Talk:Outlast the Ages (3.5e Spell)

Ratings

	LRimus favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	I just LOVE this spell.

Tarkisflux opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

I don't like the fluff. You do something to some clothes so that you don't age. But the clothes don't age for you, and if you lose them you get all that time right back. Huh? I don't like the mechanics. It creates an instantaneous and unbreakable bond with a non-magical piece of clothing that you have to keep with you permanently so the magic keeps working. Like a nonmagical lich's phylactery. Really? I don't like the level for the stated balance. You have to wait until 17th level to make yourself immortal with a built in "hahaha, you die no save" exception? lolwut? I don't like it. At all. There is so much poorly conceived and poorly worked out in here that it should go.

Too Weak for a 9?

This, while being useful and cool, isn't really 9th level spell material. It's probably in-line with a spell of about 6th level, and while I know you prefer to write only Rogue-level material, this is not anywhere near any serious 9th level spell ever printed. - MisterSinister 05:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with this, good spell. You get 5 plushies out of dentistry. -- Eiji-kun 06:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus and XP

What sort of nonmagical trousers cost 5000 gp?

Why does a spell which is already limited by level and focus also need an XP cost? --Foxwarrior 18:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Super stylish trousers. You can see a pair worn in this video.
2. 80% flavor, 20% so you don't cast this on half the people you care about. --Ghostwheel 18:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Hrm. So much better than what cheapskate nobles wear, I see.
2. It's extremely cruel to Sorcerers though. --Foxwarrior 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nonmagic focus?

It seems to be that the focus should be another target of the spell, and not a focus, as it is affected by the spell. Additionally, it seems strange to make this instantaneous. What would, after the magic leaves, keep the item extra durable, unenchantable, and life-prolonging? I suggest making it a permanent spell. If need be, it could be one o' them can't be AMF'd or dispelled except by deities or a disjunction spell.--Quey 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of permanent duration is that it can be dispel-able. That's the only difference between that and an instantaneous spell. --Ghostwheel 23:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I heartily disagree with that. Instantaneous spells serve a very different purpose. They only happen to not be dispellable because the magic left and the changes have already been made. If the only difference was dispellability, then we might have, say, damage spells with permanent duration so that they could be dispelled, or pointless buffs or curses that lasted a moment then went away. Permanent spells provide an effect that lasts. Note that it's not unprecedented for spells with limited or unlimited duration to be undispellable, only disjoinable, namely binding and a couple of the wall spells.--Quey 02:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As a counterarguement here, Instant isn't dispelled because it's incurred some permanent and non-reversible event (that is, you can't reverse it by removing the magic, you need a different effect to correct any changes). Wall of Stone is the obvious, but also in a sense Fireball, which turns a healthy human into an injured human (hp loss). You can't "dispel" the hp loss, but you can use another event (healing) to correct it. So how does that apply to this spell?

This spell converts you from a mortal man to a immortal but item-bound man. So I can see why its instant. I agree with Ghostwheel on the difference between perm and instant being the issue of dispelling. In this case, the only way to undo the fact you are an item-bound immortal is through some mortality-granting effect, correcting the issue without dispelling it. -- Eiji-kun 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you saying about Wall of Stone and Fireball? That doesn't sound like a counterargument to me. I never said that instant spells created a permanent effect. It's quite obvious in the rules that instantaneous spells are, logically, instantaneous. Once the fire leaves, the damage can be healed. Obvious stuff. The point was to disprove that there is no difference beyond dispellability, especially given that there are non-dispellable permanent spells. If dispellability was indeed the WHOLE POINT, then we would/could have ridiculous stuff like dispellable damage, or continual flames with nonmagical sources.

What I'm saying is that this spell leaves nonmagical effects with magical qualities. I asked, "What would, after the magic leaves, keep the item extra durable, unenchantable, and life-prolonging?" I guess the item durability part isn't as important. But I still must know, what nonmagical effect left behind makes an item unenchantable? What nonmagical effect makes someone not age only while wearing a specific item? What nonmagical effect, upon a contingency (destruction or 24 hours separated) will cause a creature to age?

My point was never about "correcting the issue". It's about nonmagical things generating magical effects, once again. If this spell just granted something like the Monk's timeless body, this wouldn't be an issue. But since it's a complicated setup of items bound to a creature's soul dependent on time and abstract things like "wearing", things that a durable shirt wouldn't understand, it seems there's some magic at work here.--Quey 23:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)