Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 12-25-06, 12:13 AM	yaw have fun ;)
Japangirl 12-25-06, 12:16 AM	Only if casters can permanency other people too :-P.
UMiskatonic 12-25-06, 10:25 AM	Perhaps we can make it legal solely for the purposes of item creation? That would allow some key magic items to be made, and avoid spellcasters with fifteen permanently active spells up. Although, the LGCS doesn't allow for spells to carry from mod to mod anyway. This would seem to extend to permanecy as well, which would make it a fantastically expensive spell to cast, if I understand correctly. Basically you pay all those costs, just to get a spell for the remainder of the mod.
Morgen 12-25-06, 12:42 PM	Honestly the campaign is doing just fine without it and it really doesn't add a whole lot to the game when it is included. Just another spell, no need to unban.
ShinAkuma2 12-25-06, 02:27 PM	I wouldn't mind seeing some access to having a Permanent spell cast upon you... Of course, it'd have to be both hard to get and not-too-powerful a spell for it to be balanced, but even having the chance for a Permanent Magic Fang (Greater or otherwise) would send myself and other Monk players into a tizzy.
The_Jester 12-25-06, 02:56 PM	It might be useful for a learnable spell or an NPC spell for magic item creation, but since there's no paperwork to prove it was or was not cast nothing could carry over between session.
ShinAkuma2 12-25-06, 11:23 PM	but since there's no paperwork to prove it was or was not cast nothing could carry over between session. Sure there is...It's called an Adventure Record.
LGMoses 12-26-06, 12:04 AM	Sure there is...It's called an Adventure Record. thats true. I personally haven't enough experience in this matter to have a say. I just like to see you guys argue. :duel:
JamesMaissen 12-26-06, 02:17 PM	It might be useful for a learnable spell or an NPC spell for magic item creation, but since there's no paperwork to prove it was or was not cast nothing could carry over between session. It would be easy for the Circle to design a form that would be able to track ongoing effects, much like we do with an MIL. They could reference the AR where it occured where the play notes could have it listed and initialed. It would add very little more complexity over what we are used to having. It would make items such as a ring of counterspells much more in line with their normal use in core rules. It would also stop characters contorting to achieve what would be readily accomplished in core rules by such means. -James
budleiser 12-26-06, 07:23 PM	It would be easy for the Circle to design a form that would be able to track ongoing effects, much like we do with an MIL. They could reference the AR where it occured where the play notes could have it listed and initialed. It would add very little more complexity over what we are used to having. It would make items such as a ring of counterspells much more in line with their normal use in core rules. It would also stop characters contorting to achieve what would be readily accomplished in core rules by such means. -James I'm with James. I think a sheet that tracks ongoing effects is important anyway. Once you've reached level 6+ no doubt theres tons of favors or bonuses that keep piling up that need to be kept track of. I highlight such effects on AR's but eventually I'm going to have to make a list anyway.
Simpi 12-27-06, 02:24 AM	No, no no. No permanency for whatever reason. Because if that is allowed, following will take place in any table where high & low level tables can mix (such as in interactive). Player 1: Hey (insert name), you have that 15th level wizard, don't you. Player 2: I do. Player 1: Cool. I just started a character and he made it to 2nd level. Can I tag along your table in this interactive. You can then give me permanent enlarge person & resistance. (insert name) also needs permanent greater magic fang for his new monk. Is that possible. Player 2: Sure. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
LGMoses 12-27-06, 03:22 AM	No, no no. No permanency for whatever reason. Because if that is allowed, following will take place in any table where high & low level tables can mix (such as in interactive). Player 1: Hey (insert name), you have that 15th level wizard, don't you. Player 2: I do. Player 1: Cool. I just started a character and he made it to 2nd level. Can I tag along your table in this interactive. You can then give me permanent enlarge person & resistance. (insert name) also needs permanent greater magic fang for his new monk. Is that possible. Player 2: Sure. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad :P
JamesMaissen 12-27-06, 11:00 AM	No, no no. No permanency for whatever reason. Because if that is allowed, following will take place in any table where high & low level tables can mix (such as in interactive). Player 1: Hey (insert name), you have that 15th level wizard, don't you. Player 2: I do. Player 1: Cool. I just started a character and he made it to 2nd level. Can I tag along your table in this interactive. You can then give me permanent enlarge person & resistance. (insert name) also needs permanent greater magic fang for his new monk. Is that possible. Player 2: Sure. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad First this is a problem of allowing high levels and low levels to mix with PCs. The same problem occurs with break enchantments, limited wishes and the like already does it not? Secondly there would be some problem with the amount of xp expent in the above example. Mind you I think that spell costing xp should simply cost a determined amount of gold (perhaps in addition). But that's another problem and issue. Thirdly you could restrict it to self casting and hiring of casters if this is that much of a concern. But the above doesn't disturb me as much as the sorcerer who contorts their build and spells known to make sure they can have things like see invisibility up 24/7 by sheer slots because they cannot invest in a Permanent version because of LG's restrictions. -James
Randall Montgomery 12-27-06, 11:11 AM	No, no no. No permanency for whatever reason. Because if that is allowed, following will take place in any table where high & low level tables can mix (such as in interactive). Player 1: Hey (insert name), you have that 15th level wizard, don't you. Player 2: I do. Player 1: Cool. I just started a character and he made it to 2nd level. Can I tag along your table in this interactive. You can then give me permanent enlarge person & resistance. (insert name) also needs permanent greater magic fang for his new monk. Is that possible. Player 2: Sure. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad There are two simple ways to eliminate this problem. 1. Require the person receiving the permenant spell to pay the caster for the material component and normal spellcasting costs. 2. Restrict spellcasters to only being able to cast permenant spells on characters who are two levels below their level or higher. Personally, I'd like to see this included, as well as seeing other magical curses/benifits carry over between adventures.
ShinAkuma2 12-27-06, 12:38 PM	No, no no. No permanency for whatever reason. Because if that is allowed, following will take place in any table where high & low level tables can mix (such as in interactive). This doesn't address the fact that it could be an NPC casting of Permanancy, as an AR item. Of course letting PCs cast Permanancy would be outright stupid. Let's not dwell on that.
JamesMaissen 12-27-06, 03:06 PM	Of course letting PCs cast Permanancy would be outright stupid. Let's not dwell on that. I'm sorry I fail to see how it would be 'outright stupid' an idea. At the levels and expenditures it seems fairly reasonable. Now there might be some issues with xp costs of spells that this exaserbates, but that is a problem with exp costs of spells in a living campaign and not intrinsic to Permanency. -James
ShinAkuma2 12-27-06, 04:56 PM	I'm sorry I fail to see how it would be 'outright stupid' an idea. At the levels and expenditures it seems fairly reasonable. Have you read the rest of the topic yet? The fact that a low-level can hide his way through a high-level mod just so a friendly caster with Permanancy and a good buff can make him way too powerful for low-level play makes PC castings of Permanancy unfair, unless you start to meddle with the spell itself.
JamesMaissen 12-27-06, 10:45 PM	Have you read the rest of the topic yet? The fact that a low-level can hide his way through a high-level mod just so a friendly caster with Permanancy and a good buff can make him way too powerful for low-level play makes PC castings of Permanancy unfair, unless you start to meddle with the spell itself. Why yes I have read the rest of the topic, thank you for asking. I think I replied directly to the comment you are refering to in fact. If the worry is that higher level players will benefit lower level ones then it is something that is better solved by handling directly rather than banning core spells from the game that can otherwise be readily handled in LG. If you are concerned about a low level benefiting from high levels dragging them along then perhaps you will want to campaign for a change to the 1/2 xp/gold rule in favor of caps on xp/gold based on the minimum of level and APL played. As it stands a 2nd level character could get dragged along in an APL 14 mod and get 3300 gp a shot. When they eventually die (perhaps by popping out of the portable hole or forgetting to wear the necklace of adaptation while inside) they can easily be raised and play more intro mods! So that's back to my original comment that permanency is perfectly viable in LG, and the problems that it might incur are already problems that the system has that are only perhaps highlighted by the spell. -James
Mattastrophic 12-27-06, 10:59 PM	Personally, I am with both James and Sampo. I whole-heartedly agree that Permanency should be in, however I do not agree that it should be shared. The same applies with other long-duration effects, like Rings of Counterspells, Rings of Spell Storing, and and Spell Storing Weapons, because of situations like Sampo described. LG currently and has always taken the "every man is an island" approach, with no way to influence each other's PCs in a 'permanent' fashion. No crafting for each other, no trading, etc. The only violation is the "players can repair each other's equipment" rule, which I posted should go. So, Permanency, it should come in. It should only let you apply permanent spells to yourself, though, in keeping with "every man is an island." If the Circle wishes to drop that rule in the future, then they should do it full-force, not solely by allowing us to cast Permanent spells on each other or load up each others' Rings of Counterspells. -Matt
Mattastrophic 12-27-06, 11:01 PM	If you are concerned about a low level benefiting from high levels dragging them along then perhaps you will want to campaign for a change to the 1/2 xp/gold rule in favor of caps on xp/gold based on the minimum of level and APL played. As it stands a 2nd level character could get dragged along in an APL 14 mod and get 3300 gp a shot. When they eventually die (perhaps by popping out of the portable hole or forgetting to wear the necklace of adaptation while inside) they can easily be raised and play more intro mods! See my second post on Page 1 of the LGCS Suggestions thread. I also believe in a fix like this. It'll also make mustering hella simpler. So simple, the Circle would have to be very hard-headed to not adopt it. -Matt
Japangirl 12-27-06, 11:16 PM	If permanency is allowed into the game, rules-wise it makes sense to restrict it to only those who can cast it/paying an NPC to cast it. However, I don't think it's fair to do so. Permanency isn't on the list of spells that can be cast by NPCs (I don't think so anyways), so access would be very intermittent or nonexistent to non-casters. Casters already have a huge advantage in equipment, in that almost anyone who is a primary caster has a crafting feat and thus gets many valuable items at half price and extended access. To then allow them to permanency themselves, but to deny that opportunity to the rogues, fighters, rangers, and barbarians (among others) who play, skews the game towards casters in a very obvious fashion. High level play is already biased towards arcane power, simply because standing next to a colossal monster is often a really bad idea. There is no reason to tilt the playing field more towards arcane spellcasters. Because of this, I'd say either keep Permanency banned from use but change things to allow it to be used in crafting items, or figure out a way to track it on all players and allow PCs to cast it on other PCs within two levels of themselves.
JamesMaissen 12-28-06, 10:08 AM	If permanency is allowed into the game, rules-wise it makes sense to restrict it to only those who can cast it/paying an NPC to cast it. However, I don't think it's fair to do so. I agree that some small mechanism for handling it (and other spells with cost) be implemented. This is something that should be done regardless of permanency's inclusion or not mind you as it's already a problem. Permanency isn't on the list of spells that can be cast by NPCs (I don't think so anyways), so access would be very intermittent or nonexistent to non-casters. Casters already have a huge advantage in equipment, in that almost anyone who is a primary caster has a crafting feat and thus gets many valuable items at half price and extended access. This, too, is a separate problem. If you are going to allow permanency to be cast on self but not others by PCs then indeed you should allow NPCs to cast it for PCs. Simply add it to the list of NPC spellcasting, that's not a hard thing to do. Also while we're here the rules for MIC should be altered to allow for NPC item creation. The MIC feats should be about saving cash. In a shared environment like LG that monitors and regulates cash that is significant enough a benefit. Access should be level across the board. So again this is a criticism not of Permanency, but of other problems in the campaign that need to be addressed. Trying to ignore these issues by keeping a core spell banned is not good policy. High level play is already biased towards arcane power, simply because standing next to a colossal monster is often a really bad idea. There is no reason to tilt the playing field more towards arcane spellcasters. I disagree with this. Play styles will vary and people will 'observe' one class outshining others, but that is not universally true. Because of this, I'd say either keep Permanency banned from use but change things to allow it to be used in crafting items, or figure out a way to track it on all players and allow PCs to cast it on other PCs within two levels of themselves. Again I disagree and I view that all the 'problems' listed with its inclusion seem to be problems with the campaign that are already present and need addressing rather than ignoring. Permanency isn't the problem, and core spells and rules should only be removed from the game if they must go. The goal should be their inclusion as the full representation of the game. And permanency fills a canonical role and should no more be banned from LG than any other historical spell. -James