Post/Author/DateTime	Post
memorax 08-09-05, 11:32 PM	I started to read the spells and the book and I think they left something out that used to be in Tome and Blood. Some spells like Enhance and Fortify familiar among others used to have the coat listed to have them cast permantly. I did not see such cost in the CA unless of course I may have missed it. Which is strange beacuse why put it in T&B but not in CA espcially when they use some spells from T&B. I also really do not want to get T&B either. Can anyone clear this up?
FlameLover 08-09-05, 11:48 PM	I'm guessing game balance issues, if they were permanent then it'd be ridiculous I think. Like does any other spell work premanently without a casting of Permanency?(Which even then can be easily dispelled).
Breetai 08-10-05, 12:37 AM	Important note to remember: T&B is a 3rd edition suppliment but the Complete Arcane is 3.5 so you gotta be carefull when using T&B as a referance if your playing a 3.5 game or vice versa. There's a lot of little things that were left out on purpose in the complete series update from the builder series (but some were left for future books as well i think.)
mbfu3k 08-10-05, 01:30 AM	I think the previous respondents are missing the OP's point. Specifically, in T&B there was a chart at the beginning of the New Spells section that listed XP costs for casting Permanency with some of the new spells printed in that supplement, including Enhance Familiar. The OP is wondering why they did not include that info in Complete Arcane for the spells that were reprinted, unchanged, in the new book. My guess is that it was not omitted for balance reasons, since the spells in the table in T&B were not unreasonable for Permanency, but, rather, simply because there are too many new spells in Complete Arcane. T&B had only a few new spells and it was easy for the writers to go through them to determine which ones were acceptable with Permanency and which would be overpowered. The writers of Complete Arcane probably felt that if they included that information, it would preclude DMs from allowing any of the many other spells in the new book to be made Permanent, at any cost.
memorax 08-10-05, 07:16 AM	I think the previous respondents are missing the OP's point. Specifically, in T&B there was a chart at the beginning of the New Spells section that listed XP costs for casting Permanency with some of the new spells printed in that supplement, including Enhance Familiar. The OP is wondering why they did not include that info in Complete Arcane for the spells that were reprinted, unchanged, in the new book. My guess is that it was not omitted for balance reasons, since the spells in the table in T&B were not unreasonable for Permanency, but, rather, simply because there are too many new spells in Complete Arcane. T&B had only a few new spells and it was easy for the writers to go through them to determine which ones were acceptable with Permanency and which would be overpowered. The writers of Complete Arcane probably felt that if they included that information, it would preclude DMs from allowing any of the many other spells in the new book to be made Permanent, at any cost. Actually mbfu3k you are exactly right about what I was asking. Most of those spells in T&B listed on that chart were not exactly game unbalancing aind in some cases a must like Enhance and Fortify Familiar. In any case your explanation makes sense. There are many more spells in the CA than T&B. Maybe a chart will appear in a later book. Probably the upcoming Spell Compendium. What does OP mean exactly?
mbfu3k 08-10-05, 10:34 AM	OP = Original Poster