From the Spell Compendium, Resistance, Greater reads:

This spell functions like resistance (PH 272), except as noted here. You grant the subject a +3 resistance bonus on saves.

Resistance, Superior is similar, but for +6.

Since the spell Resistance says it can be made permanent with Permanency, does that mean these spells can also be made permanent with Permanency? Their text apparently allows it, but Permanency does not appear to be updated to allow it.

  • \$\begingroup\$ When you say "but Permanency does not appear to be updated to allow it." are there spells from the SC it does? I am just curious because I assumed nothing was updated, so was surprised by your note. \$\endgroup\$ – joedragons Feb 23 '18 at 21:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @joedragons Permanency explains the cost of making various spells permanent. That chart is not updated for these new spells. So you could either interpret it as "500 xp for permanent +6 resistance bonus" or permanency would need an update to explain the cost. This is assuming, of course, that these spells are supported by permanency. \$\endgroup\$ – Wannabe Warlock Feb 24 '18 at 10:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ Cool thanks. What I was trying to infer/clarify is I feel that's the same for all spells in SC not just this one. The different of course is that this references an existing spell just the "lesser" option. \$\endgroup\$ – joedragons Feb 26 '18 at 17:04


Ultimately, this comes down to whether one interprets 'functions like [X]' as letting a spell count as that thing or not. The rules are unclear on that topic and both interpretations have problems:

If "Functions like [X]" is sufficient to make a spell count as 'X', then you would use the resistance line in the permanency spell. This interpretation causes problems because some spells were written without awareness of other special interactions with the spells they emulate, or without awareness of spells that emulate spells they give special interactions to. This lets people use unusual spell interactions to accomplish esoteric results, which may be undesirable.

If functioning as a given spell doesn't entail counting as that spell, then permanency can't affect these spells using resistance's line (though of course it may be able to otherwise do so). This interpretation causes problems because some spells were written with the understanding that they would count as the spells they say they emulate, and thus perform weirdly with this interpretation. While in theory the unexpected behavior could have similar results to the other interpretation, this interpretation in practice results in the badly affected spells failing to accomplish much of anything, including failing to do things they are clearly intended to do, rather than enabling much in the way of exploits.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.