# Permanency and greater magic fang



## Sektat (Nov 27, 2007)

Is this correct:

A half-dragon which wants to have greater magic fang *permanently* cast on himself would have to pay: 
for +3: 7500 gold (for the XP) + 1080 gold (3x12x30) = 8580 gold
for +4: 7500 gold (for the XP) + 1440 gold (3x16x30) = 8940 gold

What disturbes me is the small difference between +3 and +4. Do I forget something?


----------



## Nifft (Nov 27, 2007)

IMHO the pricing should be along these lines: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofMightyFists

But double the price if it's slotless. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 27, 2007)

Is the x3 because he wants two claws and one bite?

The cost for a single +3 Greater Magic Fang is 12x30 = 360.  The cost for a single +4 Greater Magic Fang is 16x30 = 480.

The cost for a single Permanency on a single Greater Magic Fang is 11x50 = 550, plus 7500, for a total of 8050... assuming you want to go for the minimum caster level.  Remember, the lower the caster level, the easier it is to dispel, so while your CL16 GMF might withstand dispels well, it's no good if the CL11 Permanency gets zapped.  You'd be well-advised to find as high-level a caster as possible to cast your Permanencies.

So if you want GMF on two claws and one bite, you're looking at a minimum of 25230 for +3, or 26590 for +4, and more if you boost the CL on the Permanencies.

Of course, under 'Spellcasting Services', it notes that "If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available."  So you may have trouble finding someone to cast Permanency for hire.

-Hyp.


----------



## Sektat (Nov 27, 2007)

> Is the x3 because he wants two claws and one bite?

No, it's from the spell level of "greater magic fang". I mean, somebody must actually cast the spell on the half-dragon, and so I took the cost from the list "spell services". There it says that it costs spell_level x caster_level x 30 gold for a 3. level spell. So for a minimum of +1 only on bite and both claws it would give spell_level (3) x caster_level (5) x 30 gold = 450 gold.

I forgot the cost for the spell to cast permanency: spell_level (5) x caster_level (11 minimum rule!) x 50 gold (for 5. level spells) = 2750

This in addition to the 7500 gold for the XPs. Giving a total of 10700 gold. Correct?

> The cost for a single Permanency on a single Greater Magic
> Fang is 11x50 = 550, plus 7500, for a total of 8050... 

That doesnt seem correct, see above.

So for the question in the first post:
+3 (only on bite!): 11330 (only difference is the casterlevel for the GMF spell)
+4 (only on bite!): 11690
+5 (only on bite!): 12140

Soooo, it still seems ridiculous cheap the +5 compared to the +1/+2...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 27, 2007)

Sektat said:
			
		

> I took the cost from the list "spell services". There it says that it costs spell_level x caster_level x 30 gold for a 3. level spell.




No, it doesn't.

It costs caster level x 30 gold for a 3rd level spell.



> I forgot the cost for the spell to cast permanency: spell_level (5) x caster_level (11 minimum rule!) x 50 gold (for 5. level spells) = 2750
> 
> This in addition to the 7500 gold for the XPs. Giving a total of 10700 gold. Correct?




No, because it costs caster level x 50 gold for a 5th level spell, not spell level x caster level x 50.

The general formula is effectively spell level x caster level x _10_ gold (with 0 level spells counting as half).  The table has simply factored spell level into the constant at each level - CL x 10 for 1st, CL x 20 for 2nd, CL x 30 for 3rd.



> That doesnt seem correct, see above.




Read the table again.  You've added spell level to the formula where it doesn't exist.

-Hyp.


----------



## Sektat (Nov 27, 2007)

You're 100% right, I'm sorry. How could I missread that? (do not answer that question)
So that makes it even cheaper:
+3 (bite only): 7500 + (caster_level (11) x 50) + (caster_level (12) x 30) = 8410
+4 (bite only): 7500 + (caster_level (9) x 50) + (caster_level (16) x 30) = 8530

Still a small difference between +3 and +4. 
The difference between a +3 weapon and a +4 weapon is 14000 gold.
The difference between a +3 bite and a +4 bite is 120 gold?!

I wonder: A dispel magic on a "permanent" spell, would that completly break the permanency, or only for a few rounds like a dispel magic on a magic item?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 27, 2007)

Sektat said:
			
		

> I wonder: A dispel magic on a "permanent" spell, would that completly break the permanency, or only for a few rounds like a dispel magic on a magic item?




It ends the spell as if the duration had expired.  It's gone.

That's why 8000 gold for a permanent GMF is often considered a poor deal - one unlucky dispel, and you've got no 8000 gold, and no permanent GMF.

Plus, of course, the fact that Permanency is generally unavailable as a Spellcasting Service anyway, as the additional costs push the price above 3000gp.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darklone (Nov 27, 2007)

If you pay so much money for Permanency, a ring of counterspelling with a Dispel Magic would be a good idea...


----------



## DeathOfRats (Nov 27, 2007)

But then a ring of counterspelling Dispel Magic doesn't apply vs Greater Dispel Magic and all the other effects. You can get spellblades too on spikes, but how many different spells do you need to be protected against to cover all sins?


----------



## mvincent (Nov 27, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 8000 gold for a permanent GMF is often considered a poor deal - one unlucky dispel, and you've got no 8000 gold, and no permanent GMF.



That is why you get GMF +5 (i.e. Caster Level 20) for a few gp more. CL20 spells are effectively immune to regular dispel magic (the DC is too high).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 27, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> That is why you get GMF +5 (i.e. Caster Level 20) for a few gp more. CL20 spells are effectively immune to regular dispel magic (the DC is too high).




It does also mean finding a level 20 druid-for-hire.

And a level 20 wizard-for-hire who will cast the not-generally-available Permanency spell, since there's no point in having a GMF immune to dispelling if the Permanency that prevents it expiring _isn't_.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Nov 27, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It does also mean finding a level 20 druid-for-hire.



Yup. But if a 20th level caster cannot be located, try for a lower level one that has his Caster Level temporarily augmented using a bead of karma, candle of invocation, orange ioun stone, and/or a ring of spell-storing loaded with death knell. Most cities should have a 14-16th level druid available to them. Alternately, a scroll could be purchased for a bit more.



> And a level 20 wizard-for-hire who will cast the not-generally-available Permanency spell, since there's no point in having a GMF immune to dispelling if the Permanency that prevents it expiring _isn't_.



There are various interpretations on what is subject to dispel, but yup, I'd certainly recommend it (depending on your DM). Some of the above CL boosting methods could still be used (especially if the wizard has UMD), or there is always the scroll option.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 27, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Most cities should have a 14-16th level druid available to them.






I know that's where all the 16th level druids I've heard of like to hang out 



> Alternately, a scroll could be purchased for a bit more.




Er, yeah, but to craft a CL20 scroll still requires a CL20 caster...

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Nov 28, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I know that's where all the 16th level druids I've heard of like to hang out



Yeah... that is a bit of irony... the larger the city, the greater the chance that a higher-level NPC druid will be randomly generated for it.



> to craft a CL20 scroll still requires a CL20 caster...



Presumeably, there are 20th level casters available _somewhere_, and the D&D rules seem to condone high-level scrolls being more readily available than high level casters. I mean, I'm just following the rules here. A CL20 scroll of GMF should cost 1,500 gp and so should be available in towns with a 1,500 gp limit or higher.

A scroll of permanency would be a bit harder. A standard one costs 10,125 gp and provides enough XP for GMF. Getting a CL20 one (assuming your DM says you need it to resist regular dispels) might be more difficult, but it seems like one could be ordered even if the spellcaster wasn't available locally.

Dunno how it all works... maybe the mercanes have a big, extra-planar warehouses full o' the stuff and an effective distribution system that rivals amazon.com.


----------



## Nifft (Nov 28, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Yeah... that is a bit of irony... the larger the city, the greater the chance that a higher-level NPC druid will be randomly generated for it.



 As an aside, there are three reasons for this in my game:

- Druids are in charge of the Ministry of Ways and Roads. Minimizes conflict with nature; also, their spell list is fantastic for non-destructive landscaping.

- Cities tend to form around trade routes, like rivers. In D&D, this could also mean around Portals. Druids might be easy to find when you're in a big city because there's a nearby Portal which leads to the Druid's actual location.

- "Elf architecture". Who says that "city" only means brick & mortar? Not all cities will be embedded in a living organism of some kind, but some surely will.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 28, 2007)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Yeah... that is a bit of irony... the larger the city, the greater the chance that a higher-level NPC druid will be randomly generated for it.




I actually played an LN urban druid at one point.  His philosophy was that man is a part of nature, and that a city is thus as much a natural environment as a termite mound or a beaver dam.  He therefore tasked himself with protecting that environment and its inhabitants from aberrant influences - criminals, invasion, and so forth.

(His 'animal companion' was a swarm of cats  )

-Hyp.


----------



## Darklone (Nov 28, 2007)

I like to have druids in the sewers... favored animal companion: rats.


----------



## eamon (Nov 28, 2007)

On the matter of Permanency...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Spells cast on other creatures, objects, or locations (not on you) are vulnerable to dispel magic as normal.




i.e., though a higher level caster still makes dispelling harder, you're not immune to dispelling by lower-level casters.

In any case, is it even possible to use permanency on a spell cast by someone else?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 28, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> i.e., though a higher level caster still makes dispelling harder, you're not immune to dispelling by lower-level casters.




That's right.

But a CL20 spell requires a dispel check of 31, which is very difficult to achieve on 1d20+10 - the cap for Dispel Magic.  You can still do it with Greater Dispelling, for example.

A CL19 permanent spell cast on someone else can be dispelled by a CL10 caster on a lucky roll.  A CL19 permanent spell cast on yourself can't - it's immune.  But while a CL20 permanent spell cast on someone else isn't immune, it's also beyond the capability of a standard Dispel Magic.

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Nov 28, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You can still do it with Greater Dispelling, for example.



Yup. Some more tips for the OP (in case you are truly worried that the DM is planning to hit you with GDM's):
A ring of counterspells (loaded with GDM) can help prevent targeted GDM's, while a bunch of CL 21 magic mouths can protect against area GDM's (the magic mouths could be created by a lower level caster using any of the CL augmenting methods mentioned above).


----------



## gnfnrf (Nov 28, 2007)

So, with a little cleverness and a slightly generous DM, a PC can achieve the benefit of a 150,000 gp magic item for around 10,000 gp.

The downside is that, under certain specific circumstances, the whole thing might just up and go away. (Money can be spent to minimize this possibility)

This leads me to believe that one of the two prices is very very wrong, but which one is it?

Is the Amulet of Mighty Fists just way overpriced?  Is the permanency solution underpriced? (almost definitely)  How much do multiple natural attacks factor in?

I'm facing this situation as a DM, where a monk PC wants to buy GMF.  I don't want to say yes, but I don't want to leave the AoMF as the only option.  I was thinking about a middleground magic item which only affects unarmed attacks, but I can't decide how to price it.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## mvincent (Nov 28, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I'm facing this situation as a DM, where a monk PC wants to buy GMF.  I don't want to say yes, but I don't want to leave the AoMF as the only option.



You could always discuss it with the player. Given the potential difficulties in procuring high level druids, your generousity isn't mandatory. Your player probably wouldn't have a problem with you limiting the Caster level (until he reaches higher levels). 

Note for the OP: each casting of GMF only enhances one of the half-dragon's natural weapon's (rather than all), and these often aren't overly powerful attacks to begin with, so this would not be as powerful as a monk with GMF.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Nov 28, 2007)

gnfnrf said:
			
		

> I was thinking about a middleground magic item which only affects unarmed attacks, but I can't decide how to price it.




Hmm... my suggestion would be to price it like a weapon, but, say, triple the cost.

In other words, exactly the same as an Amulet of Mighty Fists. Because that is, after all, exactly what it does.

Think of it this way. He's getting an enhancement bonus to his main weapon that can never be disarmed, never be sundered, and he never has to draw them. (And, they count as Lawful and Adamantine after a certain level.) I don't think it's wise to price it any lower than that, since really, he's getting an awesome benefit compared to Fighters and Rogues and such.

If you're worried about the idea of an amulet being old and dull, then your problem is simple! Just describe it as something else, make it a different slot, whatever. Make it a tattoo on his arms that takes up the bracer slot, but can be removed by semi-magical means. Or a headband that was worn by an ancient martial artist. Or something. Or, if your problem is wanting to be able to apply special abilities to it (such as flaming or shock or whatever), go ahead and just increase the cap on the AoMF to an effective +10, just like weapons. Just remember the triple the cost.

Is there a problem with the AoMF that I'm missing?


----------



## eamon (Nov 30, 2007)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Is there a problem with the AoMF that I'm missing?




In my experience, merely the cost.  An amulet which is triple the cost of a weapon is simply outrageous - for a monk.  For a dragon, it's a different story.  A monk generally doesn't need to bypass DR/magic since his fists can anyhow, so he's only buying it for improving the fist themselves.  Monks aren't particularly impressing in the damage area, normally, compared to a two-handed weapon wielding fighter - and that's fine.  But the pricing of the amulet makes it worse even than a two-weapon wielding fighter, and those are pretty bad, by all accounts.  Generally, I let my players by a monk-specific unarmed strike amulet for 1.5 times the normal weapon enh. cost, i.e. 3 * bonus-squared.  This seems to work fine.

In a practical matter, I'd definitely not let my PC's encounter a 20th-level caster-for-hire.  They've never encountered anything above 12th level yet, and a 20th level caster is not something they'll find around the corner, and further, only a small fraction of the NPC's they encounter are for hire.  They might eventually actually meet a 20th level NPC, but they'll need to meet hundreds until they find one that can cast permanency, greater magic fang, and isn't occupied with their own things, and is willing to pay an XP cost at the moment.  

My suggestion: make the amulet of "unarmed striking" cheaper (and potentially add an interesting flavorful twist), don't let them hire a mage more than 5 levels above their own without a real in-game plot element, and if players come to rely very heavily on the non-dispellability of spells, then make sure to have a bunch of low-level clerics spamming low-level dispel magics just to be annoying.  If they're 15th level, then a 10th level cleric adds little to the challenge but can be quite annoying if they're really relying too heavily on dispellable spells.

As a DM, I'm rarely too bothered with dispel magic, it's just too much hassle. But if people start casting persistant spells and buying permanencies left-right-center, then it's probably wise to sometimes - even if rarely - remind them that this isn't a great idea.


----------



## mvincent (Nov 30, 2007)

eamon said:
			
		

> They might eventually actually meet a 20th level NPC, but they'll need to meet hundreds until they find one that can cast permanency, greater magic fang



Note that permanency and greater magic fang would almost certainly need to be supplied by two separate spellcasters.



> don't let them hire a mage more than 5 levels above their own without a real in-game plot element



That seems pretty reasonable.


----------

