Permanency in Pathfinder

[Smokey_the_bear]

[CountArioch]

Greater Dispel Magic.

Oh wait, you didn't ask for the best way to get a permanency-using character to lose a lot of money in one round.

In all honesty, I am against the exchange of experience for more power.  That idea simply can't work.  Furthermore, although the idea of exchanging gold for more power is broken, really it's no different than buying a +1 sword, except the +1 sword is less fragile than a permanency effect.  I don't have a problem, and don't understand why anyone would.

[Smokey_the_bear]

Greater Dispel Magic.

Oh wait, you didn't ask for the best way to get a permanency-using character to lose a lot of money in one round.

In all honesty, I am against the exchange of experience for more power.  That idea simply can't work.  Furthermore, although the idea of exchanging gold for more power is broken, really it's no different than buying a +1 sword, except the +1 sword is less fragile than a permanency effect.  I don't have a problem, and don't understand why anyone would.

It's not a "problem" per se, just an opportunity. Greater Dispel can easily be worked around and protected against long enough for the character not to worry about it. Besides, by the time you can actually cast permanency, you can easily replenish the gold you spend for most of these effects.

[Bauglir]

At a glance, they just converted the XP cost to its equivalent GP cost as per the Spellcasting and Services section of the SRD. So all you get is the discount on the spell slot, really. That's always what I did in games, anyway. I prefer spending money to spending XP, myself, just because I think it makes the logistics a bit easier, especially for starting at higher levels than 1 (cause depending on when you would have spent the XP, you should've gained more back, etc).

[CountArioch]

Which basically makes them just like buying magic items.  Which means I still don't see the problem other than the fact that you can convert gold into more power.

[Smokey_the_bear]

As a player who has had few opportunities to play in long running campaigns (our DMs get bored), spending xp has never been worth it for the games the last maybe 1-3 sessions. If nothing else, it's extremely convenient for PCs seeing as how gp is far more easy to come by than xp

[CountArioch]

Are you kidding?  Spending EXP is in every way superior than spending gold.  If you spend enough EXP so that you are lower level than the rest of the party, it increases your net experience gain by a great deal.  As in, you personally will gain more experience than anyone else.

It's like spending gold to get a 20% bonus on all gold gained for the rest of your career, and you get a permanent effect to boot!  It's a win-win situation.

I repeat:  I don't know why changing it to gold upsets you when it's slightly less broken than spending exp.

[Smokey_the_bear]

I would actually say that my tone was more excited than upset. I said it was silly not "GAME BREAKINGLY DEFECTIVE AND MUST BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT HAS SUCH A DRAMATIC EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY" As I said before, being in a group that doesn't have many long running games, I wouldn't have the benefit of the boost in net experience. So it actually wouldn't make sense for me to buy things with xp.

I have no doubt that eventually it comes in handy, it's just not useful EDIT: (to me).

It might just be me, but I think you're overreacting a tad.

[CountArioch]

It's definitely just you, considering you're excited they made permanency worse.

[bearsarebrown]

You don't need to be a dick.

[CountArioch]

I don't NEED to, I WANT to.

[Akalsaris]

I think it's a good change, and if I recall offensive dispelling is less dangerous in PF, since they got rid of area dispels and you don't automatically get a chance to dispel every spell (it's 1 spell with the normal dispel magic, 1/4 CL with greater).  So even if you had a permanent darkvision spell, the dispeller would have to work through your blink, mind blank, haste, etc before getting to the permanent (low-level) buffs.

Still, besides some low level utility spells that you could just put on a scroll, the only ones that really seem worth it to me are enlarge person for tanks and maybe permanent invisibility for a character that doesn't make direct attacks (a conjurer or buffer-type). 

[Doriando]

Still, besides some low level utility spells that you could just put on a scroll, the only ones that really seem worth it to me are enlarge person for tanks and maybe permanent invisibility for a character that doesn't make direct attacks (a conjurer or buffer-type). 

And even that would be a bit silly from roleplaying perspective. If I want permanent invis, my DM would require a real good RP reason for that hehe.

Anyway, in our campaign we passed lvl 10 and I definately couldn't find one spell worth the cost. Maybe in monty haul campaigns it would, but at the moment, there's so much better stuff to do with money than spending thousands of golds for something that can be dispelled the next discounter. Which it will. Always.

[telehax]

Still, besides some low level utility spells that you could just put on a scroll, the only ones that really seem worth it to me are enlarge person for tanks and maybe permanent invisibility for a character that doesn't make direct attacks (a conjurer or buffer-type). 

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/permanency.html#permanency

Invis only on objects.

If you raise your caster level for this spell you can make it much harder for these things to be dispelled, seeing as they can't even try unless their CL is higher than yours. This limits it to being dispelled mostly at boss encounters.

[CountArioch]

Maybe in monty haul campaigns it would,

There's no "u" in Monty Hall.

[Bauglir]

Of course not, but there IS one in Monty Haul. Not the most reputable source, I know, but the point is that it's a pun.

[Akalsaris]

Bauglir is using and spelling the phrase correctly - it's been part of D&D terminology since 2E at least. 

[CountArioch]

Yes, because people were misusing the term that they didn't know the etymology for.

[Bauglir]

Looks pretty correct to me, actually. Seemed to be saying that such Permanencies are only useful in a campaign where there's excessive wealth or the party is never at risk of anything bad happening, such as dispelling. Both seem to fall under the "Monty Haul" category or at least are permissibly close.

[Akalsaris]

Yes, because people were misusing the term that they didn't know the etymology for.

If by "misusing the term" you mean "using a made-up term to refer to a game where the DM gives out treasure very liberally", and by "didn't know the etymology" you mean "doesn't give a shit about the etymology" then yes, you are correct. 

Seriously, I looked up Monty Hall, and it makes no difference if I know the reference to Let's Make a Deal or not - the term Monty Haul is still about 20-30 years old.