Why no love for Stoneskin?

[DragonLancer]

Some months ago one of my players posted on here with regards to choices for the Sorcerer he was going (and still is) playing in my Age of Worms campaign. We were talking after the last session and he mentioned that he was warned off taking Stonestone. When I asked why, he said that posters here disliked the spell and recommended other "more useful" spells.

I'm curious why people feel that way towards a pretty good and very useful defensive spell?

 

[TheGogmagog]

To overcome the 250 gp component, It would need to last hour/level. Two to 3 hour duration just isn't cost effective. Then for a sorcerer, they need to ask the question of each spell... Am I likely to cast this twice each day?

Aside from that, for a sorcerer, evading the attacks (most likely melee) altogether would be more important than being able to soak some of it.

 

[Hussar]

Realistically, how often does your sorc get into melee combat? Even with a DR of 10, he's going down pretty fast at eighth level if he's anywhere near combat. So, the spell is pretty much for other people.

Sorcs don't make the best buffers really. You'd be much better off with a wand of stoneskin if you really wanted it. For the amount you would actually cast it anyway. Given the choice of 4th level spells, would you lock yourself into a spell you are likely never to cast on yourself? Of the two you are going to be able to cast for the next several levels?

Naw, stoneskin is handy, but, I think I'll take Black Tentacles for 100 Alex.

 

[Mistwell]

The cost to cast is too high.

 

[Nail]

I'm curious why people feel that way towards a pretty good and very useful defensive spell?

Two reasons:

• #1) It's a poor Sor spell: Sorcerers need to take spells they will cast often, rather than occasionally. Stoneskin is unlikely to be a spell cast often because.....
• #2) It's material compoent is too expensive for the benefit and duration.

BTW: Once you reach 14th level +, the cost becomes quite manageable. Our high level group finally sprung for 2/day magic items with Stoneskin in it.

 

[Caliban]

You don't cast stoneskin on yourself, you cast it on the party tank or melee damage dealer. Them them attract all the damage.

But the cost is prohibitive, especially given the duration.

 

[frankthedm]

The cost is nowhere near prohibitive, though It should not be a sorcerer's first choice. 7th level characters have plenty of gp to cover the spell and higher level character should be laughing at the 250 gp. Too many folks are afraid to spend a little money to make even more by being able to adventure even longer.

And it amazes me how wizards value a few GP over their allies lives. One raise dead is the cost of 20 castings of stoneskin. DR 10 /adamant, even capped at 10xcaster level in HP, should save the front liner's life more than 1 time out of 20.

IMO stoneskin's cost is like the cleric's overall power; If it seems too high, the DM is not hitting the party hard enough. It is no accident giants start showing up as a typical combat at the same time casters get stone skin.

 

[Nail]

The cost is nowhere near prohibitive, though It should not be a sorcerer's first choice. 7th level characters have plenty of gp to cover the spell and higher level character should be laughing at the 250 gp.

7th level PCs have 19,000 gp wealth. One casting of stoneskin won't change that much. Even a few castings is fine. But more than that, and it's significant.

A typical EL 7 encounter nets a party 2,600gp. Given a 4 person party, that's 650gp per person. If the Sor casts this once per combat, he's loseing a THIRD of his treasure from the encounter with just one spell.

....so yeah, the spell is expensive at this level, and it's not something you want to cast nearly every time. Therefore, it's a poor Sor spell.

However, by level 14 or so, the relative cost is very low, and so then it becomes a fine Sor spell.

 

[FalcWP]

A typical EL 7 encounter nets a party 2,600gp. Given a 4 person party, that's 650gp per person. If the Sor casts this once per combat, he's loseing a THIRD of his treasure from the encounter with just one spell.

While I generally agree that Stoneskin is a bit too expensive for what it does, especially for a Sorcerer (where giving up a spell known is an expense), I'd have to wonder about this. Unless the Sorcerer only casts Stoneskin on himself, it'd seem rather stupid to make him pay for every casting of it. If I'm the group's fighter, or, perhaps even more likely, the group's melee-oriented rogue, I'd be forking the 250 GP over for any significant fight, rather than say, "Cast Stoneskin on me - don't worry, you'll still make a bit of a profit in treasure!" That, or make it a group expense - if the Sorcerer casts one Stoneskin per encounter, then the group gets a net of 2,350 gold, or 587.5 GP/person (compared to the 2,600 and 650 above0. Just the way I prefer to handle it, but I think it really lowers the perceived cost of Stoneskin

 

[cleavthorn]

I'm suprised many seem to be looking at this in such cold, technical ways.

I tend to see sorcerers as "superheroes" in a game, and try to put a theme on their abilities. It adds so much more game spice to the character in my opinion.

Stonekin is a perfectly fine spell, it's just expensive! Wether or not they can cast stoneskin once per day or ninety times is a secondary concern of mine personally. I'm in it for the roleplaying. I've played an "earth" sorcerer that had his bacon saved by this spell on several occasions, and I didn't think it was "cost ineffective" or worry about if I could cast it again later then!

Besides, like it was stated before, you can always cast it on the fighter for front line combat, the rogue as added protection into an unknown area, or an innocent NPC you are trying to protect.