• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
The second argument is that concentration isn't a big deal as a restriction because it is easy to make concentration saves. No...it is easy to make concentration saves IF you spend significant resources to make them easy (War Caster and Resistance feats and ability score points on concentration...those things aren't free.

I disagree for two reasons.

First, you don't need to spend "significant" resources to make them easier. You already almost certainly have a better than 10 Constitution - because here you are arguing you are getting hit a lot to make this an issue to begin with, so it would be disingenuous to argue you don't need hit points much to begin with while making that argument. So, you have likely a 14 Con, maybe even a 16 Con. That's +2 or +3 to the check - a check that STARTS usually at DC 10! And you have not spent any resources so far to get to 60% to 65% chance of making the save. That's all the spell casters have needed in my games, and I've been playing two games a week since the game was released. IF you go to the extraordinary extent of getting the War Caster feat, now you have advantage on the check as well - so that's the rough equivalent to +4.5. So now you have effectively a +6.5 to +7.5 on a check that is usually DC 10 (in addition to some other awesome stuff like being able to cast a spell as an opportunity attack and cast while wielding weapons and shields). And you're complaining you'd want to spend even more on that? You'd want to get Resilient also, for another +3 to +4 on the check (more likely +4 as you are also bumping Con), making you nearly immune to losing a spell to a normal concentration? OK, if that's what you want, then go for it. But it seems excessive and needless obsessing on certainty over utility.

Which leads to the second argument: while our spell casters normally make their constitution saves when it (rarely) comes up without having spent any feats on it, on the minority of occasions when they do not, it's not that big a deal. You lost your concentration spell - big whoop. It happens. A resource you spent didn't last as long as you expected. Sort of like an offense spell you cast didn't do as much as you expected because the target made their save, or has resistance or immunity to the energy type of the spell, or turned out to be an illusion, or they only had a few hit points left anyway and the excess damage was meaningless. It's just not that big a deal most of the time.

And "most of the time" is a rare event to begin with - the casters getting hit is a minority of the time, the caster missing the save for getting hit is rare also, and finally the hit happening and them missing the save in the early part of a challenge rather than a later part of a challenge is also only 50-50 itself. Add up all those odds: getting hit while concentrating, missing the save, happening early enough in the combat to even matter, with a spell that would have prevented something bad or done something challenge-changing later had it remained in effect, and we're looking at a relatively rare event.

It's why I keep saying "What's your experience with this" instead of talking about it in theory. Discussing these things in theory misses the mark far too often. If you have actual experience with this spell and concentration checks, let us hear about it. But - it's nearly pointless to be having this conversation on a theoretical basis. The game doesn't often play close to the theory, with this version of the game. I've yet to hear from anyone saying it's been an issue in practice. In practice when I've seen this spell cast, it's usually cast on the Fighter by the Wizard, and the Wizard hides at the back of the party and almost never gets hit. Meanwhile the Fighter is soaking up damage with the help of this spell and their armor and shield.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

PnPgamer

Explorer
All of the concentration spells that grant resistance are rather Underpowered. All it takes is 2 points of damage to make you do a Concentration roll and since almost all casters do not have Con as a favored save it's very easy to lose the spell.

isn't 1 damage enough? I mean they always deal minimum of 1 damage?
 


That's why my new spells list will include Archaic Improved Haste. Or "Improved Haste of the Ancients". There's a variant of haste in one of the books, Dragon Kings or the Chronomancer's handbook. I'll have to dig it out and update it to 5e, but it will likely function like action surge or the thief's reflexes.

You are probably thinking of Improved Haste in (2nd edition) Dragon Kings. 6th level spell, single-target unlike regular Haste. It has some nice benefits, but its most important benefit relative to regular (2nd edition) Haste is that it does not age you to death. :)

I like that spell, and if you are talking about something other than the regular 5E PHB Haste, then that Haste might indeed be worthwhile even if it takes your concentration. (E.g. a 7th level variant which gives you an Action Surge every round, in exchange for 1000 gp of diamond dust or something.) Have fun with your spell-modding.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I feel it's ok as a PC spell, but not worth it for NPCs in an average magic campaign.

-E
Since PCs nearly always sport magic weapons, the spell is completely useless for NPCs and monsters - it is simply ignored by player attacks (except for the rather fringe scenario the heroes face an enemy wizard capable of casting 4th level spells before they gain their first magic weapon).

Since very few mook monsters gain magic attacks, it is a moderately useful spell from a PC Fighter's point of view. But that still assumes someone else (the PC Wizard) is concentrating on the spell for him. And there's simply too many better uses for Concentration, again except very corner cases.

So. What can we do to make this attractive (but not crazy OP) for the two (very different) use cases?

For NPCs: the spell absolutely must resist magical B/P/S attacks.

For PCs: I suggest one of two alternatives.

1) Lower the spell level (and get rid of the per-use cost), and I guess the spell is fine, if still not very exciting.
2) Or get rid of concentration - it is after all still a level 4 slot we're talking about here. This probably means the duration should be lowered: with Concentration, "1 hour" sounds generous, but obviously it will never last that long before concentration is broken, so that duration basically means "you can pre-cast it, and not waste your first combat action", which is decent enough. Without concentration, the spell is better off made to last just a few or even one combat, so the spell slot becomes the true cost.

With all of this in mind, I give you:

Stoneskin
2nd-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth 100gp, not consumed by the spell)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
This spell turns the flesh of a willing creature you touch as hard as stone. Until the spell ends, the target has resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.​

Stoneskin, Greater
4th-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (diamond dust worth 100gp, which the spell consumes)
Duration: 10 minutes
This spell turns the flesh of a willing creature you touch as hard as magically reinforced stone. Until the spell ends, the target has resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage.​

Suddenly player characters have a real option for their buff, since regular Stoneskin is now much more reasonable in cost. This also allows low-level monsters a window of opportunity to use it before every PC gets a magic sword.

Once off the low levels, Greater Stoneskin remains a viable spell. Against mooks, it's the same. Against the BBEG it now presents a real opportunity to create a "tank". The Wizard can now empty himself to buff the entire party, and no longer needs to abstain from Fly (say) on the party fighter(s).

Monster casters can now use the spell against heroes. Unless the DM feels especially devious, monsters still can't spam the spell, because there's no reason they have endless diamond dust.

This should nicely make the spell see some use. It's still level 4, so no Wizard can cast more than three Greater Stoneskin (unless using up higher-level slots, which is fine, since now the cost starts to skyrocket... remember you gain nothing from upcasting this particular spell).
 

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?
Hmm, blur is 2nd level, concentration 1 minute, and self only. Your lesser stoneskin seems significantly better than that, though it's not apples to apples. Blur isn't the greatest 2nd level spell, but I don't think it is out of line. I'd be more inclined to put your version at level 3.

I like the idea though. I'd probably up the cost a bit for the greater version.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Hmm, blur is 2nd level, concentration 1 minute, and self only. Your lesser stoneskin seems significantly better than that, though it's not apples to apples. Blur isn't the greatest 2nd level spell, but I don't think it is out of line. I'd be more inclined to put your version at level 3.

I like the idea though. I'd probably up the cost a bit for the greater version.
Thank you.
 

Coroc

Hero
[MENTION=25643]ca[/MENTION]ppnZapp Well now we got the thread resurrected (pun intended)..

There is one very obvious use for stoneskin: If you got some mob which really hits hard, or does many attacks reliable - with physical damage.

Let's say a Custom Tyranosaurus biting the character for 6d10+36 then the stoneskin for your tank might be the better choice than any other concentration spell. Or Monsters who hit very reliable due to high strength and therefore high + to hit, with damage which is not ignorable and got a fixed + in there damage roll, let's say some brute aka Barlgura or ape or the like.
 

Coroc

Hero
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] misspelled your alias, my #108 goes on your #105 ff in this thread

if i edit on this machine it ruins formatting, therefore additional post.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] misspelled your alias, my #108 goes on your #105 ff in this thread

if i edit on this machine it ruins formatting, therefore additional post.

Poor "ca". Joined all the way back in 2004, with zero posts. How surprised (s)he will be!

:)
 

Remove ads

Top