D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

[Shadai]

Omg, still rolling on the floor laughing at the thought of "liquid hot mag-ma" mephits making it so the PCs can't hold Dem magic weapons. I'm literally making a note in my head to throw that at my players at some point. Hilarious.

I think we are letting previous editions shade our expectations a bit. In the previous edition most like this one (that's 2nd kids), stoneskin was the must have buff, because level 15 wizards had what, 5hp? Something ridiculous. Really, the previous two editions were really nerfs of the older, better version. But they were still better than this.

I think it's just D&D changing a bit. It's saying, hey, I know you used to think of me as a great self buff spell, but stop. You wizards shouldn't have to wait til 7th level to be viable in combat with your 5 hp. Here is a cantrip that does the same thing but only for you! Stoneskin? Use it on your barb or fighter.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It would be a much better spell if that was the case.

That is the case.

Even if we are talking about some should be super-rare corner case of a player that likes concentration spells but doesn't think to put a decent score in Constitution and has no other means to influence concentration saves for whatever reason applies, including that they can't manage to avoid being chosen as a target for damage despite whatever party members are with them and positioning options are available, and that their AC isn't managing to turn away a bunch of attacks like it seems basically designed to do...

You've got even odds at a DC 10 check (that's the DC of most concentration checks until high enough level to have been able to do something about your concentration, even if it was just rasing your constitution) at a Constitution of 8.

You have to go out of your way to be bad at concentration, or have a DM that is actually trying to rack up TPKs on purpose by throwing super-high damage per hit to party's HP totals ratios at you, just to get your typical concentration roll down to the odds of a coin toss. If you actually try to be good at concentration? Then you are good at it and you rarely fail.

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah on paper it looks good until you roll a 1 and lose a high level spell after one turn.

It's not on paper, I've been playing the game as written since release twice a week, and in the playtest for over a year before that. In practice, it's really not a big deal and doesn't come up very often for us. Our spellcasters take lots of concentration spells, they don't have to make saves very often, they make most of their saves, and when they lose a spell early it's often not much of a big deal. I really think the "OMG this makes concentration spells suck!" perspective is much more the "yeah on paper" type reaction, based on my experience.

I am really curious Zaran, how often have you found your spellcaster's concentration was broken, and when its happened was it really a big deal? Tell me about your actual experiences with this rule, since you raised the "on paper" challenge.

 

[Zaran]

It's not on paper, I've been playing the game as written since release twice a week, and in the playtest for over a year before that. In practice, it's really not a big deal and doesn't come up very often for us. Our spellcasters take lots of concentration spells, they don't have to make saves very often, they make most of their saves, and when they lose a spell early it's often not much of a big deal. I really think the "OMG this makes concentration spells suck!" perspective is much more the "yeah on paper" type reaction, based on my experience.

I am really curious Zaran, how often have you found your spellcaster's concentration was broken, and when its happened was it really a big deal? Tell me about your actual experiences with this rule, since you raised the "on paper" challenge.

It happens all the time to the ranger who has to concentrate on hunter's mark. Or when wizard uses their spells on themselves. If they put it on themselves there is a reason for it. To suggest that a feat answers the problem means something is wrong. I've seen it several times when a concentration spell lasts a single round because of just a tiny bit of damage. To the point where I see no reason to cast Hunter's Mark at a higher level. It's a waste. Maybe in your game the wizard never gets attacked or doesn't use their spells on themselves but that's not always the case.

 

[Pssthpok]

Taking half damage from anything that isn't magical/energy-based is a pretty solid buff. The material cost is there to prevent groups from auto-loading this spell onto the tank.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think we are letting previous editions shade our expectations a bit. In the previous edition most like this one (that's 2nd kids), stoneskin was the must have buff, because level 15 wizards had what, 5hp? Something ridiculous. Really, the previous two editions were really nerfs of the older, better version. But they were still better than this.

2e wizard had xd4+y hp where X= levels 1-10 and y=1 per level after 10... if you were really really lucky you might add +1 per d4... but odds of getting -1 per D4 where higher...

so a level 15 wizard most of the time had 10d4+5, might if lucky have 10d4+15, but was more likely to have 10d4-5... and maxing 1st level HD wasn't an optional rule until reprints of the book... so you could have 30hp at 15th level... and if you were lucky 40hp, but if you were unlucky 20hp..

the min range would be 1hp per level... so 15hp

now I want to start a thread about hp....


edit: a 2e fighter was Xd10+y where X was level 1-9 and y was 3per level after 9... so a 15th level fighter had 9d10+18... now fighters had better odds of a good con, but still not good... lets give a +2... that's 9d10+36, average (5.5) 6 x 9-54 and 36 is 90... the average (slightly above with a +2 from con I think is a 16 or 17) fighter hasn't broken 100hp

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

To suggest that a feat answers the problem means something is wrong.

Something is wrong. The question is what?.

Is it that the player's expectation of the spell doesn't match up to what is reasonable to expect of the spell because that player is carrying expectations that match how some prior edition worked? Seems likely to me, considering that I've never seen a ranger cast hunter's mark and not keep it at least the rest of the encounter.

There is a reason that the spell has a range of 90 feet instead of 5 feet or touch. It matches pretty well to what sort of weapons hunters tend to prefer to use too.

Yet some folks expect to throw on a long range spell named for an activity that typically centers on the use of ranged weaponry, and put their character intentionally in a position more likely to be attacked and more likely to be hit, and not have that be a lot harder to get to work than going the route that one might expect to use the spell if 5th edition is their first edition: at range, with a ranged weapon, and keeping as much cover as you can against enemy attacks that do happen to come your way instead of someone else's.

Or, if the person really wants to be in melee and use that spell, they can invest in the available means of improving their chances. It is strange for some, but it is a truth of 5th edition that if you are planning on using Concentration spells as a big part of your character's "stuff I feel cool for doing" then Constitution is your #1 priority ability score-wise, not whatever you use for attack rolls, and not even whatever you use for spell attack rolls and save DCs.

It's different from prior editions, sure... but if the game can't be different from what you are used to, why would you choose to change editions?

Maybe in your game the wizard never gets attacked or doesn't use their spells on themselves but that's not always the case.

I have spellcasters in all of my campaigns that I've run in 5th edition. They all make choices to reduce their chances of taking damage, especially when using a concentration spell, and have all made choices to either acknowledge that concentration is a priority and improve their chances of success by the means they have available, or to acknowledge that concentration isn't their thing and choose spell options that don't include many that need concentration (I think one character might have only detect magic as a concentration spell) and be no worse of a character for doing so - including one that is a ranger and has decided he prefers using his spell slots on cure wounds and lesser restoration so that the cleric he is partied with can afford more spell slots for inflict wounds.

 

[Shadai]

It happens all the time to the ranger who has to concentrate on hunter's mark. Or when wizard uses their spells on themselves. If they put it on themselves there is a reason for it. To suggest that a feat answers the problem means something is wrong. I've seen it several times when a concentration spell lasts a single round because of just a tiny bit of damage. To the point where I see no reason to cast Hunter's Mark at a higher level. It's a waste. Maybe in your game the wizard never gets attacked or doesn't use their spells on themselves but that's not always the case.

I guess I have to ask how hard is your wizard getting hit???? That is a serious question. Because if its non-magical, he's taking half from stoneskin meaning the save is easier to hit then any other concentration spell he might have been using in the same hit. If it was magical, stoneskin wasn't going to save him anyway, might as well move on.

As far as your ranger, if you use hunter's mark in combat as a melee ranger, hope you either got advantage on that save or invested in some defense. It's classically been the trade off with hunter, great melee damage or sweet ranged. The nice side benefit of ranged is you usually have a few escapes and you don't get hit as often compared to a front line fighter. Besides, IMHO, if you wanted to play melee ranger you're better off playing fighter in this edition anyway.

 

[Uller]

I certainly didn't mean to pick an argument about concentration in a general sense. I like the concentration mechanic. I like it primarily because it limits the number of spells in play at any given time. I can't speak for other tables, but at mine, spells are disrupted all the time. Especially on NPCs.

That said, I don't think I buy the two primary arguments I am seeing that stoneskin is fine as it is.

Argument 1 seems to be "It is just different from previous editions and people need to accept that because in previous editions it was too powerful or used for a different purpose." Many spells changed between editions. I have no problem with those changes. But the question that has be be asked, is the spell balanced for THIS edition. I don't see that it is when compared to similar spells.

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. Asking the tank to stand in front of you is only marginally effective and is still a cost...maybe the tank would prefer to be standing in front of the healer...).

Remember....I'm looking at this as a DM in the context of NPCs. I don't know about other DMs, but I don't have a significant portion of my NPC casters built to make concentration saves. That would get old. Nor should I have to do that in order to make THIS spell useful, when I have no problem with NPCs using other interesting concentration spells. IMXP, when a villain casts a concentration spell the party takes notice and focuses on breaking the caster's concentration. Stoneskin? meh....maybe if it was used in conjunction with another concentration spell...but then that means having two casters. Again...seems like having to jump through hoops to make this spell useful.

Besides that, having to make saves is not the only cost associated with concentration....the other (and possibly more significant) cost is that you can only have one concentration spell going at a time. If you have a caster built to cast concentration spells, you still want them to have some oomph because you still only get one. I think just about every other concentration spell would be preferable to this one, at least in the general sense.

So...we have a spell that is a 4th level slot, takes up your one concentration slot, costs 100gp a pop and only effects a very narrow range of damage (non magical bludgeoning, slashing and piercing). Compare it to other spells of the same nature and power level and it seems to me it doesn't come close. Protection from Energy is pretty much an identical spell, is only 3rd level and doesn't cost any wealth.

Someone said earlier the monetary cost stops PCs from auto stacking it on fighters before a fight. So what if they do? They just spent a precious 4th level slot and that is one less concentration buff the party can have doing something else.

Again...I think my preference would be to make it give invulnerability or perhaps resistance to all damage until 10hp/slot level has been absorbed then the spell ends. That way it's more of a sure thing, it is more unique and worth that 100gp cost. It can still be concentration.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I certainly didn't mean to pick an argument about concentration in a general sense. I like the concentration mechanic. I like it primarily because it limits the number of spells in play at any given time. I can't speak for other tables, but at mine, spells are disrupted all the time. Especially on NPCs.

That said, I don't think I buy the two primary arguments I am seeing that stoneskin is fine as it is. *snip* Again...I think my preference would be to make it give invulnerability or perhaps resistance to all damage until 10hp/slot level has been absorbed then the spell ends. That way it's more of a sure thing, it is more unique and worth that 100gp cost. It can still be concentration.

What about the third argument, that it's fine because it has a niche, which is using it on tough allies or minions instead of yourself? Your initial post compared the spell to Polymorph, and the downsides to Polymorph have been pointed out (size restrictions, poor AC, increases mental vulnerabilities, lose access to class features). Sometimes Polymorph is better, sometimes Stoneskin is better, but I will argue that Stoneskin is definitely better than Polymorph when your NPC throws it on a Blue Slaad or a Mind Flayer, and that neatly addresses your "other spells are better" objection without stumbling over any objections over concentration.

A Stoneskinned Blue Slaad backed by a 7th level Evoker and two or three CR 1/4 constrictor snakes might make an interesting close-range fight for a mid-level party.