Permanency scroll cost

[kreynolds]

You said your player had a "wand of permanency".
I pointed out that you can't have such a wand.
Then you said your player didn't have a wand of permanency, but a wondrous item, instead.

And then you tell me I'm wrong?
Okay, fine.

Yes. You were wrong. I said, "wand" and then explained the cost behind the wand, thus demonstrating how it was possible that a wand exhisted that contained higher than a 4th level spell.

Very recenly, you came out and said this...

You make wands with 5th level spells

Which is incorrect because I already explained how I made the wand. I had already explained that it was a wondrous item. I was only initially "wrong" in that I called the item a "wand" when in fact it's a wondrous item. I am not wrong now because the "mistake" has already been corrected, but you seemed to believe it was necessary to say it was wrong yet again, after the "mistake" has already been corrected. You have, essentially, wasted everyone's time with your useless banter.

Then you told another poster, "What you can't do is combine these two spells into one simple step". [/B]

That's right. You can't combine two spells into one spell on a scroll, but you can place two spells on a single scroll and cast them separately.

I pointed out that your wondrous-item-workaround calls this assertion into question.

No you didn't. You made a pointless and worthless comment about a legally constructed magic item. You are simply too dense to notice. But I'm getting a real kick watching you make a fool outta yourself. Please. Continue.

Then you asserted that you said "the two spells couldn't not be combined into one spell for the scroll.

You are not including the entire post in a shameful attempt to twist my words. Here is my entire post...

What you can't do is combine these two spells into one simple step. They will function just as if cast normally, so they have to be separate, but you can place them both on the scroll.

This is correct. You can't combine two spells into one spell on a scroll. And as I stated in that quote, you must place them both on the scroll, separately. You have accomplished nothing but show everyone your short attention span.

One step, one spell... subtle difference, but important.

You have failed to make your point. In the complete passage I explained that the spells could be placed upon the scroll separately. If you can't figure that out, that's not my problem.

But then you tell me I'm wrong?

Oh yes.

I'll try to be more direct.

You couldn't possibly.

You presented three options for handling the rules dilema under discussion.

Yes. I did. Here they are...

1) At the time the scroll of permanency is created, you simply specify how much XP you're putting into it, which means you are essentially setting the caster level of the scroll.

2) At the time the scroll of permanency is made, you must create it with the other spell in mind and include the other spell on the same scroll.option 3...

3) The user of the permanency scroll spends the XP. Remember, activating a scroll is very similar to casting the spell yourself, except for the XP part.

I use option 3 in my games, but if I were to handle this differently, option 1 would be my choice.

I pointed out that your selected option directly violates the rules for magic item creation, making it a house rule.

I never said it wasn't a house rule.

You question my attention span

I questioned your attention span because 1) I never claimed it wasn't a house rule, and 2) in case you hadn't noticed, the point of this thread was to figure out how you officially create a scroll of permanency and also to kick around a few ideas to handle it better. The three options I mentioned were just that, options. The first one is the rules, the second and third are houes rules. Options.

You then commented, "I wouldn't use it unless I dropped my house rule."

Exactly. It's my house rule, and I never said it wasn't a house rule.

Self-contradiction (barring possible misinterpretation on my part) yet again.

Self-contradiction? No. Misinterpretation on your part? Oh yes.

 

[Antikinesis]

I was only initially "wrong" in that I called the item a "wand" when in fact it's a wondrous item … you seemed to believe it was necessary to say it was wrong yet again ….

Since you have finally admitted you were wrong when calling it a wand, and since I have finally successfully stated my view on this subtopic in such a manner that you have gleaned its meaning, I have no objection to dropping the issue.

You have, essentially, wasted everyone's time with your useless banter.

That’s okay, everyone else probably stopped reading about a half-dozen messages ago. Maybe more. This is between you and me, hombre.

I pointed out that your wondrous-item-workaround calls this assertion [can’t cast two spells at once] into question.
No you didn't. You made a pointless and worthless comment about a legally constructed magic item.

I regret my failure to express the concept in terms that you could grasp. Mea culpa.

You are simply too dense to notice. But I'm getting a real kick watching you make a fool outta yourself.

Resorting to personal insults now? I’m disappointed, Not-Sean. I expected better from you. You are becoming bitter in your defeat.

Please. Continue.

I’m still finding this entertaining, so continue I shall.

You are not including the entire post in a shameful attempt to twist my words.

I am not including the entire post in a shameful attempt to reduce the amount of material to a scale that you can assimilate in its entirety, in order to demonstrate to you that you are contradicting yourself.

You have accomplished nothing but show everyone your short attention span. … You have failed to make your point.

Regrettably, you appear to be correct in that I have not accomplished my goal of filtering the content down to core concepts within your ability to comprehend.

In the complete passage I explained that the spells could be placed upon the scroll separately.

Yup. No debate here. And I suggested that making a wondrous item resembling a scroll (similar to your wand-like wondrous item) would, within the rules, allow permanent darkvision via a single use of the item.

I never said it wasn't a house rule.… I never claimed it wasn't a house rule.… It's my house rule, and I never said it wasn't a house rule… the second and third are houes rules.

It sounds like you decided that was a house rule. In light of this information, I apologize for misinterpreting your commentary on my lack of attention span as an attempt to contradict my labeling the house rule, instead of taking the commentary for the personal attack it was intended to be. I regret that such future attacks will probably also be misinterpreted, as I have a tendency to give a person the benefit of the doubt.

Wheeeeeeee….

-AK

 

[kreynolds]

...<snip>...

*yawn* You have proven nothing. At this point, you're now playing with yourself (figure of speech).