Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Piratecat" data-source="post: 85936" data-attributes="member: 2">Avatar of the North, that's specious logic if I've ever heard it.  "This thing has a powerful loophole, so we should design more broken things similar to it?"  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Consider a cleric with a 16 constitution.  He's slap an endurance spell on, giving himself a con of 18-21. This gives him eight free spell levels to play with for every 4th lvl restoration spell he had prepared, a 2-for-one bargain.From a metagame perspectiver, it doesn't work for any character that has to prepare spells, like a cleric or wizard; although they would sacrifice their health to cast a spell, they wouldn't have any such spell prepared. It makes more sense for a bard or sorcerer, anyone who casts spells spontaneously.I wonder if this would be more balanced at a 3-for-1 level? That way, someone with a 16 con could have 5 spell levels to play with.... a reasonable exchange for the cleric giving up a 4th lvl spell to restore them.Thoughts?</blockquote>