Bringing back permanacy good or bad for 5e

[Belkasr0]

Hey has anyone tinker with brining back permanency to 5e or found rules for it.

[MaxWilson]

Hey has anyone tinker with brining back permanency to 5e or found rules for it.

I sort of feel like Permanency is one of those things which is so un-idiomatic for 5E that if you want Permanency you'll probably want other powerful spell effects too (like Polymorph Other and Fire Trap/Explosive Runes), in which case you should be playing AD&D instead of 5E. So I haven't tried to port Permanency into 5E, although I still totally love AD&D and have ported a tiny bit of 5E into AD&D (specifically: disadvantage for e.g. shooting at invisible targets). In AD&D it's not a problem because AD&D is a fantasy adventure game, not a tactical grid-combat game, but 5E tries to be "balanced" and certain powerful spells, while interesting, will never be balanced for that type of play.

Yes, I realize that 5E already has a handful of un-idiomatic spells already like True Polymorph and Planar Binding, and they are a source of grief already (disproportionately powerful for breaking the game). I don't want to add to that.

[clash]

I tinkered with a version I was eventually satisfied with. You can take a look if you'd like. It turned out pretty balanced in my opinion.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?549603-Permanency-Spell

[PhantomSoul]

Hey has anyone tinker with brining back permanency to 5e or found rules for it.

The Wish Spell would be an option to consider (and needing DM agreement might be good given 5e more generally, unless homebrewing in a balancing factor like Attunement even as part of the Wish)

(clash's linked thread has good discussion about possible balancing factors and handling dispelling)

[Anymage]

You already have a lot of spells that have a permanency effect rolled in. Instead of casting two spells at one specific point in time (the base spell plus Permanency), you have to repeatedly cast the base spell every day for a year.

An open ended permanency that applied to any spell would be bad. There's a reason that in past editions it had a very specific whitelist, and going away from that would just be inviting more caster abuse.

A permanency that only served to speed up spells with an existing permanency clause would be tricky to balance, especially in 5e which is wary of letting the PCs make permanent magical doohickies whenever the whim strikes them.

So what would your goal here be?