Level Up (A5E) So. Permanency, the spell.

[Faolyn]

Second draft is up!

 

[W'rkncacnter]

other then adjusting some wording to match how other spells describe upcasting, i like this version.

 

[DarkRainbowFiend]

Yes, single high level spell slots are a thing about 5e. Losing complete access to those spells is probably a very steep penalty, although also having a permanent 8th or 9th level spell is quite the boon.
I'm not too fond of hp penalty either, because it can still be sidestepped with temporary HP, multiclassing to classes with more HPs, magic items, etc, and doesn't feel right to me.

The idea of the attunement slots is actually very interesting. It allows a PC to substitute a magic item with a power, which is something some 3.5 3pp expansions were doing and suggesting.
It does give some decision power back in the hands of the player, whereas 5e generally leaves giving magic item as a prerogative for the DM. I'm ok with that, but I guess that the possiblity of having 3 high level permanent spells could lead to a lot of issues in the hands of min-maxers. Could still be fun though.

The thing is: could a player recover the attunement slot by forfeiting the permanent spell? I'd also link the attunement slot to the character benefitting from the spell, not necessarily the caster.

i'll assume the attunement slot is only "occupied" as long as the spell is in effect, and it would make sense that the target of the effect (if it positive) would be the one with the attunement slot taken (though if its something like polymorphing a frog and making it permanent, it would be the caster who takes up the attunement slot).

 

[W'rkncacnter]

(though if its something like polymorphing a frog and making it permanent, it would be the caster who takes up the attunement slot).

but imagine if that still forced the target to take up their attunement slot. how mean would THAT be?

 

[DarkRainbowFiend]

but imagine if that still forced the target to take up their attunement slot. how mean would THAT be?

maybe link it to a saving throw or something?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

maybe link it to a saving throw or something?

you'd need to reduce the casting time as well (at least when used offensively). a spell with a casting time of several hours generally makes for a bad offensive spell.

 

[Faolyn]

but imagine if that still forced the target to take up their attunement slot. how mean would THAT be?

Serves that frog right for... doing whatever it did to deserve getting turned into a frog.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Serves that frog right for... doing whatever it did to deserve getting turned into a frog.

as a friend of mine once said: "My ass is not escaping Samsara. I'll be back."

 

[Faolyn]

Third draft! Which is mostly just clarifications and rephrasing, although I added the following things, which I forgot first time around:

* The thing about it taking an attunement slot.

* Being within the target spell's range to make it permanent.

* Letting spells that could normally be removed with remove curse still be removed that way.

* Giving the option for the Narrator to remove the "cast this spell at the same location every day for a year" and just use permanency instead.

Now, one more (and hopefully last) question: Is this spell too expensive? The list price for a +1 weapon is 500 gp. Making it yourself would probably be about half that, assuming you had to pay for the masterwork sword. Making one through this spell would cost 2,000 gp.

I can very easily see charging 1,000/level for spells that are cast directly on a person--make up some lore about how the raw magic interferes with a person's soul or whatever unless lots and lots of expensive ingredients are used, if you like--but should I cut the cost for casting this spell on an area or object? 250 gp/level?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

yeah, i'd agree the spell is too expensive. alongside what you mentioned, it's also basically unusable as a 3rd level character (which is the earliest you can take it). reducing the cost for casting a spell on an area or object would help, i think.