Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3318085" data-attributes="member: 31734">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />  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. That's true, and it's quite irritating. 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?</blockquote>

Verification