Mixing
For spells that can be made permanent after multiple castings, does the effect need to be maintained continuously during the setup?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
There are a number of spells that normally have a 24-hour duration, but can be made permanent by casting them on the same target every day for a specified number of consecutive days. Examples include arcanist's magic aura (30 days) and private sanctum (1 year). They all include a wording similar to
Casting this spell on the same spot every day for a year makes this effect permanent.
The logical implication of this cause seems to be that the effect becomes permanent once it is maintained continuously for an extended period. However, interpreting it in this way leads to some pathological issues. For example, if I cast private sanctum at 1:00 PM today but wait until 1:05 PM tomorrow to cast it again, there will be a 5-minute window tomorrow where no private sanctum spell is active. So, to ensure continuity, I either need to cast the spell every day at precisely 1 PM, or in the absence of precise timekeeping technology, I need to leave a safety margin by casting it a little earlier on the following day, say 12:55 PM. However, if I keep doing the latter, the casting time will be pushed earlier and earlier, until I'm waking up in the wee hours of the morning to cast the spell, and eventually even having to cast the spell twice in one day. e.g. at 12:05 AM and 11:55 PM (assuming you consider midnight to be the point of transition from one day to the next).
Given all this, does the requirement of casting a 24-hour spell on consecutive days imply that there must be no "gaps" between the durations of consecutive castings, such that the spell's effect is maintained continuously for the entire "setup period", or is it ok to have gaps, as long as the spell is cast at least once each day?
dnd-5e spells time permanency
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
There are a number of spells that normally have a 24-hour duration, but can be made permanent by casting them on the same target every day for a specified number of consecutive days. Examples include arcanist's magic aura (30 days) and private sanctum (1 year). They all include a wording similar to
Casting this spell on the same spot every day for a year makes this effect permanent.
The logical implication of this cause seems to be that the effect becomes permanent once it is maintained continuously for an extended period. However, interpreting it in this way leads to some pathological issues. For example, if I cast private sanctum at 1:00 PM today but wait until 1:05 PM tomorrow to cast it again, there will be a 5-minute window tomorrow where no private sanctum spell is active. So, to ensure continuity, I either need to cast the spell every day at precisely 1 PM, or in the absence of precise timekeeping technology, I need to leave a safety margin by casting it a little earlier on the following day, say 12:55 PM. However, if I keep doing the latter, the casting time will be pushed earlier and earlier, until I'm waking up in the wee hours of the morning to cast the spell, and eventually even having to cast the spell twice in one day. e.g. at 12:05 AM and 11:55 PM (assuming you consider midnight to be the point of transition from one day to the next).
Given all this, does the requirement of casting a 24-hour spell on consecutive days imply that there must be no "gaps" between the durations of consecutive castings, such that the spell's effect is maintained continuously for the entire "setup period", or is it ok to have gaps, as long as the spell is cast at least once each day?
dnd-5e spells time permanency
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
1
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
There are a number of spells that normally have a 24-hour duration, but can be made permanent by casting them on the same target every day for a specified number of consecutive days. Examples include arcanist's magic aura (30 days) and private sanctum (1 year). They all include a wording similar to
Casting this spell on the same spot every day for a year makes this effect permanent.
The logical implication of this cause seems to be that the effect becomes permanent once it is maintained continuously for an extended period. However, interpreting it in this way leads to some pathological issues. For example, if I cast private sanctum at 1:00 PM today but wait until 1:05 PM tomorrow to cast it again, there will be a 5-minute window tomorrow where no private sanctum spell is active. So, to ensure continuity, I either need to cast the spell every day at precisely 1 PM, or in the absence of precise timekeeping technology, I need to leave a safety margin by casting it a little earlier on the following day, say 12:55 PM. However, if I keep doing the latter, the casting time will be pushed earlier and earlier, until I'm waking up in the wee hours of the morning to cast the spell, and eventually even having to cast the spell twice in one day. e.g. at 12:05 AM and 11:55 PM (assuming you consider midnight to be the point of transition from one day to the next).
Given all this, does the requirement of casting a 24-hour spell on consecutive days imply that there must be no "gaps" between the durations of consecutive castings, such that the spell's effect is maintained continuously for the entire "setup period", or is it ok to have gaps, as long as the spell is cast at least once each day?
dnd-5e spells time permanency
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
There are a number of spells that normally have a 24-hour duration, but can be made permanent by casting them on the same target every day for a specified number of consecutive days. Examples include arcanist's magic aura (30 days) and private sanctum (1 year). They all include a wording similar to
Casting this spell on the same spot every day for a year makes this effect permanent.
The logical implication of this cause seems to be that the effect becomes permanent once it is maintained continuously for an extended period. However, interpreting it in this way leads to some pathological issues. For example, if I cast private sanctum at 1:00 PM today but wait until 1:05 PM tomorrow to cast it again, there will be a 5-minute window tomorrow where no private sanctum spell is active. So, to ensure continuity, I either need to cast the spell every day at precisely 1 PM, or in the absence of precise timekeeping technology, I need to leave a safety margin by casting it a little earlier on the following day, say 12:55 PM. However, if I keep doing the latter, the casting time will be pushed earlier and earlier, until I'm waking up in the wee hours of the morning to cast the spell, and eventually even having to cast the spell twice in one day. e.g. at 12:05 AM and 11:55 PM (assuming you consider midnight to be the point of transition from one day to the next).
Given all this, does the requirement of casting a 24-hour spell on consecutive days imply that there must be no "gaps" between the durations of consecutive castings, such that the spell's effect is maintained continuously for the entire "setup period", or is it ok to have gaps, as long as the spell is cast at least once each day?
dnd-5e spells time permanency
dnd-5e spells time permanency
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
edited 16 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
asked 1 hour ago
Ryan Thompson
3,1311840
3,1311840
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
1
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
1
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
1
1
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Neither spell that you pointed out makes any kind of explicit reference to a need to keep the effect continuously active. Therefore, it can be inferred that merely casting the spell once per day is sufficient to gain the permanent effects irrespective of whether it is "a few minutes late/early" at the time of casting. As long as the spell is cast once between midnight and midnight, it qualifies for that day.
5th Edition spells generally do only what they say they do. The lack of a qualifier saying the effect must be strictly continuous should not imply the existence of such a requirement.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
Neither spell that you pointed out makes any kind of explicit reference to a need to keep the effect continuously active. Therefore, it can be inferred that merely casting the spell once per day is sufficient to gain the permanent effects irrespective of whether it is "a few minutes late/early" at the time of casting. As long as the spell is cast once between midnight and midnight, it qualifies for that day.
5th Edition spells generally do only what they say they do. The lack of a qualifier saying the effect must be strictly continuous should not imply the existence of such a requirement.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
Neither spell that you pointed out makes any kind of explicit reference to a need to keep the effect continuously active. Therefore, it can be inferred that merely casting the spell once per day is sufficient to gain the permanent effects irrespective of whether it is "a few minutes late/early" at the time of casting. As long as the spell is cast once between midnight and midnight, it qualifies for that day.
5th Edition spells generally do only what they say they do. The lack of a qualifier saying the effect must be strictly continuous should not imply the existence of such a requirement.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Neither spell that you pointed out makes any kind of explicit reference to a need to keep the effect continuously active. Therefore, it can be inferred that merely casting the spell once per day is sufficient to gain the permanent effects irrespective of whether it is "a few minutes late/early" at the time of casting. As long as the spell is cast once between midnight and midnight, it qualifies for that day.
5th Edition spells generally do only what they say they do. The lack of a qualifier saying the effect must be strictly continuous should not imply the existence of such a requirement.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
Neither spell that you pointed out makes any kind of explicit reference to a need to keep the effect continuously active. Therefore, it can be inferred that merely casting the spell once per day is sufficient to gain the permanent effects irrespective of whether it is "a few minutes late/early" at the time of casting. As long as the spell is cast once between midnight and midnight, it qualifies for that day.
5th Edition spells generally do only what they say they do. The lack of a qualifier saying the effect must be strictly continuous should not imply the existence of such a requirement.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
9,7913067
9,7913067
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134629%2ffor-spells-that-can-be-made-permanent-after-multiple-castings-does-the-effect-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I think "Additionally, would the chain of consecutive castings be broken if the spell is dispelled or dismissed early?" is a completely different question. I recommend editing that out and asking a separate question so that you get good answers for both.
– Bloodcinder
1 hour ago
1
Ok, I'll remove that part.
– Ryan Thompson
1 hour ago