permanency and metamagic spells

[Roninn]

I can't seem to find a definitive ruling on this.

Specifically, can I cast a searing spell (Sandstorm) version of weapon of energy (Fire) and permanency that?

[Necroticplague]

I can't seem to find a definitive ruling on this.

Specifically, can I cast a searing spell (Sandstorm) version of weapon of energy (Fire) and permanency that?

No. Looking at Weapon of Energy, it isn't able to be effected by Permanency, regardless of metamagics.

[Roninn]

No. Looking at Weapon of Energy, it isn't able to be effected by Permanency, regardless of metamagics.

Savage Species would disagree.

[AvatarVecna]

Savage Species would disagree.

Ignoring that the spell was updated in the Spell Compendium for 3.5 (making the Savage Species one obsolete), the Savage Species version says nothing about it being permanency-able.

EDIT: Apparently Savage Species has got it's own section for Permanency-ing spells, though. Off to check that, to see if these was relevant in 3.0

[Roninn]

Not in the spell description, no. Bit If you actually look at the Savage Species book, it gives you a list at the start of the chapter, of all the spells that can be made permanent. WoE included.

[AvatarVecna]

Not in the spell description, no. Bit If you actually look at the book, it gives you a list at the start of the chapter, of all the spells that can be made permanent. WoE included.

And as mentioned, that version of the spell is no longer relevant, because it was replaced with the Spell Compendium version, and that book makes no mention of the spell being Permanency-able, whether in the spell description or elsewhere in the book. Unless you have a FAQ quote saying the 3.0 rules on what can be Permanencied carries over to 3.5 even when the spell description doesn't mention Permanency in the new version?

[Roninn]

So you're telling me that with all the spells in the spell compendium, besides the spells in the players handbook, they only added Mass Darkvision to the list?

C'mon people.

[Mordaedil]

Yes, because permancy is otherwise tough to balance.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Yes, you can permanency a metamagic version of a spell, though your mileage may vary as many of those don't get much benefit from metamagic. There are a few tricks, however....

Let's say you have a few levels of Incantatrix and a high enough Spellcraft check to always succeed on Metamagic Effect by taking ten. Even if you need to roll high to succeed, you can try over and over until you make it. Let's say you can hire a Psion to use Psychic Reformation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/psychicReformation.htm) on you a few times. The minimum caster level for this is 9th, so a Human Wizard 5/ Incantatrix 4 has 5th level spells, five general feats, one Wizard feat plus Scribe Scroll, and two metamagic feats, plus Iron Will from the Otyugh Hole. Let's say one of those feats is Item Familiar for Invest Skill Ranks so you can make those Spellcraft checks.

Psychic Reformation into the following feats that you'll never need again: Heighten Spell, Earth Sense, Earth Spell, Snowcasting, Sudden Widen Spell.

Cast Detect Magic with Snowcasting, Sudden Widen, and Heighen Spell from a 5th level slot (+5 levels). Earth Spell makes it count as a 6th level spell, and increases the caster level to 14. Snowcasting gives it the Cold subtype. Sudden Widen makes it a 120-foot cone. Cast Permanency on that.

Psychic Reformation into the following feats that you'll never need again (you can do this over several Psychic Reformations): Flash Frost Spell, Energy Substitution: Electricity, Born of the Three Thunders, Fell Drain Spell, Fell Frighten Spell, Fell Weaken Spell.

Use Metamagic Effect from Incantatrix to apply all of the above metamagic feats to that permanently ongoing Detect Magic spell:

Flash Frost Spell makes it deal 6 cold damage to anyone in the area, and covers every surface in the area with a layer of frost for one round that forces Balance checks to move.
Energy Substitution changes the Cold damage and subtype to Electric, but doesn't change any of the other effects.
Fell Drain makes it so anyone damaged by the spell gains one negative level (a given creature is only ever affected once by this effect of this specific spell).
Fell Frighten makes it so anyone damaged by the spell is Shaken for ten rounds (a given creature is only ever affected once by this effect of this specific spell).
Fell Weaken makes it so anyone damaged by the spell takes a -4 penalty to Strength for ten rounds (a given creature is only ever affected once by this effect of this specific spell).
Born of the Three Thunders converts the damage to 3 electric, 3 sonic, and anyone damaged by the spell must make a Fort save vs stun, if they fail that they must make a Reflex save or fall prone.

Take the Swift Concentration skill trick, and once per encounter as a swift action you can concentrate on this spell to create the above effects in a 120-foot cone.

[Necroticplague]

So you're telling me that with all the spells in the spell compendium, besides the spells in the players handbook, they only added Mass Darkvision to the list?

C'mon people.

Why do you say "c'mon, people" like that's an inherently absurd position?

Unless SPC says the spell can be Permanencied, it can't. An older version of the spell from a previous edition is overwritten by the new version from this edition. Old version could be permanencied, new version can't.

[KillianHawkeye]

This may not be what you're asking, but I feel like adding a metamagic effect that raises the effective spell level should probably have a commensurate effect on the minimum caster level needed to make the spell permanent.

[AvatarVecna]

So you're telling me that with all the spells in the spell compendium, besides the spells in the players handbook, they only added Mass Darkvision to the list?

C'mon people.

Still not quite true because Mass Darkvision can't be Permanency'd either; Permanency is mentioned in the spell description, but only to explicitly state that, unlike the single-target version of the spell, it can't be made permanent.


Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer 4, Wizard 4
Components: V, S, M,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 10 ft
Target: Allies in a 10-ft. radius burst centered on you
Duration: 1 hour/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

As you conclude the spell's casting, you are aware of being able to see without light. A glance at your allies show that they too perceive more than before.

This spell functions like darkvision (PH 216), except that all target creatures receive the spell's benefits. Unlike with darkvision, recipients of this spell cannot have the ability made permanent with a permanency spell.

Material Component: A dried carrot or three small agates.

[Roninn]

Vecna, I apologize, I read it wrong.

So with all the hundred some odd spells, NOTHING new can be added to the permanency list...

Is there someone within Wizards to contact about this?

[AvatarVecna]

Vecna, I apologize, I read it wrong.

So with all the hundred some odd spells, NOTHING new can be added to the permanency list...

Is there someone within Wizards to contact about this?

A few points to make:

1) In fairness, adding a bunch of spells to the list of permanency-able spells throws off the balance of the Permanency spell. To be totally truthful, they probably should've made Permanency (the spell) into Permanent Spell (the metamagic feat), which has a variable level increase based on the duration of the spell it's being applied to. That'd definitely be homebrew though.

2) This spell was Permanency-able in 3.0, an edition that had enough blatant balance issues that Wizards went back and fixed some of them (although hardly all of them, given that Player's Handbook is still one of the most broken books in 3.5). Just looking at the spell in question, I don't see any particular reason a DM would say no when seeing that it used to be legal (other than the above "makes Permanency too good" reason), but as it stands, the new edition doesn't have it explicitly legal, and whether that was intentional or not is almost a moot point, because...

3) You're about 2.5 editions late to be phoning WotC about this, mate. It's possible there's some people who 1) worked on Savage Species and/or Spell Compendium, 2) remember the design philosophies behind the changes made between 3.0 and 3.5, and 3) give a ****, but I doubt it.

It's possible what you're looking for has been addressed in some FAQ or Errata over the years, but barring that, you're stuck with either RAW or DM judgement. I'd personally allow it, but that's most certainly a ruling, and not a rule.

To vaguely answer your original question, whether a spell can be Permanencied or not is in its spell description, so metamagicking the spell in question shouldn't change that it's permanencyable.

[Mordaedil]

Yeah, I'm sorry mate, but 3rd edition was violently killed off by Wizards of the Coast with the arrival of 4th edition, to the point where they didn't just stop printing books for third, they actively recalled books from certain retailers. I went to my local game store at the time here in Norway after the launch of 4th and they said that WotC was so desperately afraid of 3rd edition content competing with their new content that they had gotten recall unsold stock orders.

It was nuts, you couldn't get books after just a few months after that.

[Zanos]

There's not a contradiction between SaSp and Spell Compendium. SaSp says you can permanency a bunch of spells in that book. Spell Compendium doesn't say you can't, it just doesn't reprint Savage Species options. Permanency is not mentioned discretely in each SaSp spell that it calls out as being a valid target, they are only mentioned in the permanency subsection, which was not reprinted. Again, their validity for permanency is not in their spell descriptions, so reprinting those individual spells does nothing. Reprinting permanency in 3.5 core also does nothing, because SaSp calls out that subsection is only in regards to the PHB spell interaction with SaSp spells and makes no claim about any of it's interactions elsewhere.

In general, yes you can permanency a metamagic version of a spell, it's just not often useful.

[AvatarVecna]

Yeah, I'm sorry mate, but 3rd edition was violently killed off by Wizards of the Coast with the arrival of 4th edition, to the point where they didn't just stop printing books for third, they actively recalled books from certain retailers. I went to my local game store at the time here in Norway after the launch of 4th and they said that WotC was so desperately afraid of 3rd edition content competing with their new content that they had gotten recall unsold stock orders.

It was nuts, you couldn't get books after just a few months after that.

Also, I can't remember if it was post 3.5e or post 4e, but after one of those editions, they killed off the forums on their website, which had a bunch of awesome old stuff. Thankfully, a lot of it got copied/reposted elsewhere between the "boards are going down" notice and "these webpages no longer exist", including here ITP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444041-Threads-from-the-Wizards-forums).

[zergling.exe]

Also, I can't remember if it was post 3.5e or post 4e, but after one of those editions, they killed off the forums on their website, which had a bunch of awesome old stuff. Thankfully, a lot of it got copied/reposted elsewhere between the "boards are going down" notice and "these webpages no longer exist", including here ITP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444041-Threads-from-the-Wizards-forums).

It was around the time 5E was coming out I believe. WotC didn't want to deal with all the ways people were going to break the system hosted on their own site, so they made people go elsewhere to have their "badwrongfun".

[Mordaedil]

It wasn't worth being called grognard for 10 years while I just enjoyed playing a game I experienced first as a video game and then discovered as table top and appreciated the amount of options it had over the newer ruleset which upset things too much for me.

That said, I never gave 4th edition a fair shake because nobody bothered developing a video game for it either.

[KillianHawkeye]

That said, I never gave 4th edition a fair shake because nobody bothered developing a video game for it either.

Wasn't D&D Online (at least loosely) based on 4E rules?

[AvatarVecna]

Wasn't D&D Online (at least loosely) based on 4E rules?

Perhaps they should've clarified with "A good video game". :smalltongue:

[KillianHawkeye]

Perhaps they should've clarified with "A good video game". :smalltongue:

That would certainly narrow it down, not that I ever played DDO myself.

[Jay R]

So with all the hundred some odd spells, NOTHING new can be added to the permanency list...

Is there someone within Wizards to contact about this?

That might be worth doing, if we were convinced that casters are under-powered and need more options.

[Mordaedil]

Wasn't D&D Online (at least loosely) based on 4E rules?

3.5 (eberron) rules, actually, but it was still horrible adaption of it.

Neverwinter (www.arcgames.com/en/games/neverwinter) (not to be confused with Neverwinter Nights(1991), Neverwinter Nights(2002), Neverwinter Nights 2(2007)) was based very loosely on 4th edition rules, but it was so much more inspired by WoW that it couldn't be further from D&D at all.