D&D 5E Is stoneskin underpowered?

[DMCF]

Stoneskin isn't the ultimate buff but it still helps with most minions. I would say it retains a very useful space for survival during those O moments.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think Stoneskin is fine. Concentration saves aren't that difficult when you're taking half damage, and most monsters don't have magic weapons. If the concentration requirement were removed, this spell would go back to being a must-have buff that every wizard would cast before every fight. I'd rather not go back to the "good old days" of flying, invisible, stoneskinned wizards running roughshod over every encounter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For the record I think the spell is probably fine as is for PCs. Just last session our monk got bit buy a bulette for about 35 damage. I'm sure she would appreciate taking only half damage and might be inclined to not use her bonus action to dodge or shadow step away but instead might take the hit...so yeah, I can see uses for it. I'm still very dubious that it is worth the 100gp cost though. And I do think the game is missing something by making defensive buffs better to be cast on allies. Our wizard literally hides around the corner during fights if he has a buff going on the paladin or monk...then the the earth elemental comes through the wall and he craps himself....

Only some defensive buffs are better on allies. Some of them, like Fire Shield, Blink, and Mirror Image, are terrific self-buffs which don't even require concentration. Fire Shield even has a halfway decent duration. Your wizard could stack Blink and Mirror Image on himself while he is holding Stoneskin on the paladin; Mage Armor and Shield, plus Resilient (Con) or Lucky in case the earth elemental gets a lucky hit, should suffice to keep him from panicking when trouble appears. (Earth Elementals specifically would ignore Mirror Image though because of Tremorsense.)

It wouldn't hurt for the paladin to Sanctuary the mage, either.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think Stoneskin is fine. Concentration saves aren't that difficult when you're taking half damage, and most monsters don't have magic weapons. If the concentration requirement were removed, this spell would go back to being a must-have buff that every wizard would cast before every fight. I'd rather not go back to the "good old days" of flying, invisible, stoneskinned wizards running roughshod over every encounter.

Unless you are spending significant resources otherwise, concentration saves are difficult enough for something that is caused with every hit taken, no matter how small the hit is. That's caused by the minimum 10 save dc and by most casters not being proficient in them. It's not like you're sacrificing anything by attacking the wizard more - you just get to stop his spells as a free bonus on the path to killing him.

If he's cast it on himself, you have to prod him with 2 damage instead of 1 to interrupt his spell, although since he's consuming his concentration slot on a spell that has no effect unless you target him, you are significantly less incentivised to bother.

So I guess that might be the point? Discourage even targeting the wizard because he's significantly less dangerous AND harder to kill? It seems like there are better spells for achieving that.

The more I look at it, the more it seems like the only niche it actually has is to cast on someone other than you who you wish to be a punching bag, and has the capability to force foes to attack them, otherwise any sensible foe will probably just target someone else and the spell is for naught.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Unless you are spending significant resources otherwise, concentration saves are difficult enough for something that is caused with every hit taken, no matter how small the hit is. That's caused by the minimum 10 save dc and by most casters not being proficient in them. It's not like you're sacrificing anything by attacking the wizard more - you just get to stop his spells as a free bonus on the path to killing him.

That depends very much on playstyle and how the wizard is constructed. As mentioned previously, wizards have a ton of defensive spells, but the biggest vulnerability of a single-class wizard is of course AC. In some circles it's popular to start wizards off with a single level of Fighter (for heavy armor, Defense style, and Con save proficiency) or Life/Tempest Cleric (for Bless access, full spell slots, and heavy armor). An AC 21 wizard with Shield for AC 26 is nontrivial to damage in the first place, and if he's got Con save proficiency on top, plus possible Bless/Bardic Inspiration/Paladin aura on top, he is in little danger of losing concentration.

Also, Abjuror wizards don't make concentration saves until you eat through the Arcane Ward.

I haven't seen a lot of Fighter 1/Wizard X at my table (I did make one for my OotA platonic test party but that's about it). However, I have seen plenty of bards and wizards who are reasonably difficulty to damage (AC 16 + Shield) and have decent Con saves (+3 = 70% chance of success on Con saves), which combined with my style as a DM (roleplaying the monsters' goals, not metagaming with DM knowledge about PCs) may explain why I have yet to see very many failed concentration checks.

It's possible that the PCs' choice of spells may have something to do with it too. When concentration spells get deployed by anyone other than the paladin tank, they're usually fighter-enders like Hypnotic Pattern and Wall of Force, and then the spellcaster does go and hide behind a wall or something equivalent to be safe. (Sending an earth elemental to attack the PCs sounds like the kind of thing I dream about in my tactical dreams, but usually consider unfair or unrealistic in actual play. The worst, most unfair thing I've ever done is sic ten Mage Armored Invisible Stalkers on my 11th level PCs while they were resting and partially unarmored (shields doffed, etc.). If I did that kind of thing frequently I would feel like a jerk.)

 

[Saeviomagy]

I haven't seen a lot of Fighter 1/Wizard X at my table (I did make one for my OotA platonic test party but that's about it). However, I have seen plenty of bards and wizards who are reasonably difficulty to damage (AC 16 + Shield) and have decent Con saves (+3 = 70% chance of success on Con saves).

This seems to suggest that your casters are heavily prioritizing defense if they typically have 14+ dex and 16+ con, and the fighter version with heavy armor is swapping out the dex for a 15+ str.

 

[EroGaki]

My opinion? It's a garbage spell, something I would never cast.

And for those saying that concentration isn't a big deal, I envy your ability to shrug off those saves. I've had terrible luck passing those saves, to the point that I retired the character because I was losing most of my spells after a single round; the minimum save is 10, and when you only have an 11 Con and no feats are allowed, it kind of stinks. And I know plenty of DM's who don't use feats, so my situation isn't exactly uncommon.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, a good way to spot a not well thought through strategy is if it involves passing Concentration tests.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This seems to suggest that your casters are heavily prioritizing defense if they typically have 14+ dex and 16+ con, and the fighter version with heavy armor is swapping out the dex for a 15+ str.

Yes. The fighter/necro's starting stats: Str 14 (15 from Heavy Armor Master) Dex 13 Con 15 (16 from being Human) Int 15 (16 from being Human) Wis 12 Cha 9. He's both the party tank and the party wizard. He's got weak Wisdom saves for a wizard, planning on dealing with that by taking Resilient (Wis) sometime around 9th level.

Maximizing Int is less of a priority at my table than maximizing survivability.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My opinion? It's a garbage spell, something I would never cast.

And for those saying that concentration isn't a big deal, I envy your ability to shrug off those saves. I've had terrible luck passing those saves, to the point that I retired the character because I was losing most of my spells after a single round; the minimum save is 10, and when you only have an 11 Con and no feats are allowed, it kind of stinks. And I know plenty of DM's who don't use feats, so my situation isn't exactly uncommon.

A featless game definitely changes your options, yes. A no-multiclassing game changes it even further. As with many things in 5E, table variation is high.