Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 7965723" data-attributes="member: 7635">It was the fact the loophole existed that allowed a single 6th level spell effect to be done at the time most mages had 6d6 fireballs that was exciting. It was a failure of relying solely on cost to regulate effect power, and it is why 3e psionics opted to use &quot;spell level&quot; as a guardrail to prevent it. It's what most people cite as a classic example of broken usage. Another good example; we had a group with a dwarf psionicist and a half-ogre fighter. Both had high strengths (half-ogre had a 19, dwarf 16). The psionicist would routinely use share strength on the half-ogre, which allowed the dwarf to sacrifice strength points 2:1 to give to the half-ogre. So the dwarf would drop his strength 12 points to a 4, while the half-ogre would boost his to 25 (+7 hit, +14 damage). Not much survived that in melee. Yeah, 2e is not where I want psionics to go back to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 7965723, member: 7635"] It was the fact the loophole existed that allowed a single 6th level spell effect to be done at the time most mages had 6d6 fireballs that was exciting. It was a failure of relying solely on cost to regulate effect power, and it is why 3e psionics opted to use "spell level" as a guardrail to prevent it. It's what most people cite as a classic example of broken usage. Another good example; we had a group with a dwarf psionicist and a half-ogre fighter. Both had high strengths (half-ogre had a 19, dwarf 16). The psionicist would routinely use share strength on the half-ogre, which allowed the dwarf to sacrifice strength points 2:1 to give to the half-ogre. So the dwarf would drop his strength 12 points to a 4, while the half-ogre would boost his to 25 (+7 hit, +14 damage). Not much survived that in melee. Yeah, 2e is not where I want psionics to go back to. [/QUOTE]

Verification