Permanent spells?

[DarkEternal]

So, recently the mage in my party got a Permanency spell, which is all fine and good. He started off with the See Invisibility and Arcane Sight combination that are permanent on him(How many stuff can a person have permanent on him anyway? No limits as long as he has enough XP?).

My question is, since I allow a lot of books aside core, most importantly for casters, Spell Compendium, is there any source which says what spells can be permanent and what can't in those sources, and the XP cost for them? To my knowledge, this information can't be found in those books. Should I just DM decide it, by comparing it level wise to the ones in PhB or is there something where I could look?

[Doug Lampert]

So, recently the mage in my party got a Permanency spell, which is all fine and good. He started off with the See Invisibility and Arcane Sight combination that are permanent on him(How many stuff can a person have permanent on him anyway? No limits as long as he has enough XP?).

My question is, since I allow a lot of books aside core, most importantly for casters, Spell Compendium, is there any source which says what spells can be permanent and what can't in those sources, and the XP cost for them? To my knowledge, this information can't be found in those books. Should I just DM decide it, by comparing it level wise to the ones in PhB or is there something where I could look?

It's straightforward to extrapolate XP costs and minimum levels.
Level 0 spells cost 500 XP and take CL 9.
Level 1 or higher spells cost 500*spell level XP and take CL Spell level + 8.
There may be an exception somewhere, but that seems to be the rule.

Which spells it applies to is harder, I don't know of any such list although I'm sure I've seen at least one splatbook spell that specifically mentioned it could be made permanent.

[Diarmuid]

So, recently the mage in my party got a Permanency spell, which is all fine and good. He started off with the See Invisibility and Arcane Sight combination that are permanent on him(How many stuff can a person have permanent on him anyway? No limits as long as he has enough XP?).

My question is, since I allow a lot of books aside core, most importantly for casters, Spell Compendium, is there any source which says what spells can be permanent and what can't in those sources, and the XP cost for them? To my knowledge, this information can't be found in those books. Should I just DM decide it, by comparing it level wise to the ones in PhB or is there something where I could look?


There's no new list of spells that can be made Permanent so you'll kind of just need to DM decide what to let and not let. As for cost, I recall at some point working out the formula used for all the PHB spells. I'll see if I can dig up what I did back then but it wasnt too tough, something like 500xp per spell level and min caster level of spell level + 8.

[Tyndmyr]

Permanency has a list of core spells that can be made permanent. Other spells that can be made permanent say so in their text. As an example, SpC's resistance line.

As DM, you can extend permanency to other spells if you wish, but it's not required. I would likely rule that while most could not be made permanent, Wish could overrule that.

There is no limit on spells made permanent at any one time.

[Duke of URL]

Of course, spending all of those resources on permanency is all well and good until you get nailed by some NPC dispel magic spells.

[Tyndmyr]

That's why I always advise a ring of counterspelling(or two) loaded with dispel magic and/or it's greater cousin.

However, the xp does replace itself with time.

[ericgrau]

The spell says it's the DM's call. You could even allow other core spells. Look at existing xp costs and try to guess where the spell should fit. You shouldn't do it by spell level alone unless both the reference spell and the new spell already last all day anyway (w/o permanency). Because some spells become a lot better when they never run out. Or you may decide that some spells shouldn't be made permanent at any price.

Quick note on permanency in general: It can be dispelled, but those behind in xp are supposed to gain xp faster. So it's a pretty fair trade-off, and it's not the end of the world if you get dispelled.

[Darrin]

My question is, since I allow a lot of books aside core, most importantly for casters, Spell Compendium, is there any source which says what spells can be permanent and what can't in those sources, and the XP cost for them?

Savage Species has a list of spells that can be made permanent outside of Core... although I think that's the book where the designers got really leery of expanding permanency and stopped doing that. Still... two extra arms via girallon's blessing!

Every book after that should have some note in the spell description that says whether it can be made permanent. I think there's a few wall of {blah} spells in Sandstorm and Frostburn, but if you're looking for buffs... I'm not sure if there are any other permanency-friendly spells in other sourcebooks.

[Zherog]

... but those behind in xp are supposed to gain xp faster.

That's only true if the difference in XP results in a difference in levels.

[ffone]

That's only true if the difference in XP results in a difference in levels.

And until it does, the lost XP make no difference anyway! (Save for the opportunity cost of crafting/perming other things)

[DarkEternal]

Savage Species has a list of spells that can be made permanent outside of Core... although I think that's the book where the designers got really leery of expanding permanency and stopped doing that. Still... two extra arms via girallon's blessing!

Every book after that should have some note in the spell description that says whether it can be made permanent. I think there's a few wall of {blah} spells in Sandstorm and Frostburn, but if you're looking for buffs... I'm not sure if there are any other permanency-friendly spells in other sourcebooks.

Yeah. Honestly, Permanency is a pretty awesome spell, but I can see how the designers wrote themselves into a corner with it since it could break a lot of stuff in game. Hell, Enlarge Person alone from the PhB can make a lot of stuff better, not to mention things like Invisibility. Dispel Magic is an option, sure, but as keeping it sort of realistic, you should have a reason why you would try a Dispel Magic, especially with some creatures that are less intelligent or wise.

[ericgrau]

Yeup, which is why you shouldn't dispel until they run into something smart, and even then it only happens some of the time, and it might be area or targetted. Which is fine because then the PCs will temporarily have to play xp catchup and/or be behind on buffs for a few encounters after that even though those encounters don't have dispel.

Then it becomes the more permanencies you stack the greater risk you're taking as you'll lose more on a dispel. The PCs won't want to take it too far due to this fear. So it should work out as long as dispel isn't too frequent nor infrequent.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

They don’t even need to be hitting you with dispel because of your permanent buffs. They might just want to get rid of your very temporary blur, and the targeted dispel takes out your permanent comprehend languages as collateral.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Getting a temporary boost to your CL when using permanency is a good idea.
Your [self] permanent spells can only be dispelled by a higher caster level then your own.

[DarkEternal]

I was wondering, would a good Spellcraft check by the enemy be good enough reasoning in-game to cast Dispel Magic with the intention of removing Permanency?

[Darkfire]

You'd need to be able to detect that permanency had been cast on the creature first which would take Detect Magic/Arcane Sight/etc. plus a Spellcraft check at DC25.

That said, if you believe that your target is magically buffed then you've got a good enough reason to try and dispel.

[DarkEternal]

Well, yeah. I mean, Arcane sight says in it's description that your eyes are glowing blue or something. That alone should be enough to warrant a Spellcraft check.

[ericgrau]

Even if your enemies fail the spellcraft and their eyes don't glow blue with vision of all things magical, your blue glowy eyes are pretty good at prompting a dispel. Other magical effects may be apparent after the monsters see them in action, like fire resistance after they try to burn you. After seeing 2 effects they'll figure there are probably more they don't see and will want to dispel.

[Keld Denar]

If my PCs ever get dispel-happy against folks with blue eyes, I'm totally gonna throw a bunch of Azurins at them with absolutely no magical buffs.

"What do you mean his eyes are still glowing! I rolled a 20 on my dispel check!"

"You don't understand it, but its still there."

[Darkfire]

They'd get a knowledge check to identify that glowing blue eyes are a racial trait but, without resorting to magic, would have no idea which Azurins had Arcane Sight.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I was wondering, would a good Spellcraft check by the enemy be good enough reasoning in-game to cast Dispel Magic with the intention of removing Permanency?

Yes, assuming there is some detectable evidence of magic.

“20 + spell level: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm) Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry.”


They'd get a knowledge check to identify that glowing blue eyes are a racial trait but, without resorting to magic, would have no idea which Azurins had Arcane Sight.
The description specifically says that the “whites” of the eyes are blue. They don’t glow blue. They simply are blue. And they still have other colored irises. So there’s a big difference between the eyes of someone under arcane sight and the eyes of Azurin.

[DarkEternal]

Also, while on the subject of spells like Detect Magic and, more importantly, Arcane Sight.

Let's say they encounter an rogue that hides pretty well, that wants to backstab the party wizard. The wizard and the rest of the party fail their listen-spot checks. Would the wizard still see the rogue, even though he's managed to hide, becuase the rogue carries magical items on him/her and thus shines?

Same question, only for invisibility. I understand the premise that all items turn invisible with you, but would the aura of said items still radiate to the people with Detect Magic/Arcane Sight on, sort of like a sillhouette or a blur of powerful colors moving around thus making said skill/magic obsolete and a cheaper-better See Invisibility-----Spot/Listen use?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Also, while on the subject of spells like Detect Magic and, more importantly, Arcane Sight.

Let's say they encounter an rogue that hides pretty well, that wants to backstab the party wizard. The wizard and the rest of the party fail their listen-spot checks. Would the wizard still see the rogue, even though he's managed to hide, becuase the rogue carries magical items on him/her and thus shines?
He would not see the rogue, but he might see the magic auras, depending on what the Rogue was using for cover and whether it can block arcane sight.


Same question, only for invisibility. I understand the premise that all items turn invisible with you, but would the aura of said items still radiate to the people with Detect Magic/Arcane Sight on, sort of like a sillhouette or a blur of powerful colors moving around thus making said skill/magic obsolete and a cheaper-better See Invisibility-----Spot/Listen use?
The same goes for invisibility. In addition, you have the illusion aura of the actual invisibility spell.

Note that in both cases, if the wizard is only using detect magic, it takes three rounds to actually pinpoint the location of the auras. This makes it difficult for the wizard if the rogue is actually moving around. Still, magic aura is a rogue’s friend.