D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...when you only have an 11 Con and no feats are allowed, it kind of stinks. And I know plenty of DM's who don't use feats, so my situation isn't exactly uncommon.

I think what makes your situation uncommon, or at least I hope it is uncommon, is that you built a character whose main strategy - to the point it made you abandon the character when it wasn't working out - was to rely upon an 11 Ability score.

That's like a fighter with 11 strength using non-finesse weapons and blaming his target's AC scores or bad luck for a higher number of missed attack rolls.

 

[Uller]

I think what makes your situation uncommon, or at least I hope it is uncommon, is that you built a character whose main strategy - to the point it made you abandon the character when it wasn't working out - was to rely upon an 11 Ability score.

That's like a fighter with 11 strength using non-finesse weapons and blaming his target's AC scores or bad luck for a higher number of missed attack rolls.

And this is where the concentration mechanic goes a bit off the rails. Don't you think that it is a bit odd that you are arguing wizards that use concentration spells (that cover a wide range of iconic spells) should in general have high Constitution scores? How high? So an elf enchanter should have a 14 or 16 Con if he'd like to cast suggestion, hold person and dominate?

That doesn't seem off to you?

Again. I love the concentration mechanic in principle. But if the meta result is all casters have to us Con as their second (or first?) highest stat don't you think something has gone arse over tea kettle? I want my enchanters to have high charisma, I want my illusionists to have high dex, etc.

 

[Gadget]

I think what makes your situation uncommon, or at least I hope it is uncommon, is that you built a character whose main strategy - to the point it made you abandon the character when it wasn't working out - was to rely upon an 11 Ability score.

That's like a fighter with 11 strength using non-finesse weapons and blaming his target's AC scores or bad luck for a higher number of missed attack rolls.

So it's uncommon for wizards to not have high Con scores? Interesting...I'm all for ending the Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard phenomenon (LFQW), but doesn't this sound a little extreme? Wizard's that don't prioritize Int should, IMHO, be the somewhat uncommon situation, not the reverse. Your example of a fighter not prioritizing strength sounds more than a little spurious to my ear, as strength has always been a priority (or 'prime requisite' for older edition fans) for fighters. Con has always had its benefits to wizards (and indeed all classes), I question whether it needs to be made so essential for fulfilling the wizard's role as spell caster.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

That doesn't seem off to you?

No, it doesn't seem "off" to have a spellcasting character actually care about more than the one or two ability scores people are used to them caring about. Especially not a character that intends to use a function of the game that is heavily reliant upon that ability score.

Again. I love the concentration mechanic in principle. But if the meta result is all casters have to us Con as their second (or first?) highest stat don't you think something has gone arse over tea kettle?

You are overstating the "meta result". Only casters that rely upon concentration spells would have their Con score as their first or second priority for ability scores - the ones that use non-concentration spells as their "go to" will only have as much care about Constitution as any character whose "thing" doesn't rely upon it.

I want my enchanters to have high charisma, I want my illusionists to have high dex, etc.

And I want every character of every class to have reasons to care about every ability score. The difference is that I feel like 5th edition is giving me what I want, and you appear to think that you aren't getting what you want.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So it's uncommon for wizards to not have high Con scores?

No. It's uncommon for a spell caster that relies on concentration spells (a subset of the spells in the game) to not have considered Constitution a high priority.

Wizard's that don't prioritize Int should, IMHO, be the somewhat uncommon situation, not the reverse.

Wizards that don't emphasize Consitution and also don't emphasize use of concentration spells are the norm, in my experience, but of those that do focus their spell casting in the direction of concentration spells, well, Con usually gives them more "oomph" than their Int score could manage.

Your example of a fighter not prioritizing strength sounds more than a little spurious to my ear, as strength has always been a priority (or 'prime requisite' for older edition fans) for fighters. Con has always had its benefits to wizards (and indeed all classes), I question whether it needs to be made so essential for fulfilling the wizard's role as spell caster.

How prior editions worked doesn't matter. Period.

If you aren't basing your evaluation of how to build a character that works for what you want it to do on how 5th edition actually works, how can you expect to have a 5th edition character that works for what you want it to do?

In 5th edition, Constitution is more important to effective concentration spell use than Intelligence is in many cases, and the cases that it isn't it is equally important to Intelligence (including times when neither of them matter that much because you have cast a spell like detect magic that requires concentration but isn't much of a disappointment to lose concentration on, and which is completely unaffected by Intelligence).

 

[Shadai]

And this is where the concentration mechanic goes a bit off the rails. Don't you think that it is a bit odd that you are arguing wizards that use concentration spells (that cover a wide range of iconic spells) should in general have high Constitution scores? How high? So an elf enchanter should have a 14 or 16 Con if he'd like to cast suggestion, hold person and dominate?

That doesn't seem off to you?

Again. I love the concentration mechanic in principle. But if the meta result is all casters have to us Con as their second (or first?) highest stat don't you think something has gone arse over tea kettle? I want my enchanters to have high charisma, I want my illusionists to have high dex, etc.

I'm a little confused about the take here. You do realize most classes are MAD right? There really isn't a class where you can toss everything into one basket and get nothing from the other scores. If you are building a traditional fighter then STR is the most important. But that doesn't mean you forgo your CON or WIS scores. Complaining Wizards need a high CON score is the same as building a fighter with a low WIS and then bitching about being the target of Hold Person all the damn time.

Wizards are no different. Traditional wizards want a high INT for obvious reasons, but their two off skills are CON (for HP and concentration checks) and DEX for defense. You mentioned Illusionist, and now you're in my wheelhouse. I wouldn't prioritize DEX, for me a good Illusionist prioritizes INT, CON and CHR... CHR for those deception rolls, you'll roll a lot of them if you are playing it right.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And this is where the concentration mechanic goes a bit off the rails. Don't you think that it is a bit odd that you are arguing wizards that use concentration spells (that cover a wide range of iconic spells) should in general have high Constitution scores? How high? So an elf enchanter should have a 14 or 16 Con if he'd like to cast suggestion, hold person and dominate?

That doesn't seem off to you?

No, he should have 14 or 16 Constitution (or bardic inspiration, or Bless) if he'd like to cast Suggestion, Hold Person, or Dominate in full view of the enemy while getting whacked with heavy objects.

You can have Con 6 and be just fine as a spellcaster as long as you don't try to play like you've got Con 20. Arguably it is more iconic to fail Concentration saves than to pass them. Raistlin couldn't have made a Con check to save his life.

 

[Uller]

I'm a little confused about the take here. You do realize most classes are MAD right? There really isn't a class where you can toss everything into one basket and get nothing from the other scores.

Never said there was. Never inferred it. Never thought it. Please provide a quote where I said anything of the sort.

I have no problem with wizards gaining a benefit from a good CON, even a spell casting benefit. What I object to is the notion that casters NEED to have an uber CON, wear armor, take feats or dip into fighter class to have half a chance in hell of casting a massive portion of the wizard spell list including many iconic spells (don't cast fly on yourself without a good CON...you'll likely fall...even from getting hit with just 1 hp of damage).

Wizards are no different. Traditional wizards want a high INT for obvious reasons, but their two off skills are CON (for HP and concentration checks) and DEX for defense. You mentioned Illusionist, and now you're in my wheelhouse. I wouldn't prioritize DEX, for me a good Illusionist prioritizes INT, CON and CHR... CHR for those deception rolls, you'll roll a lot of them if you are playing it right.

And to me, Dex is at least as important to an illusionist as Cha so he can make those slight of hand and stealth checks because misdirection and subterfuge are what illusionists do.

When I picture an illusionist, I picture someone that is of quick wit and quicker hands, someone who can be entertaining, deceptive and sneaky. But to listen you you guys, the illusionist in my head, the one that has been just fine (even iconic) for every edition of D&D is now badwrongfun and can now forget about casting Major Illusion, Phantasmal Killer and many other spells that have been the bread and butter of the illusion school for the last 40 years. Now...a good illusionist should look more like this :

And less like this:


I'm not saying Concentration is completely bad (I've said many times, I very much like it). I'm not saying that Con shouldn't be an important consideration to a caster that might find himself on the business end of a stone giant's club. But I think when someone is saying that CON should be possibly more important to a caster than INT then maybe...just perhaps there might be a hair of chance that it's gone a little too far. YMMV For what it's worth, in 2e through 4e I usually found CON to be my 2nd-4th highest stat...I rarely try to max out my primary stat and prefer to have 3 or 4 that provide at least a +1 bonus.

For my part, I think the designers could have accomplished this by simply not having a minimum DC to concentration saves, or allowing casters to include their prof bonuse or limiting the number of saves they have to make per turn (maybe subsequent saves have to have a higher DC before they force him to make another save). There are all sorts of ways the mechanic could be better, a bit easier on casters with a 10 or 12 Con and still make it really beneficial to have a really high con. To me (again...your mileage may vary), having a high con should be a benefit...not a necessity. As concentration saves are implemented (and as evidenced by some of your posts), I think it's very close to being a necessity unless you're willing to dip into a feat or a class. I'm sorry that I disagree, but I do. I don't think I'm "constraining" anyone by having that opinion. But I think concentration as implemented is certainly constraining and I think all of your posts are pretty much proof of that.

 

[Uller]

Raistlin couldn't have made a Con check to save his life.

Fortunately for Raistlin he was a 1e Magic-User and didn't have to worry about his spells, once cast, being disrupted by a sling stone.

(I vaguley remember a rule from my 1e days of spells being disrupted during casting if you took damage...but that may have been a house rule).

 

[Uller]

The difference is that I feel like 5th edition is giving me what I want, and you appear to think that you aren't getting what you want.

What I want is for my players of casters to not feel like a whole swath of spells are denied them because they only put a 10 or 12 into CON. You seem to be just fine with that. I think it could have been implemented in a way that isn't so heavy handed yet still left it beneficial to build a character around avoiding/making concentration checks.