NockerGeek's page

Balancing factor? I'm somewhat confused here. Keywords are a way of clarifying what type of damage the attack is - psychic damage represents a mental assault. Having the psychic keyword, in game terms, means that it will be affected by certain feats, and that certain enemies might be resistant to it. Some monsters might be naturally resistant to psychic damage - I believe the Purple Dragon is, for example. There are several items and numerous powers that give psychic resistance - a character or monster with these items would be resistant to the damage.

I recommend reading the PHB, page 55, which explains how powers work in 4E, and the concept of keywords and damage types - I'm not entirely sure where your confusion here comes from, but that would seem the best place to start reading to understand why different effects in the game deal different types of damage.

The reason that I bring up "Balancing factor" is because there are a variety of other Bard powers that affect the mind that don't cause psychic damage. Blunder, for example, just causes generic damage, and for some reason isn't a Psychic power. It's a Charm power, but not a Psychic one. Its description clearly states that it "fogs the foe's mind", which isn't that different from "send[ing] the creature into a blind rage"; they're both inducing mental states in the target. However, the At-Will does typed damage, and the Encounter power does untyped damage. Why? Either it's an oversight, or it's an intentional choice. If it's the latter, then what's the mechanical justification? Is Vicious Mockery supposed to have a type so that psychic resistance stops/lessens its utility, whereas Blunder is always useful against everything?

Vicious Mockery Bard Attack 1

You unleash a string of insults at your foe, weaving them with
bardic magic to send the creature into a blind rage.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic

So it's generic "bardic magic" causing the damage. Why does it even have the psychic damage type, then? It's not as though there is anything with psychic resistance, immunity, or vulnerability (yet), so it can't be a balancing factor. In fact, there are only 3 creatures in the game right now immune to this power (due to the Charm keyword) - the two Helmed Horrors, and the Tarrasque (and let's face it, if your foe is the Tarrasque, the fact that Vicious Mockery won't work is the least of your problems).

Is it just because it affects the target's state of mind? Why should that even cause damage? And if hit points are a measure of the will to fight in addition to physical condition, shouldn't this power heal the target? I mean, someone in a blind rage should have more drive to fight.

Also, this doesn't even address the silent-but-deadly potential of this power. If the target doesn't have to hear or understand the insults, but is instead damaged by some invisible magic force (which is not to be confused with Force damage), you've rendered bards to be the greatest assassins in the world. After all, they can kill the average person (let's assume that non-combatant NPCs are treated as minions with 1 HP) from across a crowded room with a whispered string of insults, and no one will be able to tell how the person died. An extreme example, perhaps, but completely possible under rules as written. You could clear out an entire tavern full of people (one every 6 seconds) that way - all with the power of magical killer insults.

To avoid this, a line has to be drawn that says that the target has to at least be able to hear the words; that makes narrative sense. I'll go with the handwaving rationalization of "it's magic" to explain why creatures that can't understand the insults (whether through a language barrier or lack of intelligence) are still injured; it's weird, but not allowing it shuts down a lot of other bard powers. However, I'd also say that there are a lot of creatures that have classically been immune to charm and psychic effects (constructs and oozes, I'm looking at you) that should at least have Resist: Psychic X, if not Immune: Charm.

If an enemy doesn't recognize what sulfur or guano is, does that make them immune to fireball? The insult itself isn't physically damaging - it is the component for the spell, the focus the bard himself is using to direct his magic.

Apples and oranges. It's not the sulfur and guano that does the damage, but the fire created by the spell. If the target is immune to fire, though, they would be immune. So, what causes the damage from Vicious Mockery? It is just generic "magic"? Is it sheer force of will?

If the insult itself isn't the vehicle for the damage, are the words even important? If a target doesn't need to understand the words, do they even need to hear the words? Being deaf doesn't render you immune, and with a 50-foot range, there's a good chance that the target won't hear you over the din of battle. Could the insult be whispered?

I'm sorry, sir, but this has ALWAYS been the case.

"Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors." - PHB, 1st Edition, Page 34

That may be how it's been stated, but it's not really been until 4th Edition that the mechanics actually support that. How many damaging "non-damaging" effects are there in previous editons, i.e. how many spells and such cause damage because they attack a character's "will to fight" rather than damaging their body? I know of very few, if any. In previous editions, could a character will him- or herself to keep fighting by catching their breath and trudging on? No, they couldn't; the options were to find magical healing or rest for hours and hours. The above statement from the 1st PHB is all well and good, but in reality it's just handwaving away the justification for high level characters having mountains of HP.

In 4e, on the other hand, that description of hit points is actually reflected in the game's mechanics. Attacks that miss can still do some damage as they wear the opponent down, and "attacks" that would normally just cause status effects often cause damage as well. Characters can dig into their personal reserves of energy and spend a healing surge to keep fighting. The system supports the classic definition of HP in a way that it's never really done before - but it also highlights a few of the oddities that come with that definition.

And still EVERYONE seems to be ignoring the fact that it isn't necessarily the insults that are killing a foe, it is the PSYCHIC damage that the bard focuses through the insults.

Actually, I do have a bit of a problem with the insult causing psychic damage. How does one deal psychic damage to something that doesn't have a psyche? Stone golems and gelatinous cubes don't have minds, really, but they're not immune to charm effects or psychic damage, so you can still slowly insult them to death. What about something that doesn't speak your language? If your opponent can't understand the insult, why should it damage them? There's any number of narrative arguments that could be made against the power, but in the end the mechanics have to win the day.

In the end, it really comes down to two facts about 4e that bug me somewhat:

- Hit Points have become extremely abstract now to the point of not just being physical damage, but also covering "the will to fight." In some senses, this is good - it makes healing surges and Second Wind make sense - but in others, it gets a bit weird. The aforementioned gelatinous cube is either going to fight you to the death or run away; it won't just sigh, give up, and slowly collapse like a flan in a cupboard. In such cases, psychic damage must mean physical damage is being done, but then you get weirdness like casual insults causing people to stroke out (Vicious Mockery v. a human minion, for example).

- Everything, especially at-wills, has to be a damaging attack. There are some exceptions, true, but most attack powers that cause buffs or debuffs have a damaging component besides (mostly due to the above issue). While this is fine for some classes, even most classes, it gets to be a bit much for me with leader classes like the bard. I know that it's a function of balancing the game between classes and making sure everyone has an equally-useful role in combat, but it's still a bit irksome to me. I'd love to see more options for non-damaging attacks.

I've come to accept it, and yes, I'll still allow Vicious Mockery in my games, but it's one of those things in 4e that's just an annoyance to me.

I'll be either revamping or simply cutting this power from my game.

Same here. This power just about killed my enthusiasm for the 4e Bard. Thing is, if it were the description for an encounter or daily power, it wouldn't bother me so much, but it seems ridiculous for an at-will. I can't get out of my mind the image of Triumph the Insult Bard slaughtering a room full of minions by pointing out their shortcomings one at a time.

Okay, I like the concept behind the barbarian, but I'm seeing one problem with it at 1st level - you can't use the Rage Strike at-will power. Why? Because you have to be raging and have an unused rage power. Rage powers are all daily powers (in fact, all daily attack powers for barbarians are rages), and at 1st level, you only have one daily power. You can't both be raging (which requires that you've used your one daily power) and spend an unspent one.

At later levels, it works. Until you hit 5th level and get your second rage, not so much, unless I'm missing something.

I would swear I've seen somewhere you will be able to purchase/download the magazines seperately.

I hope there is.

I also hope they can keep up their update schedule. We're 3 weeks into September, and they've only posted 2 of 6 featured articles online for Dragon, and none for Dungeon. It doesn't bode well for their reliability.

See I can't agree with this, personally I'm finding the quality of Dragon to be top notch and on par with anything in the print run. I'm not even particularly bothered by the e-format since it saves space and makes for an easier reference at the game table.

Dungeon, meh not so hot. Some decent adventures but I'll mainly mine it for new monsters, maps and maybe a few adventure ideas. However I remain hopeful this will change.

That's pretty much where I am. I've really been digging the new Dragon, but the new Dungeon hasn't really grabbed me. If there's an option for getting just Dragon, even if I have to buy it separately every month, I'll take it, but I don't know if there's enough there to get a monthly subscription to the full DDI.

#6. Having read the books, I think the system's mechanically sound, but it just doesn't have the feel I'm wanting out of D&D. Not cancelling my pre-order, though, if for no other reason to support my FLGS.

I hate favored terrain.

I hated it in Necropolis by Gygax (RiP)and I hate it now. I was most disappointed with the 3.p ranger. Of all the classes out there I most wanted to play a ranger and after reading the latest incarnation it is the one I am least inclined to play, and DM.

I'm curious as to why you hate it so much; it seems to be perfectly in-line with the ranger archetype, and it's hardly overpowering in any way.

I'm absolutely planning on picking up the softcover beta rules, and unless there's a major 180, the hardbound final rules as well.

Oh, damn. Poor Mhyssi. :(

And once again, you manage to have us on the edge of our seats, wondering what's going to happen next.

I'm getting a great Khazad-dum/Moria-meets-Night-of-the-Living-Dead vibe from this adventure - a classic dungeon crawl with a definite dark twist to it. It's also very interesting to see the twins starting to pull away from the main group a bit and look at their own interests first. The group dynamics are really interesting to watch, especially in regards to how particular pairings/triads/etc form among the members of the group and what it does in terms of their behavior.

(And I too was more disturbed by Ye Olde Codpiece of Doom than the fact that it was an undead ghoul wearing it, so I can definitely sympathize with the twins on that count. ;))

This has been an addicting, inspiring read. I can't wait to read the next chapter. :)