Permanent Health Spells, Is this just horribly broken? Options

[spotlite]

OK, I've had a check in MITS book, and I've done a search here, and I can't find anything to suggest that designing a permanent effect, attribute boosting health spell would not be perfectly within the rules. Its not restoring someone to normal health, so you take the +1 level modifier for permanent spell, but there's nothing to stop you learning an increase attribute spell for each attribute and then casting it and having all your stats (or those of your team mates) boosted, and boosted permanently.

That can't be right, can it? Someone tell me I missed something? I'm just waiting for my players to figure this, and then suddenly I'm dealing with a bunch of characters with all their attributes (at least the non-cybered or biowared ones unless the mages learns some extra spells) probably 3 to 4 points higher than they were previously. You couldn't dispell it, and it wouldn't be astrally active or noticeable in astral once the signature has faded.

Apologies if this has been asked before, I did search for it and didn't find anything.

[Zeel De Mort]

I haven't checked MitS, but it's entirely possible that you're right and that you can design such a spell, by the rules. But then there are no doubt quite a few other rather questionable spells you could design as well. Not to mention fully recoil compensated assault rifles, cars that can outrun a sluggish jet plane, cyberdecks that let you download the entirity of shadowland in the space of a combat turn, etc.

Well, you get the point anyway. :)

[Herald of Verjig...]

There's a line in there somewhere that tries to indicate when it's permanent and when it's sustained. Basically, if it's in the books as sustained, you can't make it permanent without quickening.

[Sabosect]

What about a sammy with a built in auto-loading belt-fed grenade launcher that can outrun a laser in a speed race?

In any case, it does indicate certain spells in the core books that are health spells and permanent after being sustained for a short period of time. That could be a way to create balanced permanent health spells.

[wargear]

This is just asking for the regeneration spell I cooked up a few years back. It was a sustained spell, and each turn it was maintained a box of damage was healed, limbs regrown took a fair bit longer, but were still possible. Very nasty drain, and not practical for the middle of a firefight. But quickened or upgraded to a "permanent" effect... :D

[Jason Farlander]

I asked a similar question long ago, and was directed to this quote, which I had somehow overlooked (as you seem to have):

"As a general rule, if the spell provides some sort of game bonus (other than restorative), the effects should not be permanent. The gamemaster has the final say on whether it is possible to create a permanent version of a spell." - MITS pg 50.

[wargear]

[Edward]

This I why the spell design system is not the be all and end all of creating a new spell. If your GM is stupid enough to allow it then you can do it.

Edward

[Fortune]

[Sabosect]

No. Most spells are permanent because they are also instaneous. It's kinda hard for a fireball to only be a temporary effect when it causes the Johnson's car to explode as you get revenge for him not paying you. Same as Death Touch when killing a Barghest when said Johnson's friends try to get revenge. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to concentrate for several rounds to keep that Barghest dead in most situations.

But I think you are right about such spells as Heal. Well, that fragged my point.

[Fortune]

You did notice that I limited my statement to Health Spells, but the point is valid for all spells, as you made clear yourself. In order for Death Touch to have any effect, it has to be described as permanent, otherwise the damage goes away at the end of the spell, making it Near-Death Spell. The Spell would have no real effect (If I wanted a Coma Spell I'd have made one) if it was merely sustained. I think this should be the rule of thumb when deciding whether any particular spell could or should be made permanent.

[RedmondLarry]

[Fortune]

I think the original point was whether there was a ruling, or even rationale for some type of limitation on certain Health Spells being made permanent. The actual mechanics are really immaterial in this instance, as I was looking for a precident among any spells who's effects could be considered permanent. My premise is that for any spell to be eligible to be made permanent, its effects could not be logical or even existant under any other option (ie. Since Improved Strength can be sustained with the same effect as a permanent version, it would not be eligible for the permanency option).

[spotlite]

[John Campbell]

[Crusher Bob]

The effect of permanet spells happens immediately, but it will revet to its original state if the sustaining time is not maintained. This is so you can keep your friend from bleeding to death with that treat spell.