Spell Permanence

[Greywander]

As far as I'm aware, 5e doesn't have any mechanics by which to make a spell permanent. This doesn't mean that methods of doing so don't exist, merely that it's left to DM fiat. PCs aside, though, I feel like this is something that's important for setting creation. Want an anti-magic field in your dungeon? Too bad, no permanent spells.

Now, there are some spells that allow for the spell to become permanent. One such spell is Teleportation Circle, which requires the spell to be cast every day for one year. This seems reasonable enough to extend to any spell, though I will point out that Teleportation Circle has a gold cost while many other spells do not. So we might add a material cost to make spells permanent.

To formalize this, we might say something like the following:

Spell Permanence
If a spell has a duration of at least 1 minute, you may make that spell's effect permanent by casting it on the same target every day for one year. In addition, you must provide suitable material components equal to 10 * the spell's level each time you cast the spell, which the spell consumes.

If the PCs try to abuse something like this, just remember that Dispel Magic exists. Though I suspect the "every day for a year" requirement will put off most PCs, except during very extended downtime.

Alternatively, instead of a component cost, you might need to buy an item of appropriate value for the spell's level, and that item acts as the "anchor" for the spell. Moving the anchor can move the spells effect or transfer it to a different target (if it is a wearable item), and destroying the anchor ends the effect. This could also be an alternate way to create a magic item. For example, cast Haste on an amulet every day for a year, and you now have an Amulet of Haste. Whoever wears it is perma-hasted (though again, Dispel Magic or destroying the item can end the effect).

Also, I'm not entirely sure what happens to concentration. I would think that a permanent spell would no longer require concentration, but I could see that being used as a way to limit PCs with access to any kind of spell permanence.

[Zhorn]

I'm very much in agreement that there should have been a Spell Permanence feature in baseline 5e.
The "every day for a year" is a simple enough ruling that it should work, though time restrictions of that length I find more of a needless restrictions in most games; necessitating long downtimes and possibly putting adventuring on hold long enough to just state the BBEG wins by default in not being opposed (it's all story dependant, of course).

These are things I'm thinking I'll need to take into account for the next time I tackle my houserules for crafting.
Essentially it should be reasonable that;
simpler magic should be easier to give permanence
more powerful mages would be more time efficient in giving spells permanence.
concentration spells would be more cost intensive to give permanence
long duration spells would be more cost efficient to give permanence
This though is a level of complexity that starts to move away from 5e's intended simplicity.

[Brookshw]

I don't think there's a need for this as the DM/NPCs/Monsters aren't bound by the same mechanics as PCs. It also worries me from a balance perspective to offer a broad system for it as a default mechanic, it's one of those game elements that's created, or at least exaggerated the differences in class power in previous editions. That said, the game does suggest players should work with their DM to figure out ways for making magic items, that nebulous system seems sufficient.

[False God]

I just added Permanency back into 5E. It's a 5th level spell. There's a gold cost of 500x chosen spell level. You can only have one instance of a spell on you, and a permanancied spell takes up one of your 3 magic item attunement slots.

Also: monsters, magical locations, and dungeons don't play by the same rules players do. If I want an anti-magic-field in my dungeon, there is one.

[Aimeryan]

I like the idea of spell permanence for a location, but not for an object or person. Having locations be special because of a permanent spell in effect is a great lore hook and also makes for exciting locations where the players are trying to think of how best to take advantage of this while mitigating the advantage of their foes.

Looking at it like this, I would want to have a spell ('Spell Permanence') that could be cast at a location that acted as a constant projector for a (different) area spell. The area size could be dependent on the spell level the Spell Permanence spell was cast at. The set-up could be done many ways: time, valuable items, infused magic, etc - with some scaling in mind for both the spell level that the Spell Permanence spell is cast at and the spell level of the spell that is being projected.

The spell being projected would probably need some restrictions - minimum duration of a minute normally, cylinder/sphere/cube type, etc.

For example, a Spell Permanence'd Faerie Fire cast at level 1 for both spells might only take a small period of time, value, or magic to set-up, however, the area affected would be small - still, this would make a great 'gatehouse' spell to stop invisible intruders from slipping past guards.

The other extreme, would be something like a Spell Permanence'd Forcecage cast at level 9 and level 7 respectively would take a large period of time, value or magic to set-up, however, the area affected would be huge - a protected small town, a wildlife sanctuary, or inverted as a prison for a great evil cast while an army sacrificed itself to keep it within the area.

[Greywander]

I don't think there's a need for this as the DM/NPCs/Monsters aren't bound by the same mechanics as PCs. It also worries me from a balance perspective to offer a broad system for it as a default mechanic, it's one of those game elements that's created, or at least exaggerated the differences in class power in previous editions. That said, the game does suggest players should work with their DM to figure out ways for making magic items, that nebulous system seems sufficient.

Also: monsters, magical locations, and dungeons don't play by the same rules players do. If I want an anti-magic-field in my dungeon, there is one.
For me its a matter of verisimilitude. If an NPC can do it, why can't I? The laws of magic, physics, and the universe in general should work the same for everyone. If they don't, it's because those people are in fact different in some way (such as being a god). If a high level human wizard can make a permanent spell, then why can't my high level human wizard do the same?

This is kind of the same problem as having an NPC do something, but when a PC tries to do the same thing the DM makes them automatically fail. I don't think this is good DMing. If there isn't a good reason why they can't do the same thing an NPC just did, then let them. If it breaks the campaign, then its your fault as the DM for designing the campaign in such a way, especially if you then go on to demonstrate this campaign-breaking behavior right in front of the players via an NPC. Sometimes the DM makes a mistake, though, so in such a case I'd say ask your players nicely not to do that thing and explain to them why, or even enlist them in helping you "fix" the campaign. This is, ultimately, a cooperative game, and the players and DM are not on different teams.


The "every day for a year" is a simple enough ruling that it should work, though time restrictions of that length I find more of a needless restrictions in most games; necessitating long downtimes and possibly putting adventuring on hold long enough to just state the BBEG wins by default in not being opposed (it's all story dependant, of course).
It might be a bit long if you're just making a low level spell permanent. Then again, this is the sort of thing that allows it to exist as a thing in the game while making it generally impractical for the PCs to use. It also gives low level NPC spellcasters a nice way to make some money (by creating permanent low level spells for wealthier folk), so if you wanted to beef up your home base with some permanent spells you could always hire an NPC to do it while you're off adventuring.

[Anymage]

Anyone remember the use activated sword of true strike in 3e? I'm thinking about the shield spell now and having flashbacks to that. In the editions where the permanency spell was a thing, it was a whitelist instead of an open-ended offer specifically because you will slip up if you allow it for any spell.

[ezekielraiden]

For me its a matter of verisimilitude. If an NPC can do it, why can't I?
If some other human being can solve nonlinear ordinary differential equations, why can't you?
If some other human has perfect pitch, why don't I?
If

Some things are just Not For Player Characters. If your versimilitude is so fragile and sensitive that it cannot handle this, chalk it up to needing large numbers of people cooperating over an extended period of time with expensive materials. In other words, something that only happens rarely even for NPCs, and which is pretty much definitionally incompatible with the adventuring life. Any actual permanent magic you might want will be a unique affair each time, worthy of special note because you are almost certainly bending one rule or another to achieve it.




If it breaks the campaign, then its your fault as the DM for designing the campaign in such a way, especially if you then go on to demonstrate this campaign-breaking behavior right in front of the players via an NPC.
Permanent magic is an inherent part of D&D. They're called +1 swords and such. It's literally not possible to play D&D 5e without these things existing in the rules unless you house-rule them away. So unless you're willing to commit to the idea that playing the rules provided means being a bad DM, you might want to walk back on this one.

Besides, there's two core problems with your argument, one of which actually is about verisimilitude. From the rules side, it's trivial to show that permanent magic is necessarily EXACTLY the kind of place where 3e's magic got the most screwy. Persistent Spell became effectively a daily-maintenance "spend spells to get permanent effects," and is widely known to be a highly-abusable effect as a result. 3e, and even moreso 5e, have as an axiom that magic should be powerful but temporary (and both stumble when "temporary" becomes de facto "always" due to 15-minute-workdays and the like). Magic that is normally temporary but becomes made permanent directly counters that, and thus the designers very wisely left permanency out of the rules.

From the verisimilitude side, spell research is a thing--and spellcasters are under no obligation to share their spells (or related knowledge) widely. In fact, they have many reasons to be covetous of their new developments, since even letting one other person learn of them can quickly lead to them becoming widely known, which saps a significant portion of their value. This is especially true of anything like "how to make spells permanent"--even if it's only "how to make this particular spell permanent," there's a lot of value to be had in being the only person who knows how to do that. And keeping such knowledge secret within a closed coterie of individuals is exactly how guilds formed IRL--given that most settings are pseudomedieval, and often do have guilds or other organizations (temples, druid groves, etc.) for their spellcasters, it would be frankly pretty surprising if such lucrative knowledge weren't under someone or another's thumb.

So...yeah. Your expectation--that all effects available to NPCs should always be readily available to PCs--is itself pretty against verisimilitude when examined with any meaningful scrutiny.

[PhantomSoul]

For me its a matter of verisimilitude. If an NPC can do it, why can't I? The laws of magic, physics, and the universe in general should work the same for everyone. If they don't, it's because those people are in fact different in some way (such as being a god). If a high level human wizard can make a permanent spell, then why can't my high level human wizard do the same?

For the issue of verisimilitude, it's easily solved if those two situations aren't actually equal. Perhaps Permanence was only possible in the past, since the idea of magic being stronger in the past is pretty straightforward. Perhaps the characters are on different levels and Permanence is how you can tell that the other character is closer to a god in power. Perhaps it isn't Permanence, but instead a use of the Wish Spell and both characters could do it. Perhaps both characters could do it, but people in the world are smart enough not to make knowledge of the spell accessible to people outside of a small circle (perhaps even one individual). Perhaps both characters could do it, but one character lived in the past when there was knowledge of how to accomplish the spell. Perhaps both characters could do it, but it's done through a communal ritual and so neither character can do it alone. Perhaps neither character can do it, and a god somehow acted or channeled through the character who could.

(That said, I think Permanence is a fun concept, but I'd be incredibly cautious about introducing it -- and that applies both to players and to NPCs. It's the easiest way I can think of to break everything given it can potentially mess with so many areas of the game: spell slot management, action economy management, component costs when a spell is needed, concentration. And then, of course, it could easily also make the caster vs. non-caster divide bigger.)

[Brookshw]

For me its a matter of verisimilitude. If an NPC can do it, why can't I? The laws of magic, physics, and the universe in general should work the same for everyone.


ezekielraiden already did a good job of breaking this down, but I'll circle back to this point. I'm pretty sure that you already accept there's no transparency this edition. For example, are you proposing PCs should get legendary or lair actions? Or that PC's should be able to pass out boons? I assume not but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I find worlds more interesting if not everything is within reach or even knowable. Far better to play a game where you can be surprised, there are mysteries, and things are truly unique & alien.

[clash]

I worked on this a while back. You might find it useful https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?549603-Permanency-Spell

[False God]

For me its a matter of verisimilitude. If an NPC can do it, why can't I? The laws of magic, physics, and the universe in general should work the same for everyone. If they don't, it's because those people are in fact different in some way (such as being a god). If a high level human wizard can make a permanent spell, then why can't my high level human wizard do the same?

*shrug* I find verisimilitude in a fantasy game to be something of a fools errand. Much of what separates fantasy and sci-fi for me is that fantasy contains elements that are are beyond belief, that defy explanation, that can sometimes be appropriately answered with "something something magic". There's a sort of awe and wonder to the world because sometimes things just don't make sense.

If I want hard-fast rules, I'll go play something sci/sy-fi/fy.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules. I'm just saying sometimes "the rules" are simply "it's magic".

I often confound one of my DM's who strives to have a logical and "rules-based" explanation for everything in his game when we encounter something fantastical and I just shrug and say my character stares in awe and wonder. Not saying everyone enjoys this sort of play, but that's my approach at least.

[Demented Dragon]

I mean, the answer to "Why can't I?" could just be that it's beyond your means for the most part, but I think it's fair to wonder why that is and what it takes in the world you're playing in to make permanent magic. And the answer can vary. In world where it's rare it might be a complete mystery, in worlds where you want permanent magic to be more common then I think it makes more sense for someone to desire an answer for how people are churning it out. Don't think it's wrong to be wondering about it.

Verisimilitude doesn't mean that it has to be possible for your PC to do it, it's more about knowing how exactly these rules work. And yeah it's totally fair for them to be a mystery sometimes because hey maybe your character doesn't know anything at all about it, but other times it might deserve some explanation


Anyways, really, I think any rules for spell permanence and such will depend greatly on how you want the world to go and what sort of campaign you want to run. If you have your characters doing long term building, having their own stronghold with a lot of downtime then I think you especially will want to consider rules that may make it applicable if it suits your world. If you're running something much shorter on time where the PCs are running from dungeon to dungeon etc, it may just be an answer of "Yeah you don't have the tools for it or the place or the time."

For the year and a day thing... It sounds like a decent sort of like metric that makes it hard enough to do people won't do it too casually, but if I was getting into it I might wanna personalize them a bit more to the spell. Maybe make demands for certain rare components, possibly make it a quest in and of itself to find them, thus explaining why people don't just go making stuff permanent willy nilly and making it more of an important thing and accomplishment when you do.

[Greywander]

If some other human being can solve nonlinear ordinary differential equations, why can't you?
If some other human has perfect pitch, why don't I?
If
Hrm, I think you may have misunderstood my argument?

What you're talking about here are build choices. "Why can't my character be proficient in mathematics, or music?" The answer is that they could have, but you chose different proficiencies instead. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The argument I was actually making was something more along the lines of, "If that NPC, who is proficient with mathematics, just solved a differential equation, why can't my character, who is also proficient in mathematics, solve differential equations?" So, why can't my character, who is a math professor, solve differential equations? Hmm? Especially if you have another NPC math professor solve one right in front of them.


Some things are just Not For Player Characters. If your versimilitude is so fragile and sensitive that it cannot handle this, chalk it up to needing large numbers of people cooperating over an extended period of time with expensive materials. In other words, something that only happens rarely even for NPCs, and which is pretty much definitionally incompatible with the adventuring life. Any actual permanent magic you might want will be a unique affair each time, worthy of special note because you are almost certainly bending one rule or another to achieve it.
This is fine, but it means that if the player was determined, they could still find a way to make a permanent magic effect. It might even be a fun quest chain. It doesn't have to be easy, or practical, it just has to be possible. And if it's possible, you can bet that the players will find at least one opportunity to use it, no matter how impractical it is.


Permanent magic is an inherent part of D&D. They're called +1 swords and such.
??? But the game does have rules for magic item creation. This isn't what I'm talking about at all, though I can see how the two concepts would overlap. Magic items and permanent spells are both examples of permanent magical effects. I can also see how a permanent spell effect could also be achieved by creating a magic item with the same effect, so that would be one way of getting something like a permanent anti-magic field.


Magic that is normally temporary but becomes made permanent directly counters that, and thus the designers very wisely left permanency out of the rules.
Very true, which is why such a thing should be handled with caution. Make it too easy and you get exactly the sort of gamebreaking behavior you're describing. It's probably better to err on the side of making it too difficult, but again, the existence of permanent magical effects suggests that it shouldn't be outright impossible.


From the verisimilitude side, spell research is a thing--and spellcasters are under no obligation to share their spells (or related knowledge) widely. In fact, they have many reasons to be covetous of their new developments, since even letting one other person learn of them can quickly lead to them becoming widely known, which saps a significant portion of their value. This is especially true of anything like "how to make spells permanent"--even if it's only "how to make this particular spell permanent," there's a lot of value to be had in being the only person who knows how to do that. And keeping such knowledge secret within a closed coterie of individuals is exactly how guilds formed IRL--given that most settings are pseudomedieval, and often do have guilds or other organizations (temples, druid groves, etc.) for their spellcasters, it would be frankly pretty surprising if such lucrative knowledge weren't under someone or another's thumb.
This actually does make a lot of sense. And I do kind of like the idea making it something specific to each spell, rather than a general rule for all spells. It just makes things that much more interesting, and I can see having a long quest chain that ends with learning how to make a specific spell permanent (which might be something you need for the next part of the campaign). It would also be a great reward after defeating a powerful wizard, especially if your spellbook is already full.


For the issue of verisimilitude, it's easily solved if those two situations aren't actually equal. Perhaps Permanence was only possible in the past, since the idea of magic being stronger in the past is pretty straightforward. Perhaps the characters are on different levels and Permanence is how you can tell that the other character is closer to a god in power. Perhaps it isn't Permanence, but instead a use of the Wish Spell and both characters could do it. Perhaps both characters could do it, but people in the world are smart enough not to make knowledge of the spell accessible to people outside of a small circle (perhaps even one individual). Perhaps both characters could do it, but one character lived in the past when there was knowledge of how to accomplish the spell. Perhaps both characters could do it, but it's done through a communal ritual and so neither character can do it alone. Perhaps neither character can do it, and a god somehow acted or channeled through the character who could.
I think these are all great ways of handling it. What I don't like is just being told, "No, you can't do that," even though an NPC was somehow able to do so. If I can't do it, I just need a plausible reason as to why. That said, I would also expect things to stay consistent, i.e. don't break your own rules later on.


ezekielraiden already did a good job of breaking this down, but I'll circle back to this point. I'm pretty sure that you already accept there's no transparency this edition. For example, are you proposing PCs should get legendary or lair actions? Or that PC's should be able to pass out boons? I assume not but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Personally I find worlds more interesting if not everything is within reach or even knowable. Far better to play a game where you can be surprised, there are mysteries, and things are truly unique & alien.
At one point, I designed some homebrew for getting up to 30th level, which involved ascending to demigod status, and you actually did get legendary actions, and could even give spells to clerics. I could also see doing lair actions, under certain conditions. Though I think these are more mechanics-related than fluff-related. Legendary actions are just a way of representing a powerful creature, whereas permanent spells go beyond just being a mechanical representation into having actual fluff and RP implications.


*shrug* I find verisimilitude in a fantasy game to be something of a fools errand.
See, it's fine to say something like "a god did it", or "the spirits in this place did it", but when it was just a regular wizard, and my character is also a wizard, I'm going to be wondering why they could do it but I can't. I expect an explanation.


Much of what separates fantasy and sci-fi for me is that fantasy contains elements that are are beyond belief, that defy explanation, that can sometimes be appropriately answered with "something something magic". There's a sort of awe and wonder to the world because sometimes things just don't make sense.
You're not wrong, but this becomes difficult when you can literally play a wizard. If you want this wonder and mystery, then don't make magic available to the players. Or, build it into the magic system itself (which is difficult, but I don't think it's impossible). D&D doesn't.


I often confound one of my DM's who strives to have a logical and "rules-based" explanation for everything in his game when we encounter something fantastical and I just shrug and say my character stares in awe and wonder. Not saying everyone enjoys this sort of play, but that's my approach at least.
Heh, you might confound your DM, but I'll bet it's infinitely preferable to challenging his explanations. You seem like you might be a pleasant player to DM for.

For me, I like to understand how things work. And it seems like a natural reaction after seeing an NPC do something cool for a player wonder, "Hey, can I do that too?" I mean, every wizard wants to have their own wizard tower someday, and of course they need to magically ward it, right? Don't be surprised when they try to replicate things they saw in the wizard towers they went through while adventuring.

Anyway, the main takeaway from these replies is that a general rule might not be a great idea. It might be better to handle it on a per-spell basis, and even then the knowledge of how to make the spell permanent might be a closely guarded secret by the few who know. A custom magic item would also be a way of achieving a similar result.

[False God]

See, it's fine to say something like "a god did it", or "the spirits in this place did it", but when it was just a regular wizard, and my character is also a wizard, I'm going to be wondering why they could do it but I can't. I expect an explanation.
You the player aren't entitled to an answer. It's your character who is perceiving the world, and there are methods via which your character can come to understand the world. Your character may fail in these attempts.


You're not wrong, but this becomes difficult when you can literally play a wizard. If you want this wonder and mystery, then don't make magic available to the players. Or, build it into the magic system itself (which is difficult, but I don't think it's impossible). D&D doesn't.
Personally I think it does. I just think a lot of people feel entitled to things.


Heh, you might confound your DM, but I'll bet it's infinitely preferable to challenging his explanations. You seem like you might be a pleasant player to DM for.

For me, I like to understand how things work. And it seems like a natural reaction after seeing an NPC do something cool for a player wonder, "Hey, can I do that too?" I mean, every wizard wants to have their own wizard tower someday, and of course they need to magically ward it, right? Don't be surprised when they try to replicate things they saw in the wizard towers they went through while adventuring.

Anyway, the main takeaway from these replies is that a general rule might not be a great idea. It might be better to handle it on a per-spell basis, and even then the knowledge of how to make the spell permanent might be a closely guarded secret by the few who know. A custom magic item would also be a way of achieving a similar result.
This is typically how I handle it. I don't like telling the players because historically when I've run games they've used that "how the world works" information to start metagaming. If your character can't figure it out, *shrug* thems the breaks.

[Greywander]

You the player aren't entitled to an answer. It's your character who is perceiving the world, and there are methods via which your character can come to understand the world. Your character may fail in these attempts.
I understand that my character doesn't know everything, and that they can fail skill checks. But when my character is literally an expert in that field, I expect more than a shrug and "I dunnno" when I ask the DM how to do something. Something along the lines of, say, "You've never learned how to do this yourself, but you do know that the mages of Shar-Agral have created many permanent magical effects. It is said to be a closely guarded secret that was never written down, though there are rumors of a single text by a mage who was cast out of their order." This gives me a plausible explanation, as well as a hook should I decide to pursue it.

I mean, you could also say something like, "You've never heard about anything like this," but don't be surprised when I capture and interrogate the other wizard to try to learn their secrets.


Personally I think it does. I just think a lot of people feel entitled to things.
I find D&D magic to be both very mechanical and flashy. Mechanical, in the sense that the rules are laid out very clearly and there's little uncertainty about what's going to happen or how things work. Flashy, in the sense that spellcasting tends to look more like an anime fight than a circle of druids meeting under a full moon. There's neither mystery nor subtlety.

Although this might come down to whether we're talking strictly mechanics or fluff, and D&D does have a lot of lore. Mechanically, I don't find magic very mystical or mysterious, but that might not be true on the fluff side.


This is typically how I handle it. I don't like telling the players because historically when I've run games they've used that "how the world works" information to start metagaming. If your character can't figure it out, *shrug* thems the breaks.
Metagaming, to me, only refers to the separation of player knowledge and character knowledge. You could argue that their characters don't know "how the world works", but if that's the case then why tell them in the first place? But someone like a wizard probably should know a certain amount about how magic works. Exploiting those rules to their advantage isn't metagaming, it's just good tactics.

But this might be a difference of playstyle as well. I tend to be more Simulationist, and generally do Combat as War. If you're more Gamist, then "how the world works" would just be background fluff, not part of the rules. If you're more Narrativist, then "how the world works" is a story element, not a mechanical one. And if you're more Combat as Sport, then getting creative might be regarded closer to cheating.

It's probably my bent toward Simulationism that demands equal treatment for PCs and NPCs. Anything an NPC does is fair game for a PC to do, and vice versa. Thus, if an NPC can create permanent spell effects, then a PC should be able to create them the same way. Now, that method might not be available to the PCs (e.g. only the gods create permanent spells, and the PCs are not gods), but if they get access to that method then they would be able to do so.

[PhantomSoul]

I understand that my character doesn't know everything, and that they can fail skill checks. But when my character is literally an expert in that field, I expect more than a shrug and "I dunnno" when I ask the DM how to do something. Something along the lines of, say, "You've never learned how to do this yourself, but you do know that the mages of Shar-Agral have created many permanent magical effects. It is said to be a closely guarded secret that was never written down, though there are rumors of a single text by a mage who was cast out of their order." This gives me a plausible explanation, as well as a hook should I decide to pursue it.

I mean, you could also say something like, "You've never heard about anything like this," but don't be surprised when I capture and interrogate the other wizard to try to learn their secrets.

If you've never heard about anything like it, then why interrogate people about a thing you have no concept of when they don't have those secrets either!

Except it's reasonable for both the DM and for your character to have no idea, just like it's entirely reasonable for your character not to be able to do it even if it was at some point possible for mortals. And even the DM knowing an answer doesn't mean your character does -- with this seeming like an entirely logical place for even high-level wizards not to know, whether it has been done in the past or not.

[False God]

I understand that my character doesn't know everything, and that they can fail skill checks. But when my character is literally an expert in that field, I expect more than a shrug and "I dunnno" when I ask the DM how to do something. Something along the lines of, say, "You've never learned how to do this yourself, but you do know that the mages of Shar-Agral have created many permanent magical effects. It is said to be a closely guarded secret that was never written down, though there are rumors of a single text by a mage who was cast out of their order." This gives me a plausible explanation, as well as a hook should I decide to pursue it.

I mean, you could also say something like, "You've never heard about anything like this," but don't be surprised when I capture and interrogate the other wizard to try to learn their secrets.
But....why would you be asking the wizard about how XYZ works if your character has no reason to believe the wizard is responsible for XYZ? I mean sure, maybe that wizard knows something. Maybe he just found the magic object on a quest just like you did and doesn't have any greater understanding of its source than you do.

This is my problem with metagaming. Without some kind of overt evidence that someone is actively responsible for a thing, all you're running on is the belief that it should be possible for you to do anything "magic" because you're a "magic guy". Which is an interesting character trait and a particular strain of wizardly arrogance but not exactly proof of anything.


I find D&D magic to be both very mechanical and flashy. Mechanical, in the sense that the rules are laid out very clearly and there's little uncertainty about what's going to happen or how things work. Flashy, in the sense that spellcasting tends to look more like an anime fight than a circle of druids meeting under a full moon. There's neither mystery nor subtlety.
For folks who follow my posts, this won't be a surprise: but I hate how magic works in D&D. It's clinical. It's mathematical. It's not very "magical". It's just science but with fantasy words thrown in there. Just because I call a gun "Marvins Speedy Shot" doesn't mean it's not a gun. And I think that leads to player thought processes like your own that magic should be this clinical process.


Although this might come down to whether we're talking strictly mechanics or fluff, and D&D does have a lot of lore. Mechanically, I don't find magic very mystical or mysterious, but that might not be true on the fluff side.
No, I don't think it's true on the fluff side either. I work very hard to inject a sense of mystery into my games. D&D lore has a lot of self-insert high-mages running around explaining everything, and it's terribly annoying.


Metagaming, to me, only refers to the separation of player knowledge and character knowledge. You could argue that their characters don't know "how the world works", but if that's the case then why tell them in the first place? But someone like a wizard probably should know a certain amount about how magic works. Exploiting those rules to their advantage isn't metagaming, it's just good tactics.
And your wizard does know a "certain amount", but in the same context that knowing how language works doesn't mean you understand all languages. You may recognize that something you're not familiar with IS a language, but you may still lack the physical or mental processes to actually speak/read/write it. The language may be reliant on gestures you cannot make, on sounds you cannot produce.


But this might be a difference of playstyle as well. I tend to be more Simulationist, and generally do Combat as War. If you're more Gamist, then "how the world works" would just be background fluff, not part of the rules. If you're more Narrativist, then "how the world works" is a story element, not a mechanical one. And if you're more Combat as Sport, then getting creative might be regarded closer to cheating.
I'm very much a Narrativist and Combat as Sport. I enjoy internal consistency up to the point that it prevents me from presenting something creative and interesting.


It's probably my bent toward Simulationism that demands equal treatment for PCs and NPCs. Anything an NPC does is fair game for a PC to do, and vice versa. Thus, if an NPC can create permanent spell effects, then a PC should be able to create them the same way. Now, that method might not be available to the PCs (e.g. only the gods create permanent spells, and the PCs are not gods), but if they get access to that method then they would be able to do so.
Well okay that's fair, and as above I have pretty straight-forward Permanancy rules in 5E. Like, I think the "3 attuned magic items" is a silly arbitrary limit, but it's useful from a "I don't want to turn this into 3.5" perspective.