D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fortunately for Raistlin he was a 1e Magic-User and didn't have to worry about his spells, once cast, being disrupted by a sling stone.

(I vaguley remember a rule from my 1e days of spells being disrupted during casting if you took damage...but that may have been a house rule).

It wasn't a house rule, it was part of the PHB rules. In order to cast spells, you have to remain stationary, and if anyone damages you before you finish casting, you lose the spell. The 5E way is in some ways more punitive (can be disrupted after casting) and in some ways less punitive (you get a saving throw to avoid disruption; and many spells cannot be disrupted).

I don't really understand why you think Con is such a big deal. Yes, Fly can be disrupted. But you can Feather Fall and still land safely. Yes, you can lose control of an elemental if you're hit--so try not to get hit, and if you lose control, run! I've said that spellcasters at my table generally have pretty good defenses (especially ones I make, because I am a paranoid fellow who likes PCs and NPCs that don't die), but you know, not all of them do. There's an NPC sorceress with a Con of 6, and you know what? She rarely fails a Concentration check, because she rarely puts herself out on the front lines.

Wizards IME generally have high Con because it's the best way to get hit points and avoid crippling conditions (like drow sleep poison). Concentration is just kind of an extra perk.

If you think that "casters NEED to have an uber CON, wear armor, take feats or dip into fighter class" it's just possible that this may be caused more by your playstyle than by the rules. If you like front-line wizards who can take an axe to the face and never lose control of their Fly spells, feel free to houserule something that fits you better. But you're acting like it's some universal problem that everyone experiences, and IME it's not. I could play a Con 11 single-classed wizard with no Resilient feat and have fun with it. I'd probably Dodge more frequently, at least while holding up Concentration spells; and I'd use total cover more religiously; but those things are well within the wizard's idiom.

Like I said earlier, "Arguably it is more iconic to fail Concentration saves than to pass them." Losing (some of) your spells when you get hit seems totally normal and expected to me, something which has been in (A)D&D in one form or another for ages. 5E does it a bit differently but it's still familiar.

 

[Uller]

If you think that "casters NEED to have an uber CON, wear armor, take feats or dip into fighter class" it's just possible that this may be caused more by your playstyle than by the rules.

I'm responding to what AaronOfBarbaria and others have said. According to them, if you want to cast concnetration spells Con should be your first or second highest stat and Concentration saves are easy to make and not a problem if you take feats and multiclass, etc and therefore no big deal. If your wizard doesn't have a 14 or better con, he is going to just suck. This is what has been said throughout this thread. What I am saying is that if that's true, then I think that indicates a problem. I think the goal of making Con useful has possibly been over achieved.

Of coures I can house rule things. I can and sometimes do. But that's not what this conversation is about. People have dismissed the actual game table experiences of others by basically saying: well you're doing it wrong...if you want to cast buff spells on yourself then you should be a Mountain Dwarf with a 20 CON, wear armor and maybe dip into a level of cleric... I'm just pointing out that that seems a little extreme.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

What I object to is the notion that casters NEED to have an uber CON, wear armor, take feats or dip into fighter class to have half a chance in hell of casting a massive portion of the wizard spell list including many iconic spells (don't cast fly on yourself without a good CON...you'll likely fall...even from getting hit with just 1 hp of damage).

Firstly, you are continuing to mischaracterize what I said even after I've clarified. I'm not saying every wizard needs a high con (and all that other stuff is nowhere near anything I said, so I'll assume you aren't aiming it at me) - just those that are expecting to use concentration spells and put themselves in harm's way and not have those concentration spells fail.

When I picture an illusionist, I picture someone that is of quick wit and quicker hands, someone who can be entertaining, deceptive and sneaky. But to listen you you guys, the illusionist in my head, the one that has been just fine (even iconic) for every edition of D&D is now badwrongfun and can now forget about casting Major Illusion, Phantasmal Killer and many other spells that have been the bread and butter of the illusion school for the last 40 years.

And this is exactly why you mischaracterizing my statements is bad for you. Because of it, you are ranting nonsensically.

The illusionist, and even the specific spells, you mention are a perfect example of a character that relies on concentration spells and is actually doing something to avoid losing concentration. Sure, it doesn't involve a high constitution score - but that is fine because the character is being deceptive and sneaky, which reduces the number of attacks possibly coming their way, which means less (or even zero) concentration checks, so the chance of failing them is not as big of an issue.

You act like I am saying this character shouldn't work in 5th edition, when in reality it is an example of what I am talking about: you want to use concentration spells, you make it so you are good at doing so - rather than having this illusionist be low-con, low-dex, not even remotely sneaky or deceptive, and not using their various options to avoid rolling a concentration check, and then acting like something unreasonable has happened when they not only get attacked, they get hit, they take damage, and then they lose the coin toss that even being bad at concentration usually equates to.

But I think when someone is saying that CON should be possibly more important to a caster than INT then maybe...just perhaps there might be a hair of chance that it's gone a little too far.

Again, you mischaracterize my statment that Con should be at least, or even more, important than Int for a character that specifically relies on passing concentration checks.

For my part, I think the designers could have accomplished this by simply not having a minimum DC to concentration saves

I think not having a minimum DC would actually irritate more people - and might even result in greater frustration among players that are playing characters that rely on concentration spells as their go-to "thing" and have not considered being good at concentration checks a priority as they fail a DC 2 check by rolling a 1 (it might just be my experience that missing a "sure thing" is more of a let down for the person doing it than losing a coin toss is).

or allowing casters to include their prof bonus

You mean give all casters one of the few things which makes certain casters special?

or limiting the number of saves they have to make per turn (maybe subsequent saves have to have a higher DC before they force him to make another save).

Best way to limit how many concentration checks you have to make is to limit how many times your character is taking damage... at least, that's my experience.

There are all sorts of ways the mechanic could be better, a bit easier on casters with a 10 or 12 Con and still make it really beneficial to have a really high con. To me (again...your mileage may vary), having a high con should be a benefit...not a necessity.

Having a high con isn't a necessity. You can play any one of the spellcasting classes in the game and either A) choose not to care that you are losing concentration spells if you get hit, while avoiding getting hit, B) as A but also not avoiding getting hit, but choosing to still not care that you are losing concentration spells because of it, or, and this is the big one, C) don't use concentration spells.

As concentration saves are implemented (and as evidenced by some of your posts), I think it's very close to being a necessity unless you're willing to dip into a feat or a class. I'm sorry that I disagree, but I do. I don't think I'm "constraining" anyone by having that opinion. But I think concentration as implemented is certainly constraining and I think all of your posts are pretty much proof of that.

The only "evidence" to be found suggests that you would rather mischaracterize the statements of any disagreeing with you than actually have the same conversation that they are having.

And if my posts are "proof" of anything, it would be that there are a lot of different ways to play a wizard - and some of them, need to consider Constitution very important.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I wonder if the concentration save was a wisdom (willpower) save, and as such something wizards are prof in, if that would be better?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm responding to what AaronOfBarbaria and others have said. According to them, if you want to cast concnetration spells Con should be your first or second highest stat and Concentration saves are easy to make and not a problem if you take feats and multiclass, etc and therefore no big deal. If your wizard doesn't have a 14 or better con, he is going to just suck. This is what has been said throughout this thread. What I am saying is that if that's true, then I think that indicates a problem. I think the goal of making Con useful has possibly been over achieved.

I think you're misstating Aaron's point. Take post #71:

I think what makes your situation uncommon, or at least I hope it is uncommon, is that you built a character whose main strategy - to the point it made you abandon the character when it wasn't working out - was to rely upon an 11 Ability score.

That's like a fighter with 11 strength using non-finesse weapons and blaming his target's AC scores or bad luck for a higher number of missed attack rolls.

I can understand why you might think this is the same as "Wizards with 11 Con are unplayable." What I hear it saying is a bit different: "Wizards with 11 Con, no Con save proficiency, and a reliance on concentration spells are unplayable as front-line tanks. So either don't build that wizard or don't play him that way." Hence the reference to "non-finesse weapons". Just as a fighter with Str 11 can rely on finesse weapons, a wizard can rely on non-concentration spells. Just as a fighter can use tactics to generate advantage to compensate for low Str (e.g. by hiding behind a Shield Master fighter who bashes people to the ground), a wizard can use tactics to compensate for poor Concentration (e.g. save your cocentration spells until they will be decisive, like Wall of Force and Hypnotic Pattern; use Mirror Image before casting your concentration spell to reduce the chances of being hit). It's still a weakness but it doesn't have to be a crippling one.

Frankly, the difference between +3 and +0 on Concentration saves is pretty minimal anyway. Not getting hit is a much better mitigation.

Edit: and it turns out that I heard Aaron's point correctly, since Aaron just posted his clarification. Yay! Nobody here thinks high Con is mandatory. It's just something you need to be aware of.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Fortunately for Raistlin he was a 1e Magic-User and didn't have to worry about his spells, once cast, being disrupted by a sling stone.

(I vaguley remember a rule from my 1e days of spells being disrupted during casting if you took damage...but that may have been a house rule).

Yeah... I don't think I would call TSR-era spellcasters "fortunate" when it came to their spells. You know, the ones that they would lose if they took any damage at all, and in some versions couldn't even attempt to cast a spell if there was an enemy near them, nor move away from an enemy without being subject to a free attack.

It was the era of either getting your spells out there before any enemies had a chance to do anything, or not getting to cast any spells at all, just feebly attack with a dagger, dart, or staff.

Concentration was originally implemented not as a means to limit spellcasters, but as a means to actually let them participate in an encounter meaningfully even if they lost initiative.

 

[Uller]

The only "evidence" to be found suggests that you would rather mischaracterize the statements of any disagreeing with you than actually have the same conversation that they are having.

I'm sorry if I'm mischaracterizing your position, but this seems to me to have a plain meaning:

You are overstating the "meta result". Only casters that rely upon concentration spells would have their Con score as their first or second priority for ability scores - the ones that use non-concentration spells as their "go to" will only have as much care about Constitution as any character whose "thing" doesn't rely upon it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?469346-Is-stoneskin-underpowered/page8#ixzz3nGa3Vp2E

The bolded portion (to me) sounds like you are saying if you want to rely on concentration spells, you better have a very high con. The underlined part says (again...to me) that if you forgoe all those spells then con is less important. In another post you said that there are all sorts of non-concentration spells available for those that don't want to be good at making conentration saves.

I don't think I mischaracterized what you said. But if I did I apologize.

 

[Gadget]

No, it doesn't seem "off" to have a spellcasting character actually care about more than the one or two ability scores people are used to them caring about. Especially not a character that intends to use a function of the game that is heavily reliant upon that ability score.

This is circuitous logic. The game relies on that ability score because the designers made it rely on that ability score. While wizards have generally never been particularly MAD compared to some other classes, is making them so a good thing? Particularly a part of the game that has not relied on that ability score. How?

You are overstating the "meta result". Only casters that rely upon concentration spells would have their Con score as their first or second priority for ability scores - the ones that use non-concentration spells as their "go to" will only have as much care about Constitution as any character whose "thing" doesn't rely upon it.

And I want every character of every class to have reasons to care about every ability score. The difference is that I feel like 5th edition is giving me what I want, and you appear to think that you aren't getting what you want.

They already have reasons to care about their Con score, making it integral to a large part of the class features (spells) functioning properly seems questionable, especially given the topic under discussion where the effect is arguably, not all that.

No. It's uncommon for a spell caster that relies on concentration spells (a subset of the spells in the game) to not have considered Constitution a high priority.

Wizards that don't emphasize Consitution and also don't emphasize use of concentration spells are the norm, in my experience, but of those that do focus their spell casting in the direction of concentration spells, well, Con usually gives them more "oomph" than their Int score could manage.

Well, obviously, because the system requires it. The question is this: Why? Is it a balance issue? Are these effects so great that it would 'bad design' to do otherwise. What does it bring to the table?

How prior editions worked doesn't matter. Period.

You keep saying this like it is the crux of some grand argument beyond debate. Here's a point: people's expectations matter. Period. Whether or not they are reasonable expectations is somewhat up for debate. One of the main selling points and design goals was to make 5e 'feel like D&D'. I would argue that that tag line is all about expectations, though not exact mechanical implementations. No one here is asking for a return to the LFQW or Angel Summoner vs. BMX Bandit, etc. People want to discuss how the merits of certain options work, within the context of this edition, and sometimes incidental references to how the archetype has generally played or been perceived in the past can be used to clarify a point made on how things work now.

If you aren't basing your evaluation of how to build a character that works for what you want it to do on how 5th edition actually works, how can you expect to have a 5th edition character that works for what you want it to do?

In 5th edition, Constitution is more important to effective concentration spell use than Intelligence is in many cases, and the cases that it isn't it is equally important to Intelligence (including times when neither of them matter that much because you have cast a spell like detect magic that requires concentration but isn't much of a disappointment to lose concentration on, and which is completely unaffected by Intelligence).

I thought we were talking about how 5e actually works. Are we not? The point is that 5e has changed the expectations a bit that isn't clearly evident on first blush. Is that a good thing? What is the purpose of that and how does it compare with other classes? It has taken us how many posts for the point to be boiled down to: "If you want to use iconic wizard spells (that are now concentration) spells in combat, you better put a high priority on Con" from "Is stoneskin underpowered?". That has been useful to me, at least.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The bolded portion (to me) sounds like you are saying if you want to rely on concentration spells, you better have a very high con.

It's a case of me saying "Some guys named Jim have red hair" and you hearing "every guy named Jim has red hair."

I am mentioning which sub-set of wizards would have their con score as their first our second priority, not making the claim all wizards within that subset have to have a high con score (though those that don't will need some other mitigation of concentration failure, or will not succeed very often in keeping their concentration)

The underlined part says (again...to me) that if you forgoe all those spells then con is less important. In another post you said that there are all sorts of non-concentration spells available for those that don't want to be good at making conentration saves.

Me saying "you don't even have to use concentration spells if you don't want to, and if you don't then your Con score isn't made a higher priority than it usually is" is not the same as me saying that a person not wanting their character to be good at concentration saves has to pick non-concentration saves. Such people can also choose to use concentration spells and not have their enjoyment of the character spoiled by failing a concentration check if it ever comes up.

I don't think I mischaracterized what you said. But if I did I apologize.

I accept your apology, but I want you to know that I wasn't taking it personally and did not mean to sound as though I were assuming you were doing it on purpose.

That settles it for me, there is definitely something tangibly more civil about this forum than most others.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I thought we were talking about how 5e actually works. Are we not? The point is that 5e has changed the expectations a bit that isn't clearly evident on first blush. Is that a good thing? What is the purpose of that and how does it compare with other classes? It has taken us how many posts for the point to be boiled down to: "If you want to use iconic wizard spells (that are now concentration) spells in combat, you better put a high priority on Con" from "Is stoneskin underpowered?". That has been useful to me, at least.

Your paraphrase is a misstatement.

It should be, "If you want to use iconic wizard spells (that are now concentration) spells in combat, you better put a high priority on not failing Concentration checks. A high Con is one (relatively poor) layer of defense."

Mitigations off the top of my head:

1.) Mirror Image
2.) Bardic Inspiration
3.) Paladin Auras
4.) Bless spell
5.) Shield
6.) Arcane Ward (abjuror)
7.) Illusionary Self (illusionist)
8.) Portent (diviner)
9.) Blink spell
10.) Resilient (Con) feat
11.) High Con score
12.) Cutting Words
13.) Bend Luck (either to hinder attacker or to aid your check--note, doesn't work on self)
14.) Lucky feat
15.) Warcaster feat

Many of these mitigations are excellent for reasons that have nothing to do with Concentration. Lucky is just a great all-around feat. It's sort of like proficiency in every important skill (when needed), plus Resilient (Everything) (when needed). Of course if you like sticking your head in the fire over and over and over, your luck is going to run out, but if you play cautiously and sanely it can be a great second or third line of defense.