Can a developer really tell me that this spell is worth 100g in material costs every time you want to cast it? Why does every edition of this game make this spell so expensive that it's worthless?
Just... Why?
TehSchwann wrote:
Because it grants the wizard a HUGE amount of survivability, and so a high cost is required to stop the spell from overshadowing the capabilities of the martial classes. When the wizard really needs it, he can achieve a potent effect. Doing so, however, costs.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I think the wider issue is, why are some spells balanced by cost at all? Cost is never a very good way of achieving balance, since it is inherently different than other ways, so when trying to balance it you are always comparing apples to oranges.
I dunno, I just read it, and stone skin seems pretty powerful.
it's a 4th level spell; gives you resistance to non-magical piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage, and (with concentration) can last an hour. That's multiple fights with serious damage reduction from most sources...
Besides, 100gp worth of diamond dust isn't much to a typical 7th+ level PC.
I am much more bothered by how cantrips that do damage scale pretty equally to a melee PC's level-scaling # of attacks/sneak attack, etc....Yet, casters ALSO get their increasingly devastating 'daily' spells on top of that. Wizards might be 'glass cannons' But, damn, that's one deadly cannon each 'day'. LOL, stoneskin makes that 'cannon' not glass anymore, either.
seti wrote:
Polaris wrote:
seti wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
That spell is pretty awesome. It basically doubles the number of encounters yiu can run through in an adventuring day for an hour. Concentration is absolutely necessary to keep you from stacking it with blur, mirror image, invisibility, etc. it's a good back up spell for the wizard in case the wizard gets separated from the the party and is exposed for a long time, or to put on the fighter before he goes in to battle a dragon or den of trolls or whatever. I think it's oretty sweet a hundred gold is a drop in the bucket at 7th level. In every edition of dnd once we got past 5th level we seemed to have more money than we knew what to do with.
Polaris wrote:
It seems about right to me.
Honoestly I almost never make my casters of any sort even use material components, but if I was by 7th or 8th level 100g for a spell really doesnt seem all that expensive to me, also by the time you can cast this spell almost everything has magical weapons/attacks so it seems like a very situational spell to me.
Been playing since 2e and I can count on one hand how many times I've ever seen Stoneskin be used, I wouldnt mind it getting some viability.
Kalafax wrote:
It was good in 2e, not saying it wasnt, just wasnt something I saw used very much, and when 3e came around it was about useless imo so havent seen it used since, its always been a staple spell in the game so it would be nice to see it used again. As said though, in my games( arguably high magic games ) by 7-8th level the majority of stuff is magical in one way or another so when it comes to ignoring damage from NPCs I dont see it being extremly helpful, though in resisting falls, environmental damage, and the like it could be very useful and extremly fun to see how the players try to use it to their advantage.
In my opinion this spell as written should NOT be a 4th level spell. In older editions this spell would make you immune to several attacks and NOT simply provide damage resistance. If I recal it made you immune to 1d4 + 1 attack for every two levels. So at 7th level you would be immune to 1d4 +3 attacks for the duration of the spell. In addition, the spell component wasn't always expensive either. In some editions the spell required diamond and grandite dust., but those editions didn't specify how much in gp value of it you needed.
As damage reduction this spell is not as powerful as it once was. It doesn't require an expensive component and it's not justified as a 4th level spell. In the past, the value in this spell was that it prevented damage and allowed you to maintain concentration and/or keep your spell from being disrupted.
The expensive spell component has nothing to do with tradition, that's a 3rd edition concept.
It is absolutely justified as a 4th level spell. This 4th level spell gives you the same ability as the War Cleric's 20th level capstone ability (in the playtest). Meanwhile, unlike the 2e spell, it can last for an hour. That means that it might end up eating up the damage from more than 1d4+3 attacks. Over an hour in a dungeon, it might end up eating quite a few attacks! The notion that this already very powerful spell needs to be made even more powerful is just... odd.
100gp is also 2 potions of healing, which on average heal 14hp (7 each). A 7th level wizard with a +1 CON modifier (not unreasonable) would have 37hp, so 14 is still a nice chunk of their hit point by the time they can cast Stoneskin. So, in order to be worth the 100gp, the wizard would have to be hit for at least 28 points of non-magical weapon damage within a one hour timeframe. They're also unable to cast other concentration spells within that hour. Is that a fair price? Against the right enemies, it's possibly worth the money, but for an hour of concentration, I'd would've preferred the spell to come with AC 15, too. Then again, threat assessment and resource management are supposed to be a part of the fun of playing a wizard, so maybe it's just fine the way it is.
Why worry about Stoneskin? Wizard's just aren't worth playing in this edition. They've been nerfed to oblivion. The wizard is just a traveling novelty act any more, capable only of parlor tricks. Magic just doesn't feel like magic any more. There's no awe to it. Yet some of the other classes have martial abilities that feel more like magic.
As for Stoneskin, you want it? Then play a Rogue. It's a better class and you get Uncanny Dodge at 5th level. All that costs is a reaction and you take half damage from a nasty attack. No gold, no precious slot, and no duration. It replenishes every round.
Better yet, just stick with 2nd edition, or any of the many old and new, retro rpg clones out there that do it better than WotC published D&D versions.
Stoneskin is far better when cast on the melee types. Thats how you get your 100gp worth in the biig fights
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
Polaris wrote:
if we're comparing opinions, i wouldn't mind seeing the 100gp cost as an optional way to cast it without having to concentrate on it.
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
seti wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
CelticPaladin wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
seti wrote:
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
seti wrote:
Given the way concentration works now, and that stoneskin requires concentration, I would be far more likely to just flat out ignore the 100gp component. As mentioned above, 100gp to cast a spell that can go away after one hit is too steep a price.
Read the treasure rules.
"Magic Items. Selling magic items is problematic. Finding someone to buy a potion or a scroll isn’t too hard, but other items are out of the realm of most but the wealthiest nobles. Likewise, aside from a few common magic items, you won’t normally come across magic items or spells to purchase. The value of magic is far beyond simple gold and should always be treated as such."
They explicitly state that you can't buy magic items other then potions and scrolls. If DMs actually implement this rule as written (which I fully support) players are going to be swimming in copper/silver/electurm/gold/platinum.
Also, I fully support meaningful/costly material components for spells with potent effects. I think they should be more widespread, not less.
Psikerlord wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Person_Man wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Not that I think Wizards are overpowered in this edition(yet, I'll save that until the PHB comes out and I can see for myself whether it is or not).
One thing I do find odd though in the Basic Ruleset pdf, when talking about how characters can expect to improve in tiers of play(page 10 of the pdf), it talks about some of the nice things casters can do, but is oddly silent about how Fighters become different in the higher tiers. For example..
Tier 1-4: Doesn't talk much about any of the classes, being the first few levels, understandable.
Tier 5-10: it mentions how casters "cross a new threshold of magical power with spells such as Fireball and Lightning Bolt." Then follows it up with "weapon-using classes gain the ability to make multiple attacks in one round." and not much else.
Tier 11-16: It claims characters reach a new level of power that sets them apart from even other adventurers, claimign casters typically get 6th level spells, letting them create effects previously impossible for PCs to achieve. Then it re-iterates that weapon users get more attacks.
Tier 17-20: Another one that's vague in general, fate of the world hangs in the balance of adventures yadda yadda.
The description of tiers alone doesn't really inspire me to play a Fighter if all it can promise me is more of the same thing I already do while casters get to "create effects previously impossible for PCs to achieve."
Cyber-Dave wrote:
I'm still not sold on the price tag considering concentration mechanics. It's still dependable enough if you slap it on your Fighter and watch him juggernaut his way through the dungeon, I suppose. I'm not sure the investment pays off otherwise. If you aren't getting hit, the spell is wasted to begin with. If you are getting hit, you can lose the spell whose entire purpose is diminishing those hits. Even so, I can come up with quick houserules to tweak it. Dropping the Material cost, or allowing the spell to grant proficiency bonus on Concentration for the duration of the spell comes to mind.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Are we forgetting that stoneskin...
a) Can be cast on anyone, making a fighter super tanky, or giving wizards a big boost to survivability. That versatility is pretty nice, especially in solo encounters where it's not too hard to predict targets the majority of the time.
b) Since resistance is half damage always, it scales very well even into high levels. Half damage is just as good at level 18 as it is at level 7, and at that point 100gp will probably be throw away money, especially seeing as there will be much less buying of magic items.
c) The 100gp cost makes the spell less spam friendly, at least at lower levels. That kind of survivability buff every fight could cause some issues. The 100gp gate helps remedy that. somewhat.
Jenks wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
40 is right. Half that for stoneskin, and you're looking at 20. Half it again for the concentration mechanic (since you're taking 20 and not 40 thanks to stoneskin) and you got 10 damage.
Krynos_Pentegarn wrote:
kev777 wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never had more than two combats in a single in-game hour, and even then that's really pushing it and very rare.
And on the other side of the spectrum, I've hardly ever seen combats last longer than 10 rounds (one in-game minute).
So that duration isn't really as valuable as people are making it out to be. And for 100g per cast, shouldn't it be an 8-hr buff anyway?
If I understand correctly, using a focus would eliminate the need for the material component, right?
Typically yes, but if the spell specifies a cost it is an exception to that. Stoneskin being one such exception.
Brimleydower wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I think the benefit of stoneskin will entirely depend on how long it takes a level 7 character to aquire 100gp.
Sometmes other spells might be better. But if you're fighting lots or creatures or a creature with multiple attacks (likea dragon) reducing the damage of each hit might keep you alive. Which makes stoneskin situationally better than the rogue's Uncanny Dodge, which can only halve damage one a turn.
It works if something physical is hitting you. If something forks a lightning bolt through your Wizard, or that dragon decides to belch a gout of acid on the party, you can likely kiss that stoneskin goodbye. That's a hard pill to swallow on its own, especially if 4th level spells are your ultimate or penultimate spell level. Even up to that point I think it's balanced, if only because you can cast it on another party member (which, honestly, is probably more bang for your buck). Being out 100gp with no appreciable result every time your concentration fizzles, though. Stoneskin ain't what it used to be (which is to say, horribly overpowered haha), so I'll probably just drop the price tag or greatly reduce it.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
@mikemearls Q: What happens if a creature is invisible but not hidden?
@mikemearls Sorry, to clarify, do you have to guess which square the invisible creature is in, or do you just attack with disadvantage?
@CyberDaveMil attack with disadvantage, unless target is hiding. Then you need to guess.
@CyberDaveMil you know it's space but can't see it. If using minis, mark its pos on the map.
@mikemearls Thanks! One more very quick question if you do not mind: in that case, what is the benefit of the rogue's blindsense?
@mikemearls To clarify, I am assuming "blindsense" lets you "see" invisible creatures within 10 feet, right?
@CyberDaveMil main benefit is revealing hidden creatures. Invisibility detection is small benefit if creature isn't trying to hide
@CyberDaveMil nope, just detect
This means that I was right about everything except for blindsense. It seems blindsense doesn't let you see an invisible creature. It just lets you autodetect all hidden creatures in a 10 foot radius (without making any perception check). It doesn't really grant you any benefit against an invisible creature that isn't also trying to hide. That makes the wording of that ability a little confusing, but the dev's have clarified the intent of the power for us. Cool beans!
I'd rather no spell be balanced on a monetary cost. I'd like a game that's balanced with 0 gold to give out or a truckload. As a DM, i don't want the "balance" of my PC's abilities to ever be variable based on the amount of raw currency i put into the campaign.
Just asked Mike on twitter, he confirm that the spell can be broken by failing a concentration hit and that the best use for it would be casting it on your heavy melee hitter or anyone else but the wizard.
Warder
Psikerlord wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
kev777 wrote:
I think its interesting that the same people who are complaining that stoneskin is under-powered pretty much want to buff all the other 4th level buff spells too. Maybe the problem is that you have overblown assumptions about what magic should be doing? Just saying...
Me, I like it as is. If it was any more powerful than as is, I probably wouldn't be buying into this edition.
So we will have to agree to disagree. I like the martial classes as is. I like the spellcasters as is. They got the balance just right.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
So then shouldn't Invisibility be renamed, "Semi-Opaqueness" or something? 
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but each time the wizard is hit he will have to make a concentration check to hold it up.
TehSchwann wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
TehSchwann wrote:
Polaris wrote:
The material component on stoneskin seems like overkill since the spell can easily be disrupted by breaking the wizard's concentration.
[Edit] I think I might house rule it that the material component is optional, and removes the concentration requirement if the 100 gp component is used. But I'll see how it plays out first.
TehSchwann wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
The material cost of the spell is irrelevant. The new version is effectively useless. By the time a caster is of sufficent level to cast it there is no reason to -- it is worthless against magical attacks. I suppose there are one-off situations where a caster might be facing low-level peons with nonmagical weapons but as a mainline defense this one has been ruined more than even blur, shield, and the rest of the abjuration line. The concentration slot prohibits stacking even the few useful defenses now. If I'm playing a caster I'm not sure how I'm supposed to survive beyond second or third level with the defenses as broken as they are. I suppose picking up "War caster" and pulling on some plate is going to be an (absurd) requirement.
If Stone Skin protected against magic weapon attacks too, then it might be worth it. Right now it's a 2nd Level spell at best.
stoneskin should work the way it did in 2e otherwise it shouldn't be a 4th level spell. As a 2nd level or 3rd level spell it's fine though.
dmgorgon wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
seti wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Arithezoo wrote:
Also now that the PHB is out we know Stoneskin isn't just a wizard spell. It's also castable by druids, rangers, and sorcerers.
We still aren't sure about how the cost balances out for level 7+ when any of those classes can start casting it, and since it's a specific cost (and consumed) it's not covered by using a focus instead.
As far as concentration goes since we've not started our game yet I've not had a chance to see how much concentration gets interrupted in combat. All I've read though is most combats probably don't last long enough for the caster to have to make very many saves, and there's probably not more than 1-2 combats per game-hour so the spell probably only protects against 1-5 attacks in a general casting.
Also based on the wordings in the spell description, damage section for combat, and the +1 weapon in the magic items lists in the DM Basic Rules and other sources it looks like magical weapons are not magical damage so Stoneskin would grant it's resistance for them. Damage from spells or other magical abilities (from monsters) wouldn't be considered non-magical so wouldn't be blocked by Stoneskin. Magic weapons only say that they add bonuses to hit and damge, not that they change the damage type in any way (so a magical longsword does more damage because it's a sharper blade as it's of higher quality than a non-magical blade, but it's not imparting any magical damage type to the swords slashing damage like a layer of force over the blade).
TehSchwann wrote:
So the minotaur in the Earth section can cast it.
Hurin88 wrote:
hmm i only just realised from this thread stoneskin doesnt work against magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning... interesting.... how many monsters in the MM count as having magical claws?
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Stoneskin is a 4th level spell far weaker than the barbarian's basic rage ability...and since you can cast it at 7th level where you have only 1, there's a fair chance that whatever is threatening enough that you're saving the spell to protect yourself against...it may well have a +1 weapon and make your spell useless.
In my opinion Mirror Image is a superiror spell to Stoneskin. For some reason when a Fighter hit a mirror image and it vanishes it is not game breaking. But when a magic sword bounces off a wizard it is nerfing the poor fighter. 2E Stoneskin also works well with the new concentration mechanic.
Huntsman57 wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Actually both Mirror Image and Blink are superior to Stoneskin mechanically.
For me the entire purpose of stoneskin was to prevent taking damage for a few rounds so that you could avoid spell failure. Damage resistance does not accomplish that.
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I'm not so sure that cost is a balancing issue. I'm inclined to agree that it's more a case of tradition and I'm fine with that. Many spells are based on classic myths, fables, and fairy stories and I used to love that their origins paid homage to that. You whippersnappers who have spent all your time on ipads and have no concept of the literary (or movie) origins of the spells can't always get your own way, you know. Obviously there are still some literary spells like polymorph and Wish that remain notoriously hard to manage but they seem to be getting there.
The spell is not a must have but it will have its uses. Isn't that exactly the goal of spell choices? No single spell should be so overwhelmingly useful that it is a must have. It might also be a factor to balance the spell agaist bards, warlocks, eldtritch knights, and arcane tricksters who have limited spells known, since they will have to think carefully about the pros and cons when choosing their spells.
All of 2 monsters in the basic rules (the two Golems) have their appropriate typed damage count as magic. Add to them the Banshee, Fire Elemental, Flameskull, Ghost and Nothic as creatures that can do attack sequences purely of other elements at will. That's 7 creatures out of the entire list. Every other creature either partially or entirely does damage that Stoneskin can mitigate.
Sounds pretty good to me?
dmgorgon wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Creatures whose weapons, or attacks, are considered 'magical' in the 5E Monster Manual: Deva, Planetar, Solar, Coutl, Balor, Marilith, Erinyes, Pit Fiend, Clay Golem, Iron Golem, Stone Golem, Flesh Golem, Oni, Gray Slaad, Death Slaad, Androspinx, Gynosphinx, Unicorn, Arcanaloth, Mezzoloth, Nycanaloth, Ultroloth. With regard to what damage Stoneskin can mitigate, I think humanoids with access to magical weapons or spells that create magical weapons will be one's primary concern. Sadly, this is the majority of adversaries one faces in my campaigns.
Looks like the cantrip Blade Ward is better for weapon attacks, though it only lasts a round and takes your action. I suppose a sorcerer might raise the ward in the process of using Quickend Spell. With so many spells getting ganked in this edition, relative to other editions, at least it's easier to play a Sorcerer now.
Arithezoo wrote:
When a 4th level spell can be countered by a 2nd level spell (Magic Weapon), has a large cost associated with its casting, and requires your concentration, I think it's a sign of bad design.
We houserule that the component cost remains, but the resistance can't be bypassed.
We never really cast stoneskin. Its not even about cost.
There are better defensive spells (blink, shield, invisibility, mirror image), and there are better uses of your concentration slot (Hold person/monster, banish, wall of fire, bigbys hand, etc).
It COULD be useful if your tank (Fighter or Pally) is constantly becoming a pin cushion, but other than that its underwhelming.
Now in terms of spell components, some are good, for example I've been able to limit my party's access to Force Cage by limiting their access to Rubies, but most components are there for story as opposed to balance. Spells are simply not balanced really. I don't consider that to be too much of a problem either.
Our DM had a tendency to focus fire on the fighter so the Druid has been using stoneskin on the fighter. She has the heavy armor master feat so 13 damage for example becomes 10 becomes 5.
When it works its great. There are better defensive spells (gretaer invisability) but most of them are arcane so for Druids its not a bad spell.
seti wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
A martial can do 40d6 damage in a single round? I think what you perceive as a bias towards martials is a rebalancing from the complete caster imbalance that held sway in 3rd edition. (I can't say how it was in 4th because I only played it once and wasn't impressed.) Martials now can keep pace with casters far longer than they could in previous editions.
Karnos wrote:
DLfan wrote:
In our last session I would have killed for a stoneskin spell. Our Barbarian has tons of hitpoints, rage for damage resistance, ect... but sucks at drawing attention. In this fight (4th level party of 3, Barbarian, Warlock and Druid) he attracted 2 giant spiders (He's a strongheart halfling so has advantage against poison and poison resistance) by running into the middle of the room, screaming at the top of his lungs, and attacking anything that moves. I, the Druid, attracted 5 bugbears and 2 giant spiders by standing in the doorway and dodging every round. I would have killed for Stoneskin at this point, as I had to wait for the other two to kill stuff while I just got pummeled on.
We won the fight, but I went down after 4 rounds of being hit by almost every enemy in the fight. If I had Stoneskin up I doubt I would have gone down at all.
colemcm wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
mcintma wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Now see how a wizard matches up to a paladin. Both characters are assumed to be 14th level but lets give the paladin a greatsword and he hits a fiend or undead every time for optimal dpr.
Paladin Spells by level -14th level caster
Four 1rst, 3- 2nd, 2 - 3rd and 1 4rth.
First level smite - 3D8+2D6+6 x 4 = 12D8+8D6+24
2nd level smite - 4D8+2D6+6x3 = 12D8+6D6-18
3rd level smite - 5D8+2D6 +6x2 = 10D8+4D6+12
4rth level smite - 6D8+2D6+6x1 = 6D8+4D6+12
Second Attack for every smite against undead and fiends
=(10 attacks x 2D6)+ (10x2D8 smite) +(10 x6)= 20D6+20D8+60
Total damage dice = 60D8+42D6+136 Total Damage (assuming 5 on smites and 7 per 2D6 roll due to Two Weapon Fighting Style ) 586 damage
Wizard (assuming ability to aoe every encounter)
4 first level - 3D8+4 = 12D8+15
3 2nd level - 6D6+5 x 4 = 24D6+20
3 3rd level - 8D6+5x 3 = 24D6+15
3 4rth level - 2D8+4D6+5 = 6D8+12D6+15
2 Fifth level - 8D8+5 x 2 = 16D8+10
1 6th level - 10D6+40 x1 = 10D6+40
1 7th level - 12D6+5 x 1 = 12D6+5
Total damage dice = 28D8+70D6+120. Total Damage (assuming 5 for D8 rolls and a four for D6 rolls) 540 damage
So if I have optimal conditiions to blast with every spell I have and cast no other spells I come up short to a smiiting paladin in optimal conditions. That paladin also has better armor class, hit points and saves. He also gets laying on of hands for 60 hit pooints and a channel divinty per short rest. These figures do not even count crits. If they did, the paladin would have an even bigger advantage. Casters are back to beiing caddies.
There are a few flaws with your calculations. Paladins miss for no damage, AoE spells never miss for no damage.
Also if you're comparing single target damage vs single target damage, you should be using scorching rays instead (using an Evoker), and also throw in Bigbys Hand or Wall of Fire as bonus actions doing an extra 4d8 damage per round.
The Wizard also gets over channel, and you need to give him 7 more spell levels of slots to burn using Arcane Recovery.
Now if the Wizard does do AoE you need to factor damage done in total. If the Wizard casts chain lightning against four foes, he has just done 40d8 damage in one round effectively, equivalent to 10 Paladin smites in one go.
Our record for aoe spell is over 300 damage. 28 damage x 11 and all targets flunked the save
DLfan wrote:
When you're calculating area efect damage you have to take into account not just how much damage is rolled, but how much damage is received. An individual spell may only deal 35 damage, but if it hits 10 opponent, it actually deals 350 points of damage in a round. A fighter or paladin may be able to deal more than 35 damage in a single attack, but it's not going hit more than one opponent. (With the exception of the single Battle Master ability that deals their superiority die as damage to an adjacent opponent.)
Martials and casters are just fine in this edition. Lets not hijack this thread any more. It's about Stoneskin, not martials vs. casters.
One way of making Stoneskin a bit better might be to only treat the bonus on the weapon as magical damage and the rest of it as mundane. That would allow resistance to still be somewhat effective.
The way the spell is worded I believe the intent is for magical weapons to bypass stoneskin. I would not consider magical creatures though as bypassing automatically. I would consider spells as bypassing.
FallingIcicle wrote:
The spell text actually reads, "The spell turns the flesh of a willing creature you touch a hard as stone. Until the spell ends, the target has resistance to nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." So the text implies that magic weapons will bypass the resistance the spell grants.
Stoneskin makes zero reference to magic damage. There's no such thing as "magic damage". Spells cause the damage type they list within their description, i.e. fire, cold, necrotic, etc. Stoneskin's effect does apply against spells that would deal nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage; such as conjure barrage or conjure volley spell, where the damage is from a thrown or ranged weapon.
The only real difference between the gargoyle and Stoneskin entry in your post is the inclusion of the word "weapons" in the Gargoyles damage resistance.
Never mind. I get what you're saying. I think the intention is to create the same parameters for Gargoyle and Stoneskin damage resistance, but the wording fails. I also think it's intended that magical weapon deal magical S/P/B damage, just as nonmagical weapons deal nonmagical S/P/B damage.
DaveDash wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DLfan wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Combat involves so many variables. For example, if you are figthing nothing but fiends/undead that is a huge boost to a paladins dpr.
Play an Evoker wizard and your dpr goes through the roof, with empowered cantrips.
Not to mention the kind of bonus spell damage a sorceror can do.
And the variety of class abilities (which is what spells are) that a wizard has certainly make up for any percieved discrepancies.
As regards stoneskin, it is very useful when its useful, but its often useless, especially at higher levels.
DLfan wrote:
DLfan wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Lol. 7 spell slots of arcane recovery does NOT equal 14 attacks. Its FOUR spells, FOUR rounds.
I run a game with both a vengeance Paladin and Abjurer Wizard and not only does the Wizard output more damage than the Paladin due to AoE, he is also more survivable due to his arcane ward. There have been a few times I've almost dropped the Paladin in a single round, yet the Wizard has been hard to hit.
Your ramblings about concentration have absolutely no baring on the reality of the situation. (Shield, Dispel Magic, Counterspell, etc)
DLfan wrote:
Dude I still use 2E stoneskin in my 5E games without concentration, and guess what, my wizard's are still not overpowered. I did rewrite polymorph and bless though. I also have wizards memorize like in 3.x. No spell spamming for the wizard.
The designers chickened out with the concept of invulnerability. Heck even the potion of invulnerability doesn't make you invulnerable in 5e.
I like the fear a PC has when a weapon bounces off an opponent unharmed. Multiple Attacks can still plow through the charges on a stoneskin with no problem in this edition. If a wizard wastes his few preciious spell slots in this edition by spamming stoneskin he won't have spells to do anything else. More power in impotence to him. I like 2E stoneskin, it works fine. the game also works fine without concentraiton. I finally realized the only reason for concentration is not balance, it is to prevent PC's from going nova and complaining about a 5MWD. Although I did have to re-edit a couple spells.
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Totoro1968 wrote: