So there's been a couple of threads on here recently which discuss how Permanancy was a cool spell, and that it is somewhat missing from D&D. So, I am pondering how to make it fairly balanced, and not game-breaking.
My thoughts are:
1. Not actually properly permanant. The spell would prolong another spell, but isn't necessarily a "fire and forget" spell. 2. 8th or 9th level. It needs to be a rare thing. 3. Costs something to cast every time.
My initial concept would be:
Permanancy: 8th Level Enchantment Casting time: one action V,S,M (a magical item, which the spell consumes) Duration: Until Dispelled
When you cast this spell, pick one spell that you have cast which you are currently concentrating on, or which is currently active. The effects of the chosen spell no longer require concentration to maintain, and the chosen spell lasts until this spell is dispelled.
If the chosen spell is of third level or lower, then the effects are permanant. If the chosen spell is of Fourth level or higher, then you must cast this spell again after completing a Long Rest, or the chosen spell will end.
If cast using a 9th level spell slot, then a chosen spell of 4th level or lower becomes permanent, and spells of 5th level or higher require re-casting after a long rest.
So, how broken does this end up being? Thoughts and manipulations welcomed!
The suggestion on a couple of spells, like magic circle, is that permanence can be achieved through daily castings for a year. So you are looking for a spell that'll effectively give you a year's worth of castings.
I would make it more like planar binding and only allow it to apply to spells that don't require concentration.
Help me understand, why the concern with simply allowing this spell?
It seems that a common concern is to worry about player's characters becoming too powerful, but as a DM I do not worry about this too much because there is nothing that a player can do that I cannot undo. I don't recall off the top of my head, but I think permanency in 3.x was limited so that PC's generally could only make low level spells permanent. So maybe this is once again because I am not highly familiar with 5e, but I don't see the harm with this one.
Is there anything wrong with taking Permanency from an earlier edition, with the same limited list of spells which can be made permanent?
Yes. If you limited it to spells that can be made permanent on an area (rather than a creature or object) it would probably be fine, though. Or maybe allow permanency on creature spells at a cost of attunement slots.
I think a “magic item” would need to be more clearly defined. Casters that level can churn out level 1 spell scrolls for cheap. Maybe make clear the item isn’t consumable.
Is there anything wrong with taking Permanency from an earlier edition, with the same limited list of spells which can be made permanent?
[Also, why is this in DMs only rather than homebrew?]
Past editions had steep costs to reign in the spell. In 1e, it was a point of constitution, permanently (and in 1e, about the only way to get ability points was a wish. And it was a required step in making a magic item. I often wondered how many wizards died to make the bag of 20 +1 sling bullets.). In other editions, you had to pay xp, but that mechanic doesn’t work so well in the age of milestone leveling, and trying to keep most parties the same level.
Help me understand, why the concern with simply allowing this spell?
It seems that a common concern is to worry about player's characters becoming too powerful, but as a DM I do not worry about this too much because there is nothing that a player can do that I cannot undo. I don't recall off the top of my head, but I think permanency in 3.x was limited so that PC's generally could only make low level spells permanent. So maybe this is once again because I am not highly familiar with 5e, but I don't see the harm with this one.
It makes a mockery of the concentration mechanic. Casters are already very strong, letting them have some buff spells always on (Perma-bless comes to mind) would be really powerful.
Level: 8 Components: V, S Range: Special AoE: Special Save: None Casting Time : 2 rds. Duration: Permanent
This spell affects the duration of certain other spells, making the duration permanent. The personal spells upon which a permanency is known to be effective are as follows: comprehend languages, protection from evil, detect evil, protection from normal missiles, detect invisibility, read magic, detect magic, tongues, infravision, unseen servant, protection from cantrips. The wizard casts the desired spell and then follows it with the permanency spell. Each permanency spell lowers the wizard's Constitution by 1 point. The wizard cannot cast these spells upon other creatures. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a wizard of greater level than the spellcaster was when he cast the spell.
In addition to personal use, the permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area-effect spells permanent: enlarge, prismatic sphere, fear, stinking cloud, gust of wind, wall of fire, invisibility, wall of force, magic mouth, web.
Additionally, the following spells can be cast upon objects or areas only and rendered permanent: alarm, wall of fire, audible glamer, distance distortion, dancing lights, teleport, solid fog. These applications to other spells allow it to be cast simultaneously with any of the latter when no living creature is the target, but the entire spell complex then can be dispelled normally, and thus negated.
The permanency spell is also used in the fabrication of magical items (see the 6th-level spell enchant an item). At the DM's option, permanency might become unstable or failafter a long period of at least 1,000 years. Unstable effects might operate intermittently or fail altogether.
The DM may allow other selected spells to be made permanent. Researching this possible application of a spell costs as much time and money as independently researching the selected spell. If the DM has already determined that the application is not possible, the research automatically fails. Note that the wizard never learns what is possible except by the success or failure of his research.
So, if I were converting it to 5e, I would do it like this:
Permanency
LEVEL
8th
CASTING TIME
1 Minute
RANGE/AREA
Special
COMPONENTS
V, S
DURATION
Until Dispelled
SCHOOL
Transmutation
ATTACK/SAVE
None
DAMAGE/EFFECT
Buff, Utility, (…)
This spell affects the duration of certain other spells, making the duration permanent until dispelled. You cast the desired spell and then follow it with the permanency spell. Each successful casting of this spell reduces your total life span by 1 yearoccupies one of your attunement slots with the spell made permanent. Permanency can be used in one of the following three ways:
You can cast one of the following spells targeting only yourself, and then follow it with the permanency spell: comprehend languages, protection from evil and good, detect evil and good, see invisibility, detect magic, tongues, darkvision, or unseen servant. This application of permanency can be dispelled only by a spellcaster of greater level than you were when you cast the spell.
The permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area-effect spells permanent: enlarge/reduce, prismatic wall, fear, stinking cloud, gust of wind, wall of fire, invisibility, wall of force, magic mouth, web.
The following spells can be cast upon objects or areas only and rendered permanent: alarm, wall of fire, minor illusion, dancing lights.
The second and third applications of permanency to other spells can be dispelled normally. Whenever a spell made permanent is dispelled, it no longer occupies an attunement slot.
The DM may allow other selected spells to be made permanent. You do not know what is possible except by the success or failure of an attempt to make a spell permanent.
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
One could, and your suggested caveat is a good one. I just noted that the permanent investiture of a point of Con was also removed from other spells this edition, such as find familiar, and I wanted to stay consistent. So, to that end I suggested the houserule we used to use in my group regarding the cost associated with the Permanency spell, a year of life. Of course, back then downtime was more of a thing, so dying of old age actually used to happen sometimes.
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
One could, and your suggested caveat is a good one. I just noted that the permanent investiture of a point of Con was also removed from other spells this edition, such as find familiar, and I wanted to stay consistent. So, to that end I suggested the houserule we used to use in my group regarding the cost associated with the Permanency spell, a year of life. Of course, back then downtime was more of a thing, so dying of old age actually used to happen sometimes.
The 5e-styled thing to do would probably be "costs an attunement slot until dispelled".
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
One could, and your suggested caveat is a good one. I just noted that the permanent investiture of a point of Con was also removed from other spells this edition, such as find familiar, and I wanted to stay consistent. So, to that end I suggested the houserule we used to use in my group regarding the cost associated with the Permanency spell, a year of life. Of course, back then downtime was more of a thing, so dying of old age actually used to happen sometimes.
The 5e-styled thing to do would probably be "costs an attunement slot until dispelled".
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
One could, and your suggested caveat is a good one. I just noted that the permanent investiture of a point of Con was also removed from other spells this edition, such as find familiar, and I wanted to stay consistent. So, to that end I suggested the houserule we used to use in my group regarding the cost associated with the Permanency spell, a year of life. Of course, back then downtime was more of a thing, so dying of old age actually used to happen sometimes.
The 5e-styled thing to do would probably be "costs an attunement slot until dispelled".
Ohhh, an attunement slot is a good idea.
in theory, a year of life is significant, but rarely will matter in most campaigns. Also, it’s a much bigger deal to some species than others. Say, a legacy orc who will live to 50 vs an elf going to 700. If I was going with a life span penalty, I’d make it a percentage.
I think removing a hit die would be a fair trade for the con point. Attunement is fine but note that it means that the folks who make the magical thingies won't be the ones able to use them.
I also note that my old Kobold was enlarged and permananced as part of a curse, so I can see it.
One of the old mechanics was essentially the same spell at two different levels. And example offered was Enchant item, for example, which is essentially a lower-level permanency. You could reduce the spell's overall complexity (level 8) down in exchange for adding more capability as the caster grows stronger.
I confess that I had so many problems with the way magic was done (especially the spell slot thing) I just said screw it and am rewriting the entire magic system (I had a good excuse with the request for spell points and wanting more "elemental" spells for wizard duels). The CC release made my life a lot easier, lol.
So my take is biased.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The Enchant An Item was a precursor to creating a magic item, kinda like a primer. Then you cast a spell on that item to enchant it with. Then you would cast Permanency to make it, y’know, permanent. Enchant an Item didn’t work on people or AoEs.
I think removing a hit die would be a fair trade for the con point. Attunement is fine but note that it means that the folks who make the magical thingies won't be the ones able to use them.
I think removing a hit die would be a fair trade for the con point. Attunement is fine but note that it means that the folks who make the magical thingies won't be the ones able to use them.
Just say it requires attunement by the target or user, not the caster (unless, of course, they are the same).
I think removing a hit die would be a fair trade for the con point. Attunement is fine but note that it means that the folks who make the magical thingies won't be the ones able to use them.
Just say it requires attunement by the target or user, not the caster (unless, of course, they are the same).
That won’t work since objects and areas are legitimate targets for Permanency.
That won’t work since objects and areas are legitimate targets for Permanency.
I'd just ignore it for spells that target areas, the abuse potential is quite limited (maybe a gold cost, but that's all). The only spell that targets an object is invisibility, and that's such an edge case that I'd probably still ignore it.
I'd go with extending the year's worth of castings to every spell or making permanacy a spell that effectively concentrates for you... It's concentration can be broken, meaning it doesn't become a be all and end all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So there's been a couple of threads on here recently which discuss how Permanancy was a cool spell, and that it is somewhat missing from D&D. So, I am pondering how to make it fairly balanced, and not game-breaking.
My thoughts are:
1. Not actually properly permanant. The spell would prolong another spell, but isn't necessarily a "fire and forget" spell.
2. 8th or 9th level. It needs to be a rare thing.
3. Costs something to cast every time.
My initial concept would be:
Permanancy:
8th Level Enchantment
Casting time: one action
V,S,M (a magical item, which the spell consumes)
Duration: Until Dispelled
When you cast this spell, pick one spell that you have cast which you are currently concentrating on, or which is currently active. The effects of the chosen spell no longer require concentration to maintain, and the chosen spell lasts until this spell is dispelled.
If the chosen spell is of third level or lower, then the effects are permanant.
If the chosen spell is of Fourth level or higher, then you must cast this spell again after completing a Long Rest, or the chosen spell will end.
If cast using a 9th level spell slot, then a chosen spell of 4th level or lower becomes permanent, and spells of 5th level or higher require re-casting after a long rest.
So, how broken does this end up being? Thoughts and manipulations welcomed!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Is there anything wrong with taking Permanency from an earlier edition, with the same limited list of spells which can be made permanent?
[Also, why is this in DMs only rather than homebrew?]
The suggestion on a couple of spells, like magic circle, is that permanence can be achieved through daily castings for a year. So you are looking for a spell that'll effectively give you a year's worth of castings.
I would make it more like planar binding and only allow it to apply to spells that don't require concentration.
Help me understand, why the concern with simply allowing this spell?
It seems that a common concern is to worry about player's characters becoming too powerful, but as a DM I do not worry about this too much because there is nothing that a player can do that I cannot undo. I don't recall off the top of my head, but I think permanency in 3.x was limited so that PC's generally could only make low level spells permanent. So maybe this is once again because I am not highly familiar with 5e, but I don't see the harm with this one.
Yes. If you limited it to spells that can be made permanent on an area (rather than a creature or object) it would probably be fine, though. Or maybe allow permanency on creature spells at a cost of attunement slots.
I think a “magic item” would need to be more clearly defined. Casters that level can churn out level 1 spell scrolls for cheap.
Maybe make clear the item isn’t consumable.
Past editions had steep costs to reign in the spell. In 1e, it was a point of constitution, permanently (and in 1e, about the only way to get ability points was a wish. And it was a required step in making a magic item. I often wondered how many wizards died to make the bag of 20 +1 sling bullets.). In other editions, you had to pay xp, but that mechanic doesn’t work so well in the age of milestone leveling, and trying to keep most parties the same level.
It makes a mockery of the concentration mechanic. Casters are already very strong, letting them have some buff spells always on (Perma-bless comes to mind) would be really powerful.
Well, this is the 2e version of Permanency:
So, if I were converting it to 5e, I would do it like this:
At least, that’s a
1st2nd draft at any rate.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Why not just make it cost a point of constitution? Or if you don't want it to permanently hose people in the case of it being dispelled, it reduces your constitution by 1 until removed.
One could, and your suggested caveat is a good one. I just noted that the permanent investiture of a point of Con was also removed from other spells this edition, such as find familiar, and I wanted to stay consistent. So, to that end I suggested the houserule we used to use in my group regarding the cost associated with the Permanency spell, a year of life. Of course, back then downtime was more of a thing, so dying of old age actually used to happen sometimes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The 5e-styled thing to do would probably be "costs an attunement slot until dispelled".
Ooh, good call.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Ohhh, an attunement slot is a good idea.
in theory, a year of life is significant, but rarely will matter in most campaigns. Also, it’s a much bigger deal to some species than others. Say, a legacy orc who will live to 50 vs an elf going to 700. If I was going with a life span penalty, I’d make it a percentage.
I think removing a hit die would be a fair trade for the con point. Attunement is fine but note that it means that the folks who make the magical thingies won't be the ones able to use them.
I also note that my old Kobold was enlarged and permananced as part of a curse, so I can see it.
One of the old mechanics was essentially the same spell at two different levels. And example offered was Enchant item, for example, which is essentially a lower-level permanency. You could reduce the spell's overall complexity (level 8) down in exchange for adding more capability as the caster grows stronger.
I confess that I had so many problems with the way magic was done (especially the spell slot thing) I just said screw it and am rewriting the entire magic system (I had a good excuse with the request for spell points and wanting more "elemental" spells for wizard duels). The CC release made my life a lot easier, lol.
So my take is biased.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The Enchant An Item was a precursor to creating a magic item, kinda like a primer. Then you cast a spell on that item to enchant it with. Then you would cast Permanency to make it, y’know, permanent. Enchant an Item didn’t work on people or AoEs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A Hit Die isn’t a bad idea actually.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Just say it requires attunement by the target or user, not the caster (unless, of course, they are the same).
That won’t work since objects and areas are legitimate targets for Permanency.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd just ignore it for spells that target areas, the abuse potential is quite limited (maybe a gold cost, but that's all). The only spell that targets an object is invisibility, and that's such an edge case that I'd probably still ignore it.
I'd go with extending the year's worth of castings to every spell or making permanacy a spell that effectively concentrates for you... It's concentration can be broken, meaning it doesn't become a be all and end all.