was cast. I could include a line like "this spell is not intended for making magic items of the type found in Trials & Treasures and similar sources; use the Crafting rules in the Downtime section of the Adventurer's Guide" instead" under the Narrator's Note.

W'rkncacnter said:

magic weapon

which is ironic, because the effect you're complaining about needing permanency for is the only one you can actually replicate with a spell (without, like, making a whole new spell just to do it, anyway)

Click to expand...

Fair enough. One of my favorite D&D adjacent games has a spell design system they use to, among other things, reverse-engineer spells for magic items so you know what spells you need to know in order to make them.

W'rkncacnter said:

but imagine if that still forced the target to take up their attunement slot. how mean would THAT be?

Click to expand...

Like a cursed magic item

Maybe the "take up the target's attunement slots" thing could be a good rare variant for permanency (cursing permanency?)

DarkRainbowFiend said:

Maybe the "take up the target's attunement slots" thing could be a good rare variant for permanency (cursing permanency?)

Click to expand...

A gleefully evil way of using this would be to not only apply permanent curses and debuffs on a target, but also severing their attunement to their own magic items!

Fourth--and hopefully final--draft is up!

I really love this fourth draft! It seems to have a lot of reasonable checks and balances while still being very flexible!
A wizard capable of 5th level spells can grant perma-flight to all the party for the reasonable cost of 1 attunement slot each (and some money)
Or himself can be perma-invisible or perma-blurred, have a permanent unseen servant, etc

Question: what if the caster is able to cast spells from another class (like from the druid or cleric list)? Should those spells be allowed to be made permanent this way?