Cleric and Permanency Spell

[Dalg]

Hello, just wondering about the Permanency Spell granted with the Time Domain. Would we be able to make Darkvision for example permanent if it was cast on us by a Sorceror? It's obviously not on our spell list but it is a spell that can be made permanent. He's not casting a permanent spell on me, I'm making it permanent on myself. Thoughts?
Thanks.

[Venger]

the answer is yes. there is no requirement you are the caster of a spell you want to permanency.

[Crake]

Hello, just wondering about the Permanency Spell granted with the Time Domain. Would we be able to make Darkvision for example permanent if it was cast on us by a Sorceror? It's obviously not on our spell list but it is a spell that can be made permanent. He's not casting a permanent spell on me, I'm making it permanent on myself. Thoughts?
Thanks.

According to the permanency spell text:


You cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell.

So no, you must cast the spell. That said, you can cast the spell through some other means, such as using a scroll and having the magic domain, or UMD.

[KoDT69]

I would assume the YOU included I the SRD text is a case of poor wording, coming from an implied example in which the caster of Permanency would also be the caster of the target spell. There was never such a stipulation in past editions, so I have no reason to believe the source of the spell matters. I think RAI doesn't care about the source.

[KoDT69]

OK so I just reread the entire Permanency entry. That portion quoted above that says YOU, yeah that is in direct reference to a set of spells that are not targeted but cast upon oneself. That makes sense that if the spell range is Self, you would have to produce it yourself. Immediately following is a list specifically stating spells that can be cast on other players, monsters, etc. So yes, RAI and RAW say you don't have to only affect yourself.

[KillianHawkeye]

Immediately following is a list specifically stating spells that can be cast on other players, monsters, etc. So yes, RAI and RAW say you don't have to only affect yourself.

Giving you the ability to make permanent a spell you've cast on someone else isn't the same as giving you the ability to make permanent a spell that someone else casts on you.

[KoDT69]

Giving you the ability to make permanent a spell you've cast on someone else isn't the same as giving you the ability to make permanent a spell that someone else casts on you.

Sure, but as my post before that says, the entry is worded poorly. It seems to be from an example assuming the same caster would provide both spells. I assume RAI doesn't care about the source. Can anybody justify why it would make sense that it has to be the same caster? 3.x is infamous for poor wording and all previous editions did not require the same caster for both spells.

[Crake]

OK so I just reread the entire Permanency entry. That portion quoted above that says YOU, yeah that is in direct reference to a set of spells that are not targeted but cast upon oneself. That makes sense that if the spell range is Self, you would have to produce it yourself. Immediately following is a list specifically stating spells that can be cast on other players, monsters, etc. So yes, RAI and RAW say you don't have to only affect yourself.

The spell in question, darkvision, is one among that first list, that you must make permanent upon yourself, hence why I quoted that line. You'll notice darkvision is absent from the other lists, so the RAW and RAI of those lists is irrelevant to this thread. Darkvision also does not have a range of self, so that point is invalid as well. Finally, the second and third lists make no change to the wording "you cast the spell, then cast permanency", so it still must be a spell that you cast.


Sure, but as my post before that says, the entry is worded poorly. It seems to be from an example assuming the same caster would provide both spells. I assume RAI doesn't care about the source. Can anybody justify why it would make sense that it has to be the same caster? 3.x is infamous for poor wording and all previous editions did not require the same caster for both spells.

The entry is not worded poorly, it's quite clear, you're just trying to make it ambiguous to support your own interpretation. Using prior editions as an argument doesn't hold up because there are plenty of changes made from 3.5 compared to prior editions that were intentional, so you have to look at the spells as they are, without looking back to what prior editions did, because you don't know if they intended to make a change or not.

[KoDT69]

The fact that Darkvision is a spell you can cast on others, yet Permanency adds it to a list of self only spells is all the proof needed to say the entry is poorly written.

All that aside, there should not be a problem with a caster co-op with a reasonable DM.

[Jormengand]

The fact that Darkvision is a spell you can cast on others, yet Permanency adds it to a list of self only spells is all the proof needed to say the entry is poorly written.

All that aside, there should not be a problem with a caster co-op with a reasonable DM.

Darkvision can be cast on others and made permanent only on you. There is no contradiction here.

[KoDT69]

Darkvision can be cast on others and made permanent only on you. There is no contradiction here.

I didn't say anything about a contradiction. I said that having a spell that can target others be limited to only yourself by Permanency makes zero logical sense since it's clearly on a list of spells that are self only buffs. Why do you guys think it's so impossible that they just had a brain fart and screwed up? It's not like they had to do it for balance issues or anything.

[Jormengand]

I didn't say anything about a contradiction. I said that having a spell that can target others be limited to only yourself by Permanency makes zero logical sense since it's clearly on a list of spells that are self only buffs. Why do you guys think it's so impossible that they just had a brain fart and screwed up? It's not like they had to do it for balance issues or anything.

It's possible that they messed up by putting darkvision on the wrong list. It's equally possible that they didn't. Neither has anything to do with the fact that you're clearly, unambiguously not meant to be able to use permanency collaboratively

[Crake]

I didn't say anything about a contradiction. I said that having a spell that can target others be limited to only yourself by Permanency makes zero logical sense since it's clearly on a list of spells that are self only buffs. Why do you guys think it's so impossible that they just had a brain fart and screwed up? It's not like they had to do it for balance issues or anything.

Darkvision isn't the only spell on that list that can be cast on others, tongues is likewise a buff that can be cast on someone else, while it is still only able to be made permanent on yourself. The fact that there aren't any personal spells on the list that can be made permanent on other people is proof in and of itself that permanency is not meant to be used collaboratively, because if it could be, then someone should be able to cast a personal spell on themselves, and then you cast permanency on them.

[KoDT69]

Yah I got your guys' points here it is written that way. However I disagree that it should be, and I still question the logic behind WHY it shouldn't. I did originally read it under that assumption. No disrespect to anybody intended here as I try to be consistent in my logic and being a DM only it will be open to cooperation regardless.

PS - Yes I fully understand that I mentioned applying logic to magic before I get beat up on that point lol :)

[Crake]

Yah I got your guys' points here it is written that way. However I disagree that it should be, and I still question the logic behind WHY it shouldn't. I did originally read it under that assumption. No disrespect to anybody intended here as I try to be consistent in my logic and being a DM only it will be open to cooperation regardless.

PS - Yes I fully understand that I mentioned applying logic to magic before I get beat up on that point lol :)

The fact that you disagree with the designers' choice to make the spell function that way shouldn't have any impact on your interpretation of the rules, otherwise you're just serving to instill confusion for the person asking the question when they get conflicting answers.

Also, don't confuse "poorly written" with "not how I would have made it work".