Stone skin vs greater invisibility

[spartan_ah]

If I'm right, the latter is always superior to stone skin. Am I missing something?

[hymer]

If I'm right, the latter is always superior to stone skin. Am I missing something?

The most obvious thing I think you miss is that a lot of enemies aren't bothered by invisibility. They have other senses or magical abilities that leave them unaffected. Then there's the 1 hour duration on Stoneskin, which is sixty times Greater Invisibility's. Of course, some enemies have magical weapons or equivalents and aren't affected by Stoneskin. So the opponent is hugely important in which buff is best.
And then there's math. Half damage is half damage. Disadvantage on attack rolls can be affected by other advantage/disadvantage effects, and generally does not halve expected damage. But Stoneskin only works if you don't already have resistance, and only when you're being attacked.

In short, certainly not always.

[Erys]

Maybe if you only cast either on yourself and you are a caster.

But casting Stoneskin on an ally could be a much better benefit than Greater Invis for the party as a whole. Same goes if you are a martial character, there are times when Stoneskin wins out.

Food for thought also, Greater Invis is defeated by a second level spell.

So the official answer is: not always. YMMV for both spells.

[Giant2005]

Whichever one is more effective depends on the attack bonus vs AC relationship. The attack bonus could dominate AC by such a degree that Greater Invisibility isn't doing much of anything.
However, Stoneskin costs 100g every time you cast it, so screw Stoneskin.

[JellyPooga]

If I'm right, the latter is always superior to stone skin. Am I missing something?

Stoneskin is...annoyingly bad. It always has been due to prohibitive material component costs. 100gp a pop soon adds up if you use it regularly and being foiled by magical attacks, which a great many opponents will have at the level you're using Stoneskin, just makes it generally a poor defence. A Barbarian gets the same resistances from 1st level and doesn't have to worry about magical weapons.

Greater Invisibility, on the other hand, is as others point out, also quite easily foiled and has a very short duration for non-combat purposes. The fact that is does have non-combat applications that go beyond those of its lower level counterpart Invisibility (such as the ability to cast spells while Invisible) make the higher slot very much worthwhile, despite the shorter duration.

As far as 4th level defensive spells go, both can be useful, but neither is astonishingly good. I'd probably rate both Fire Shield and Wall of Fire as better defences than Stoneskin or Gr.Invisibility. On the other hand, Gr.Invis. is probably a better offensive spell than any of the spells I've mentioned in addition to its non-combat utility.

tl;dr Stoneskin is just pretty bad. Greater Invisibility is good, but limited by its duration. There's better purely defensive spells out there.

[R.Shackleford]

I say put Stoneskin and Greater Invisibility on a frenzy barbarian (so the barb doesn't have to use reckless attack) and set them loose on the enemy.

Like...

Outside a room full of enemies...

Caster 1: Stoneskin
Caster 2: Greater Invisibility
Thief: BA (Open Door) Action (ready to shut door)
Barbarian: moves through open door (thief shuts door), proceeds to murderlate.

Wait until the noise stops and then go in to help...

[NNescio]

I say put Stoneskin and Greater Invisibility on a frenzy barbarian (so the barb doesn't have to use reckless attack) and set them loose on the enemy.

Like...

Outside a room full of enemies...

Caster 1: Stoneskin
Caster 2: Greater Invisibility
Thief: BA (Open Door) Action (ready to shut door)
Barbarian: moves through open door (thief shuts door), proceeds to murderlate.

Wait until the noise stops and then go in to help...


What's the point of casting Stoneskin on a Barbarian who can gain the same resistances (or better, for Totems) via raging anyway? They also get other bennies like bonus damage and advantage to str checks, and their resistance to physical damage can't be pierced by magic or magical weapons.

A 4th level spell slot and 100 gp (plus the opportunity cost of carrying the diamond dust around for a non-cleric, and the opportunity cost of knowing or preparing Stoneskin instead of a better spell) is plain not worth it to save the Barbarian a use of rage.

And a far inferior version of rage at that.

Bless/Enlarge/Haste are much better buffs, really.

Not to mention that you don't need a Thief to pull off the open door -> ready to close the door trick. Anyone can do so since opening a door is explicitly covered by the 'free' once-a-turn object interaction rule under Page 190 of the PHB.

[R.Shackleford]

What's the point of casting Stoneskin on a Barbarian who can gain the same resistances (or better, for Totems) via raging anyway? They also get other bennies like bonus damage and advantage to str checks, and their resistance to physical damage can't be pierced by magic or magical weapons.

A 4th level spell slot and 100 gp (plus the opportunity cost of carrying the diamond dust around for a non-cleric, and the opportunity cost of knowing or preparing Stoneskin instead of a better spell) is plain not worth it to save the Barbarian a use of rage.

And a far inferior version of rage at that.

Bless/Enlarge/Haste are much better buffs, really.

Not to mention that you don't need a Thief to pull off the open door -> ready to close the door trick. Anyone can do so since opening a door is explicitly covered by the 'free' once-a-turn object interaction rule under Page 190 of the PHB.

Frenzy does more damage than a Bear Totem. Also if you are a frenzy you can't take bear totem.

Also haste has a huuuuge drawback. If the caster looses concentration (back attack!) The barbarian doesn't do anything for a round.***

Haste is better on non strikers anyways. Strikers already do tons of damage.

Edit
If the barbarian looses a turn then damage dealt to them and the barbarian wouldn't have attacked sooo... Rage ends and the barbarian take exhaustion.

[RickAllison]

Frenzy does more damage than a Bear Totem. Also if you are a frenzy you can't take bear totem.

Also haste has a huuuuge drawback. If the caster looses concentration (back attack!) The barbarian doesn't do anything for a round.***

Haste is better on non strikers anyways. Strikers already do tons of damage.

Edit
If the barbarian looses a turn then damage dealt to them and the barbarian wouldn't have attacked sooo... Rage ends and the barbarian take exhaustion.

Frenzy already gets resistance to no magical weapon damage for just being a raging barbarian

[NNescio]

Frenzy does more damage than a Bear Totem. Also if you are a frenzy you can't take bear totem.

Also haste has a huuuuge drawback. If the caster looses concentration (back attack!) The barbarian doesn't do anything for a round.***

Haste is better on non strikers anyways. Strikers already do tons of damage.

Edit
If the barbarian looses a turn then damage dealt to them and the barbarian wouldn't have attacked sooo... Rage ends and the barbarian take exhaustion.

Berserker is generally considered to suck compared to the other archetypes because they have to take one point of exhaustion to use their key archetype feature... which is to make an additional attack once on their turn as a bonus action. So, this is pretty much a once per day feature (and the 1 minute duration means it will generally only last one combat) unless you like to eat a bunch of exhaustion penalties the next day.

The Totem Barb can get that feature (and other bonuses) by just taking the Polearm Master feat (granted, this is contingent on him using the attack action before or after the bonus attack, while the Frenzy Barb can choose to disengage or dash). He can do that all day long. True, it eats up an ASI, but PAM is a generally considered a good feat for most melee martials who don't rely on finesse anyway.

Meanwhile the Battlerager makes Frenzy all but obsolete since he gets to hit with his armor spikes as a bonus action while raging. Like a Berserker using Frenzy, he doesn't need to use an attack action to use his armor spikes. Unlike the Frenzybarb, he CAN do this every single time he rages, WITHOUT eating exhaustion. I mean, sure, the FrenzyBarb can bonus action attack with a reach weapon or use GWM in conjunction with his bonus action... but that's barely any consolation (because, again, you eat an exhaustion point each time you Frenzy).

And in any case, this whole argument is moot anyway, BECAUSE ALL BARBARIANS already get friggin' RESISTANCE TO PHYSICAL DAMAGE while raging, so casting Stone Skin on them is mostly pointless. Seriously, any other buff is better, even something as circumstantial as Protection from Evil and Good.

Edit:

Frenzy already gets resistance to no magical weapon damage for just being a raging barbarian

They get resistance to slashing/bludgeoning/piercing even if the damage is done by spells/magic/magical weapons, making it better than Stoneskin.

[RickAllison]

Berserker is generally considered to suck compared to the other archetypes because they have to take one point of exhaustion to use their key archetype feature... which is to make an additional attack once on their turn as a bonus action. So, this is pretty much a once per day feature (and the 1 minute duration means it will generally only last one combat) unless you like to eat a bunch of exhaustion penalties the next day.

The Totem Barb can get that feature (and other bonuses) by just taking the Polearm Master feat (granted, this is contingent on him using the attack action before or after the bonus attack, while the Frenzy Barb can choose to disengage or dash). He can do that all day long. True, it eats up an ASI, but PAM is a generally considered a good feat for most melee martials who don't rely on finesse anyway.

Meanwhile the Battlerager makes Frenzy all but obsolete since he gets to hit with his armor spikes as a bonus action while raging. Like a Berserker using Frenzy, he doesn't need to use an attack action to use his armor spikes. Unlike the Frenzybarb, he CAN do this every single time he rages, WITHOUT eating exhaustion. I mean, sure, the FrenzyBarb can bonus action attack with a reach weapon or use GWM in conjunction with his bonus action... but that's barely any consolation (because, again, you eat an exhaustion point each time you Frenzy).

And in any case, this whole argument is moot anyway, BECAUSE ALL BARBARIANS already get friggin' RESISTANCE TO PHYSICAL DAMAGE while raging, so casting Stone Skin on them is mostly pointless. Seriously, any other buff is better, even something as circumstantial as Protection from Evil and Good.

Edit:


They get resistance to slashing/bludgeoning/piercing even if the damage is done by spells/magic/magical weapons, making it better than Stoneskin.

Well I'll be, you're right. Makes sense.

[R.Shackleford]

Frenzy already gets resistance to no magical weapon damage for just being a raging barbarian

I was thinking Stoneskin worked against more than just BPS.

Still would make them look cool at least!

I still wouldn't put haste on a barbarian. Haste is not a good enough spell for strikers at all. I would go to Enlarge Person over Haste every single time for a martial striker.

But change barbarian to GWF Fighter and boom Stoneskin + Greater Invisibility.

[spartan_ah]

Isn't it the same as blade ward vs dodge?
Ok I get the duration thing. But greater invisibility has the tiny edge with advantage for all attacks. It does count for something as well

[rollingForInit]

Stoneskin is...annoyingly bad. It always has been due to prohibitive material component costs. 100gp a pop soon adds up if you use it regularly and being foiled by magical attacks, which a great many opponents will have at the level you're using Stoneskin, just makes it generally a poor defence. A Barbarian gets the same resistances from 1st level and doesn't have to worry about magical weapons.

It's even worse since you kind of never want to cast it on yourself. The entire idea being that you take less damage (implied you'll take some damage), and it's a Concentration spell, so you'll likely waste 100gp on a couple of rounds of resistance, then you'll just fail a Concentration check.

[NNescio]

I was thinking Stoneskin worked against more than just BPS.

Still would make them look cool at least!

I still wouldn't put haste on a barbarian. Haste is not a good enough spell for strikers at all. I would go to Enlarge Person over Haste every single time for a martial striker.

But change barbarian to GWF Fighter and boom Stoneskin + Greater Invisibility.

Most strikers get only one Extra Attack. With up to three attacks per round (2 + 1 bonus), Enlarge grants an avg damage increase of +7.5. This is roughly equivalent to an additional attack from Haste made with a 1d8 weapon, assuming a primary stat of merely 16.

The balance shifts to Haste with higher attribute scores and/or higher damage die weapons. Damage riders like a Paladin's Divine Smite, a Rogue's Sneak Attack, a Ranger's Hunter's Mark, a Bladelock's Hex and Lifedrinker, a Battlemaster's maneuvers, or even items like enchanted weapons tip the scales majorly to Haste. And GWM and Sharpshooter makes Haste even far more attractive, especially if there's some easy way to gain advantage to counteract the accuracy penalty (like say, a shove).

Enlarge is only better damage-wise if the striker has a lot of attacks, such as a Monk using Flurry, or a Level 20 Fighter (and that's assuming he doesn't have GWM/Sharpshooter and is not a Battlemaster, and doesn't have magic weapons either).

Haste's other benefits are also generally better in combat. It doubles movement, and the extra action it grants can also be used to dash/disengage/hide/use an object instead of making a single extra attack. The Hasted target can effectively move up to four times his normal movement speed without using his normal action. They also get +2 AC on top of that, plus advantage on Dex saving throws (read: most damaging AoEs).

Enlarge does give advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws though. This makes it better for (non-Barbarian) grapplers, especially Str Rogues with expertise in Athletics. Enlarge/Reduce can also be used for out-of-combat uses like shrinking a door to bypass the lock (or item weight shenanigans, equipped or otherwise).

For Barbarians though, Enlarge is worse because they already get advantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws via raging. Barbs usually only get up to 3 attacks (like most 'strikers'), and they are heavily reliant on GWM to increase damage (because they can get easy advantage by recklessly attacking or by shoving someone with the Str check advantage), making Enlarge an even poorer option for them.

Haste can potentially rob the buffee of a turn's worth of actions (and movements) if it ends prematurely, yes, but really, you shouldn't use buffs (including Enlarge) if you don't expect to be able to maintain concentration anyway. And for self-buffers (like Eldritch Knights or even Bladesinging Wizards), the increased AC, Dex save advantage, and mobility makes it less likely for you to take damage (or take less damage in the case of the Dex save advantage), letting you maintain concentration more easier. Just be very wary of enemies with Dispels.

Haste is the better buff for most strikers, which reflects its higher spell level. Enlarge does have it uses, yes, and it is the better buff for Monks, but Haste is usually the better option in most situations, and is the spell I would prefer to cast if I were playing an Eldritch Knight.

This is even more true when it is used in conjunction with Greater Invis. You're far less likely to be hit anyway when you're under Greater Invis, making the Stoneskin + Greater Invis combo anti-synergistic. Haste + Greater Invis, however, has synergy, as your additional attack is also made with advantage, making it even easier to slap on the +10 dmg from GWM/Sharpshooter (And the hypothetical GWF fighter is highly likely to have GWM). The additional mobility can also be used to evade your enemies more easier while under Greater Invis, and the Haste action can be used to Hide instead, foiling attempts to track you via hearing.

(Enlarge is also anti-synergistic to some degree with Greater Invis, as you take up more space, making it more likely for enemies to bump into you even if they can't see you.)

Stoneskin does have some limited use (when your non-barbarian melee teammate is forced to tank multiple weapon hits and you can't CC the targets away with your concentration), but not with Greater Invis.

[Zalabim]

Everyone has avoided the elephant in the room of 4th level buff spells. If you want to protect an ally from harm, it's hard to beat Polymorph's extra hit points.

[RulesJD]

Greater Invisibility is 100x better than Stoneskin.

As pointed out, Stoneskin is pretty useless by the time you get access to it due to not impacting magical attacks, spells, concentration, etc.

Greater Invis, however, grants Advantage on your attacks (huge plus) AND, most importantly, makes you effectively immune to all spells that requires the caster to "see" their target. At higher levels that is worth its weight in gold.

Why is that "most importantly" you ask? Because, Counterspell requires the caster to see their target. Which means, dun dun, that Greater invisibility makes it so that you can Counterspell the enemy, but they can't Counterspell you. As anyone who's played higher level content will tell you, having access to Counterspell while the enemy effectively doesn't is game changing.

[MrStabby]

Greater Invisibility is 100x better than Stoneskin.

As pointed out, Stoneskin is pretty useless by the time you get access to it due to not impacting magical attacks, spells, concentration, etc.

Greater Invis, however, grants Advantage on your attacks (huge plus) AND, most importantly, makes you effectively immune to all spells that requires the caster to "see" their target. At higher levels that is worth its weight in gold.

Why is that "most importantly" you ask? Because, Counterspell requires the caster to see their target. Which means, dun dun, that Greater invisibility makes it so that you can Counterspell the enemy, but they can't Counterspell you. As anyone who's played higher level content will tell you, having access to Counterspell while the enemy effectively doesn't is game changing.

I think you underestimate greater invisibility.

[Dalebert]

First time my bard used Greater Invis last night. I cast it on our rogue and also into a new Shield Guardian we found so the Shield Guardian could also be invis and grappling and walloping on the lich for the big boss fight.

Do all liches have truesight or just that one?

[MrStabby]

First time my bard used Greater Invis last night. I cast it on our rogue and also into a new Shield Guardian we found so the Shield Guardian could also be invis and grappling and walloping on the lich for the big boss fight.

Do all liches have truesight or just that one?

Truesight 120 ft.

[hymer]

Do all liches have truesight or just that one?

I have noticed that boss monsters tend to have spontaneous abilities if they'd be completely overwhelmed without them. :smallwink:
Seriously, the MM lich lists no ability to sense invisibility or ignore illusions, or even cast to be able to. But Dispel Magic and various area affects can work, and of course +9 Perception makes hiding from them harder than against most monsters.

Edit: MrStabby got it right, even shadowmonk'ing me!

[MrStabby]

I have noticed that boss monsters tend to have spontaneous abilities if they'd be completely overwhelmed without them. :smallwink:
Seriously, the MM lich lists no ability to sense invisibility or ignore illusions, or even cast to be able to. But Dispel Magic and various area affects can work, and of course +9 Perception makes hiding from them harder than against most monsters.

It has truesight - listed under "senses"

Argh, metashadowmonked

[RickAllison]

It has truesight - listed under "senses"

Argh, metashadowmonked

Shadowmonkception!