FalcWP said: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
As a player, I (politely!) request that my group have a "Party Fund" for things like this: curing, restoration, food, etc.DragonLancer said:Maybe thats why we see it in a different light, because my players do keep a party funds for such things.
QFT.Hammerhead said:It's a great way to end up with a terrible sorcerer.

Drowbane said:250gp adds up pretty damn quick. 3 uses of Stoneskin or 1 Wand of CLW? 8 uses of Stoneskin or that shiney +1 Ring of Deflection?
Patlin said:It's worse than that. 3 uses of stoneskin or a wand of CLW and 3 uses of polymorph (or enervation, or whatever you prefer.)
Enervation and Polymorph are perfectly good spells. Why should I pay money to cast stoneskin when I could use the spell slot for another spell I like just as much for free?

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.