How Often Does Your Group Cast Stoneskin?

[KarinsDad]

That's really not an appropriate argument, however. It's not like you have to spend 3% to gain the remaining 97%. Balance-wise, stoneskin should be equal to any other 4th-level spell. If I can win the fight with stoneskin, I should be able to win it with another 4th-level spell that doesn't even cost the 3%.

So, my opinion on this is that I have the general philosophy that spells should not have high gold piece costs unless it really makes sense and is required for balance.

And that's precisely why Stoneskin has a GP cost.

Stoneskin effect-wise is more powerful than most 4th level spells. It is more like a 7th level spell (with Heal being 6th, Stoneskin can save hit points way ahead of time by being cast before combat, Heal cannot and Heal has to wait until 10 per level points is cast, else it is partially wasted, the only real advantage of Heal is that it also heals damage which is not combat oriented). And, Stoneskin also can easily last for multiple combats.

The balancing factor to other 4th level spells for Stoneskin is the GP cost. It can be used in relatively dire circumstances, but typically is not.

As can be seen by the results of this poll, very few people use the spell on a regular basis. Without the GP cost to balance the spell, the use of the spell would increase dramatically.

Part of the problem WotC has is that it has some (almost sacred cow) history with many of its DND spells. Hence, it has to balance out spells that are lower level than they should be higher level with either GP, XP, or both.

 

[Nail]

That's really not an appropriate argument, however.

...not to pick nits, but you are using the exact same arguement I am.

You are just more comfortable with a lower cost.

 

[Fedifensor]

Stoneskin has been used once in our group's entire adventuring career (from a scroll, I believe).

However, we're in Eberron - Stone Construct used to be used a fair amount (it's the equivalent of Stoneskin). Now, though, Iron Construct is used all the time on the party's warforged by the Artificer, to the point where it has become the 'Easy' button.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Stoneskin effect-wise is more powerful than most 4th level spells. It is more like a 7th level spell (with Heal being 6th, Stoneskin can save hit points way ahead of time by being cast before combat, Heal cannot and Heal has to wait until 10 per level points is cast, else it is partially wasted, the only real advantage of Heal is that it also heals damage which is not combat oriented). And, Stoneskin also can easily last for multiple combats.

That would be a partially valid comparison if (a) heal worked on all HP damage except that caused by adamantine, and (b) heal didn't cure ability damage, being blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insane, nauseated, sickened, stunned, or poisoned, or damage undead.

Yeah, except for those seventeen things, it's a very good comparison.

As can be seen by the results of this poll, very few people use the spell on a regular basis. Without the GP cost to balance the spell, the use of the spell would increase dramatically.

Perhaps, but my point was a little more encompassing. If 250gp is required to keep this spell balanced, then I'd prefer to see it altered in another manner in order to reduce the cost. I just don't like the high cost and I think it hurts playability.

Part of the problem WotC has is that it has some (almost sacred cow) history with many of its DND spells. Hence, it has to balance out spells that are lower level than they should be higher level with either GP, XP, or both.

That's true, and it's quite irritating.

...not to pick nits, but you are using the exact same arguement I am.

I'm not sure I am. I'm saying two things: (1) I think it's balanced at 50gp per casting. (2) Even if it requires 250gp to make it balanced then I think the spell should be changed so that it's not so expensive.

I think your mathematical analysis helps to prove my point wrt playability. I mean, that analysis is fine for the Rules forum, sure, but I think your intent is that the players should perform that analysis in game to decide when/if the stoneskin is worth casting (otherwise the analysis is moot). Right?

 

[Victim]

And that's precisely why Stoneskin has a GP cost.

Stoneskin effect-wise is more powerful than most 4th level spells. It is more like a 7th level spell (with Heal being 6th, Stoneskin can save hit points way ahead of time by being cast before combat, Heal cannot and Heal has to wait until 10 per level points is cast, else it is partially wasted, the only real advantage of Heal is that it also heals damage which is not combat oriented). And, Stoneskin also can easily last for multiple combats.

Sure, and Improved Invisibility is an Epic spell, since the miss chance can end up preventing an infinite amount of damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

That would be a partially valid comparison if (a) heal worked on all HP damage except that caused by adamantine, and (b) heal didn't cure ability damage, being blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insane, nauseated, sickened, stunned, or poisoned, or damage undead.

Yeah, except for those seventeen things, it's a very good comparison.

I doubt very much that Heal is often cast just to cure dazed, dazzled, exhausted, fatigued, nauseated, sickened, or stunned. And, Stoneskin in some cases can prevent many of these conditions from occuring in the first place, and can be cast by 4 base classes instead of 2.

But, your point is well made. Maybe 6th for both. Stoneskin is already 5th for Druids and 6th for those Clerics who can get it.

Perhaps, but my point was a little more encompassing. If 250gp is required to keep this spell balanced, then I'd prefer to see it altered in another manner in order to reduce the cost. I just don't like the high cost and I think it hurts playability.

You could increase the level of it.

And, the GP cost doesn't hurt playability at all. It makes people decide, which from a playability standpoint, is a good thing.

Your point here is like saying that preparing spells ahead of time (making a choice) hurts playability because a given spell might not be available when needed.

The game is about challenges and how each player meets those challenges, not about making all aspects of the game easy.

I like the GP cost of Stoneskin because it makes people think to use it. It does not fall under the category of "no brainer" spell, even though it would without the GP cost.

I think your mathematical analysis helps to prove my point wrt playability. I mean, that analysis is fine for the Rules forum, sure, but I think your intent is that the players should perform that analysis in game to decide when/if the stoneskin is worth casting (otherwise the analysis is moot). Right?

Why is this a bad thing?

If more super cool higher level spells were like this, maybe people would not think that high level spell casters rule and high level Fighters suck.

You appear to be arguing that balance is a bad thing.

 

[The_Furious_Puffin]

Don't really use it that much, DR/10 isn't a HUGE effect at level 7-10, so the slot is getting used for other things - and haven't played much beyond that. I suspect it would be mostly useless because things hit like frieght trains in the games I'm playing - heal would be a damn sight better.

 

[Nail]

I'm saying two things: (1) I think it's balanced at 50gp per casting. (2) Even if it requires 250gp to make it balanced then I think the spell should be changed so that it's not so expensive.

Got it.

So, is the difference between 250gp and 50 gp large, or small? At levels 7 thru 12 you'll probably have a different answer than at levels 12+.

.....I think your intent is that the players should perform that analysis in game to decide when/if the stoneskin is worth casting (otherwise the analysis is moot). Right?

Right.

I think PCs make those kinds of analyses, even if only intuitively and informally, all the time. It's a resource management issue, just like most others. My point is that often the analysis is made at lower level, and then carried into higher level without much thought. That's a mistake, as I've shown.

Could stoneskin cost a lesser amount? Sure. Doesn't change the thought process, though.

 

[Voadam]

The fighter/cleric in my group has it as a domain spell and has used it a couple times.

The illusionist/rogue/arcane trickster/archmage has it and has never used it.

My ranger/wizard/eldritch knight has it but does not use it because of the component cost.

 

[Nail]

Tangentially: I've often found that most players and DMs don't get how 3.xe D&D awards both XP and gp for each encounter (on average). Both are crucial, and both ar given out in a balanced, measured way.

Assuming CR = APL:

For a CR 7 encounter, you'll get 2,100 XP and 2,600 gp.
For a CR 14 encounter, you'll get 4,200 XP and 17,000 gp.
etc.

So the real question you should be asking is: "Is what my party gets worth what my party spent?"

For other games, some might replace "my party" with "my individual PC". I eschew those kinds of games, but YMMV.