* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : Stone skin vs magical weapons Started at 01-27-07 01:32 AM by Casticus Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=780122 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Casticus Date : 01-27-07 01:32 AM Thread Title : Stone skin vs magical weapons Can stone skin protect a wizard vs magic weapons (I was using a lawful good sword +3) in ad&d 2nd edition. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : realmaster Date : 01-27-07 02:39 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons Can stone skin protect a wizard vs magic weapons (I was using a lawful good sword +3) in ad&d 2nd edition. the stoneskin spell would protect you against a lawful good sword +3 as long as the sword does not have any special powers on it. the special powers would affect you but the physical damage from the sword would not until you were hit enough times to end the spell. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : Casticus Date : 01-27-07 02:42 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons would it matter that it does have 3 special powers on it, it has dimention door, raise dead and invul globe -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Varl Date : 01-27-07 02:52 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons Yes. Stoneskin protects against any physical attack. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : realmaster Date : 01-27-07 03:00 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons would it matter that it does have 3 special powers on it, it has dimention door, raise dead and invul globe only if the powers would damage the person you were hitting then that person would only take damage from the special powers and not the sword while stoneskin is still in play. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Arcanda Date : 01-27-07 03:48 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons would it matter that it does have 3 special powers on it, it has dimention door, raise dead and invul globeStone skin would protect you from damage of this sword, as long as ti does not expire. I don't know how stone skin works in 3.x (I don't even know of there is a stone skin), but an interesting feature of 2ed stoneskin is that the attacker does not need to roll to hit, he remove one use of stoneskin with each try, strike or miss. The stone skin has one charge for each level of the magic user + 1d4 charges. So, your sword will not do any damage to the character at the beginning of the melee, but at the end of the melee, after a number of parried strikes, your sword will open a way to hit the protected character. P.S.: I never understood why stone skin is not an abjuration! I DMed an abjurer in my campaign, and he adventured with a mage... the mage knew stoneskin, the abjurer not! :P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : realmaster Date : 01-27-07 03:55 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons but an interesting feature of 2ed stoneskin is that the attacker does not need to roll to hit, he remove one use of stoneskin with each try, strike or miss. I dont remember seeing this in the write up of the spell. I will have to go through it again. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : Varl Date : 01-27-07 11:17 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons I don't know how stone skin works in 3.x (I don't even know of there is a stone skin), but an interesting feature of 2ed stoneskin is that the attacker does not need to roll to hit, he remove one use of stoneskin with each try, strike or miss. Interesting? That's not how the spell is written btw. "This limit applies regardless of attack rolls" I don't think is meant to be interpreted literally. I think it's talking about regardless of what the attack roll is. Either way, this has got to be one of the silliest rulings ever put into any edition of the game imo. What's taking off a layer if you miss? The air? Like the tree in the woods, if I blow hard upon an opponent as we're passing someone wearing Stoneskin, does it remove a layer? Heh. If I feint or bluff an attack, it takes off a layer? Ridiculous. Stoneskin, while a powerful spell for a 4th level effect, doesn't have to be nerfed like this in order for its effectiveness to be reduced by intelligent creatures that suspect someone might be under its effect. Throw a handful of stones; ones bound to hit. No damage, but one layer will be removed (and no, I wouldn't count each stone in a handful of stones as an attack, otherwise, it just became one of the weakest, most pathetic, 4th level spells in the history of the game). One stone out of a handful hitting the opponent is enough. Another method is to throw a vial of Greek Fire or other explosive accelerant. You don't have to hit the target, just be close enough to injure, and one layer will be removed via the attack and damage will be dealt too! Stoneskin can be brought down fairly easily by intelligent use of resources, but the attacks have to either 1) hit physically or 2) do some kind of indirect damage (meaning an attack was good enough to remove one layer, but not good enough to prevent the damage, as in the Greek Fire example above). This whiffing of an attack that removes one layer is just a retarded rule imo. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : oralpain Date : 01-29-07 04:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons From everythign I have seen in various offical books and articles, it is intended to be interpreted quite literally, with regard to attack rolls. The number rolled on the attack roll is utterly irrelivant. The atttack simply has to be directed at the character. Any forceful blow (ie attack), or other potentially damaging attack, actually causing damage or not, will remove a "skin" from the stoneskin spell. A "miss" in AD&D is very rarely a total miss, it's simply an attack that was not good enough to do appreciable damage. Feints and bluffs are not considered attacks, nor is blowing on someone (in most cases). Most melee attacks include feints and or bluffs however. An arrow that ricochets off your plate armor? A miss. That small nick you got as you narrowly avoided losing your ear to a hostile's swing with a sabre? A miss. The crushing blow you gave an iron golem, that did not phase it in the slightest? A miss. I assume that the stone skin spell extends a small distance beyond the surface of the recipients skin. Therefore any attack that is on target enough, as to be considered directed at said recipient, will remove one of the "skins". Also, some offical errata on stoneskin for the 2e game: This spell is subject to considerable abuse by player characters. Multiple stoneskins placed on a single creature are not cumulative. If two or more stoneskin spells are cast on the same creature, roll normally for the number of attacks each spell protects against. If a new spell protects against more attacks than the present spell does, the recipient gets the benefit of the increased protection; otherwise there is no effect. The caster does not necessarily know how many attacks the spell can shield him from. Stoneskin protects only against blows, cuts, pokes, and slashes directed at the recipient. It does not protect against falls, magical attacks, touch-delivered special attacks (such as touch-delivered spells, energy draining, green slime, etc.), or nonmagical attacks that do not involve blows (such as flaming oil, ingested or inhaled poisons, acid, constriction, and suffocation). Stoneskin lasts for 24 hours or until the spell has absorbed its allotment of attacks. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 10] Author : Varl Date : 01-29-07 10:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons If you're hitting and not doing any damage whatsoever, I agree. Stoneskin loses a layer. I was referring to attacks to do not hit, that somehow, they're entitled to remove a layer even though no contact had been made. I also wonder if there should be some kind of 'missed by 4 or less' rule that would signify an attack that physically hit the target, but was insufficient to do damage. Otherwise, how is one to know when a miss is a true miss or one that deflects and does nothing (but still would take a layer of Stoneskin off)? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 11] Author : oralpain Date : 01-30-07 10:37 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons That sounds like a reasonable house rule. However, in the case of melee combat, total misses are extremely unlikely, given that a typical attack is going to consist of several attempted blows. Most misses, even bad ones, would infact be blocks/parries. I would assume that even parried swings (or combinations of swings sufficent to count as an attack) would remove 'skins' from stoneskin. You would have to miss by a pretty extreme margin to never come into contact with your opponent, his/her weapon, armor, or clothing at some point in a combat round. In melee I would probably require an attack to miss the unarmored AC (only dex and magic would count), by at least 5 to 8 for it to be considered a total miss. Generally, it would be a waste of time to figure out wich hits made physical contact or not. In missle combat would probably say that any missile attack that misses by 3 or more would be a total miss, and not affect a stoneskin spell. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 12] Author : realmaster Date : 01-31-07 12:24 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons it would be good to have a house rule for really bad misses. I re-read the spell and the example that it gives says the Griffin takes three off because it has three attacks so I guess it does not matter if the Griffin hits you. I imagine that if you could avoid the hit without a house rule the spell would talk about that. this really nerfs that spell. I had a dm that would not let me take that spell until I was able to cast higher level spells then the original level it is obtained. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 13] Author : oralpain Date : 01-31-07 07:17 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons I don't really feel that the spell is "nerfed". It's mainly intended, or at least best used, to give a wizard a few rounds of protection, so that he or she has an opportunity to move to a safer area and prepare an escape or counter-attack. It also comes in handy when moving through dangerous areas, where ambushes, or otherwise unpredictable attacks are expected. I do not think it was ever intended to allow anyone to stand in the middle of a melee, for any significant time, without fear of injury. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 14] Author : BigJohn42 Date : 02-17-07 05:44 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons Our group considered the worst part of Stoneskin was that the mage could buff the fighter with it. We houserulled that it was a range of 0 instead of touch, and that pretty much solved any issues we had with it. Didn't know about the 24 hour errata, though. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 15] Author : rmd83 Date : 03-19-07 03:06 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons actually we play it to where you actually have to hit. but i think it's also cool that magic missile and a handful of sand or gravel can illiminate the "tinks" which is what we call the layers =P -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 16] Author : chatdemon Date : 03-19-07 12:31 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons but i think it's also cool that magic missile and a handful of sand or gravel can illiminate the "tinks" which is what we call the layers =P It surprises me how often the gravel/pebbles/etc thing is used by groups I see. These are attacks in your game? Capable of inflicting damage? If not, they don't have any effect on the Stoneskin spell. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 17] Author : Varl Date : 03-19-07 06:32 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons It surprises me how often the gravel/pebbles/etc thing is used by groups I see. These are attacks in your game? Capable of inflicting damage? If not, they don't have any effect on the Stoneskin spell. They are attacks in my game. They do 1d3 points of damage, but that's enough to drop a layer of Stoneskin. Single larger rocks thrown also work if they hit. Being showered by a handful of thrown pebbles, which I think requires a minimum of 10-20 stones per handful (marble size or larger), is similar to being caught in a hailstorm, depending on the size of the hail, of course. ;) And that's actually one of Stoneskin's few weaknesses imc: don't get caught out in the open during a thunderstorm and cast or have a Stoneskin upon you. If it starts to hail, and you can't find cover fast, so much for that spell, again, depending on the size and severity of the hail. You won't be damaged by the hail, but the spell will drop eventually. Here's a spell from the Great Net Spellbook that supports the idea [if you consider unofficial spells as a viable source, which I do]: Hailstones (Evocation) Range: 10 yards per level Components: V, S, M Duration: Instantaneous Casting Time: 4 Area of Effect: 5 foot per level radius (maximum 60 feet) Saving Throw: None Author: Peter Gourlay This spell summons a rain of stones in the area of effect. The spell causes 1d3 points of damage per level of the wizard to all within the area, to a maximum of 15d3. However, the wizard must make a normal to hit roll versus each creature in the area to see if they are hit by the stones. If the to hit roll is unsuccessful, the creature takes no damage. The material component is a handful of small stones. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 18] Author : Wyrmbane Date : 03-19-07 09:53 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons I like things simple sometimes so my personal rule (as a DM), if the attack hit you lose one skin. If it didn't, you don't. Another DM I gamed with had an even simpler rule: each legitimate attack removed one skin, no attack roll necessary. I have never considered pebbles to be an attack capable of damage, distraction yes, but not damaging. Stones are another thing tho. And magic missiles don't remove skins since they're magical energy and not a physical attack as explained in various errata. If it did protect against magic missiles, you'd be safe from a fireball also and you're not. I wouldn't consider hail a problem either unless there was something specific I was trying to do. There's no need to make things harder for the players, and there's plenty of ways to cure any abuse of the spell. I know, I caused the casualties. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 19] Author : oralpain Date : 03-20-07 04:20 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons An attack in D&D could easily be a half dozen swings...that would still only remove one layer from a stoneskin. I see no reason to make a hand full of junk that could never do real damage, be less abstract and more effective than actuall attacks. So, I generally consider a handful of stones, if thrown forcefully, to count as a single attack. Outside, in a heavy, but natural, hail storm, I'd probably remove one layer for each full round exposed. Really large hail stones might be more effective, but smaller, more common ones, would do nothing. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 20] Author : Uberhamster Date : 03-22-07 08:22 AM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons magic missiles don't remove skins since they're magical energy and not a physical attack magical attacks DO remove layers of stoneskin and they will cause damage too! (as per the discription of stoneskin) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 21] Author : chatdemon Date : 03-22-07 01:57 PM Thread Title : Re: Stone skin vs magical weapons I like things simple sometimes so my personal rule (as a DM), if the attack hit you lose one skin. If it didn't, you don't. Pretty much my take on it. I interpretted the "regardless of attack roll" clause to mean that a succesful hit simply removes a 'layer' of the stoneskin and causes no damage, regardless of any critical hit or or whatever. Later, I houseruled that a critical hit removes two layers of the stoneskin. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:21 AM.