D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Remember....I'm looking at this as a DM in the context of NPCs.

I think there is something fundamentally different in the way that you and I think about NPCs, because I basically treat them as a one-time use challenge morsel that is built to fail, so them not being tuned so that their concentration spells are reliable doesn't register as a problem - just like their chances of surviving the party being low doesn't register as a problem, because they are there to be defeated.

And I think it is entirely shortsighted to try to consider only this one context of a spell when deciding if it is good enough as written, especially since most NPC options don't even involve spells, and the NPCs can just as easily use stoneskin like a PC party should (put it on the beat-stick while the caster aims at avoiding damage to maximize its effect while minimizing concentration loss chance).

Again...seems like having to jump through hoops to make this spell useful.

The only "hoop" being jumped through is asking yourself "when is this spell useful?" and not trying to force the answer to be "always, no matter what." since that isn't how any spell in 5th edition actually works - they all have situations they are excellent in, and other situations where they don't even remotely matter.

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.

This is likely just difference in our personal experiences, but you have labelled the most common types of damage (nonmagical bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing) as being a "very narrow range."

Yet you bring up a "pretty much identical spell" that is lower level and doesn't have a costly component as though the two are equal. They aren't. Protection from energy applies against far less common damage, and since you have to select the type of damage from a short list you might not pick the most useful type or might not even have many monsters you face while it lasts actually use that damage type - but bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing? Really good chance you run into monsters that use those, and that it is nonmagical too, unless your DM is specifically selecting from only a narrow band of monster intentionally to limit the damage types being dealt.

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.

Immunity is a bad idea because it makes certain character types unable to contribute and misses the entire point of why concentration can be broken through damage in the first place.

Resistance to all damage? Well, sure... if you want stoneskin to be hands-down the best buff spell on the books, that's the way to do it.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

yes it's a rather glaring mistake, the way melee rangers simply don't work out, because their core damage boost is incompatible with taking damage

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

the way pre-combat multiround buffing has been removed is great.

However, several spells seem weak even before you even start to think about the risk of having your concentration broken...

This tells me concentration should really have been split into two different mechanics: "you can have only one" and "damage can make you lose it".

Hunters Mark and Stoneskin might fit into the former category, but definitely not in the second.

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

the sad part about concentration is that it is inherently better to cast on someone else, since when that someone takes damage, there is no risk of the spell going away.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

yes it's a rather glaring mistake, the way melee rangers simply don't work out, because their core damage boost is incompatible with taking damage

No, it's a glaring mistake that you think the "core damage boost" of a melee ranger is meant to be hunter's mark rather than the Hunter's Prey feature (which isn't reliant on concentration, interestingly enough) or even the adding of proficiency bonus to damage dealt by a beast companion's attacks.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

the sad part about concentration is that it is inherently better to cast on someone else, since when that someone takes damage, there is no risk of the spell going away.

The sad part? That's the part that encourages teamwork, rather than "I'll just do everything myself because that works out thanks to the rules" spellcasters.

 

[Minigiant]

Hey, guys. I wasn't kidding that it's the beastmaster's ranger's best spell.

Stoneskin's pretty much the only real buff spell for beasts. And at high levels, the ranger and beast can share it.

I have a villainous ranger enemy in my campaign who with his dog tanked a lot of damage (after stealing the fighter and paladin's magic weapons).

 

[Uller]

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.

This argument seems more useful to me. But here is where it rubs me the wrong way with this spell (not with concentration...not with the spell potentially being disrupted...but the overall cost of the spell compared to it's underwhelming impact):

My party of four 8th level PCs would not even notice it. A 4th level concentration spell that costs 100gp to cast and not a single one of them would have to do anything differently to get around it. The Paladin has a +1 longsword, the monk....is a monk so MAGIC!...and she has a +1 mace, the wizard and warlock would never do nonmagical damage.

I don't think my party is atypical. All their magic items come straight from the book and it doesn't seem unreasonable.

The only time they might notice is when the monk is a t-rex. So yeah...I guess there is that one small niche...to me, as spell level gets higher niches should get larger. No?

 

[Shadai]

I guess it depends on what exactly we are talking about.

The question is “is stoneskin underpowered” and I have to ask, compared to what?

If the question is “Is Stoneskin underpowered compared to previous editions?” then I think the answer can be readily agreed on. Yes. It is. Significantly actually. But that’s okay. If you think that’s wrong, I’ll ask you to kindly leave 5th edition, turn around, and read the sign posted on the door. They made no bones about balancing the classes, and with the concentration mechanic, wizards are no longer the gods they were formally. Indeed I feel there is still a gap between level 20 wizard and level 20 fighter, but the that gap which was astronomically large in previous editions is considerably narrower now. I actually really like that about this system, and think that this stoneskin change is more in line with that line of thinking then “how can we purposes f*** over spellcasters?”

I for one (even though I played several) am all for the end of god wizards. You know, the ones that buff up for 10 minutes before a fight, stroll into combat without a care in the world and literally decimate 3 flocks of flying nasties, 2 armies of orcs, and a dragon in a pear tree. This edition requires a bit more tactical thinking other than “hey, does that shady guy have a handful of pebbles? If so my stoneskin is f***ed…”

However, if the question we are trying to debate is “Is Stoneskin underpowered compared to other 4th level spells?” then I think we have a debate. The sides for this are a little less clear. A 100gp cost for a spell that only protects against non-magical damage is a bit weak. However, ALL spells in this edition got a bit weaker. That was part of that balancing. Then I think, well, unlike the cantrip Blade Ward, it lasts an hour, can be cast on another person, and protects against ALL P/S/B damage. Blade Ward, if you recall, lasts one til end of next turn, can only be self cast, and protects against P/S/B weapon damage. And that isn’t bad for a 4 spell.

If you want to debate its merit against other 4th level spells fine. If you want to compare it to level 3 and 5 spells on a power level that’s fine too. But stay within the bounds of this edition, and don’t confuse the issue about how you hate the new concentration mechanic because your ranger can’t melee damage like a fighter or you want your god wizard back.

If either of those apply to you, the previous editions are located down the hall, second door on the left, straight on til morning.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My party of four 8th level PCs would not even notice it

In a way, you have stumbled into your argument being basically the same thing as saying that because a campaign being played focuses entirely on non-combat espionage and social interaction that fireball is underpowered since it has only very limited use in such a campaign.

The game has decided not to consider any one sort of campaign or any one sort of approach as being so much more typical than others as to have the rules specifically tailored to suit it (such as stoneskin fitting your campaign in a way that your listed 8th level party would notice... besides that it could make them resistant to the majority of damage coming their way from the orcs and ogres and dinosaurs, or whatever, they happen to be fighting against) to the detriment of another campaign style that the system intends to support (like one that doesn't use magic items, as "atypical" as that might actually be).