Well, to be fair, I suppose I was using you as a proxy to those other elements of the thread more violently opposed the power, and for that I apologize. I mostly responded to you in particular because I thought Arcmagik had a good point about spell components, and looking back on your posts so far, it would probably have been better directed at someone else.
I'm perfectly fine with this. You made nice points and I feel somewhat privileged to have such good points directed at myself.
It seems clear that your view of the complaints within this thread are much different from what I see here. You don't seem to take into account that "It's psychic damage" doesn't solve the issues people have with it. Your first conclusion seems to be that posters are ignoring that this power does psychic damage as opposed to the conclusion that they saw it and it didn't solve their problem.
I would take into account the complaints if it seemed that people were not ignoring the "psychic damage" part for the "Why does this power exist? How the heck can someone be wounded physical by mockery?" (If we assume that HP is all physical to begin with anyways).
I haven't not seen a single poster complaining about the power say anything about the fact that it is a psychic damage power and only about the "This power is silly because it deals damage with insults, that is stupid and unrealistic, no one is going to take damage from an insult." even though truthfully it may be hurtful if I called someone names and even widdle down their HP until they decide it isn't worth it anymore and give up the fight (for whatever the "fight" is. I would use real-world examples but they probably aren't politically correct and have more to due with mental stability then fantasyland HP).
Or if a poster directly responded to a post about the psychic damage as in "I know it is psychic damage but that doesn't matter because the power is still silly and unrealistic" of course that would completely strange to me considering that fact that psychic damage is fantasy and unrealistic to begin with, but I can partially understand the "Silly" part but that would seem to be on a case-by-case basis per group more then not as not every group/player is going to take this power and use it as an excuse to be silly or deliver jokes.
I would take into account the complaints if it seemed that people were not ignoring the "psychic damage" part for the "Why does this power exist? How the heck can someone be wounded physical by mockery?" (If we assume that HP is all physical to begin with anyways).
I haven't not seen a single poster complaining about the power say anything about the fact that it is a psychic damage power and only about the "This power is silly because it deals damage with insults, that is stupid and unrealistic, no one is going to take damage from an insult." even though truthfully it may be hurtful if I called someone names and even widdle down their HP until they decide it isn't worth it anymore and give up the fight (for whatever the "fight" is. I would use real-world examples but they probably aren't politically correct and have more to due with mental stability then fantasyland HP).
Or if a poster directly responded to a post about the psychic damage as in "I know it is psychic damage but that doesn't matter because the power is still silly and unrealistic" of course that would completely strange to me considering that fact that psychic damage is fantasy and unrealistic to begin with, but I can partially understand the "Silly" part but that would seem to be on a case-by-case basis per group more then not as not every group/player is going to take this power and use it as an excuse to be silly or deliver jokes.
From my point of view, you seem to be the one imposing a "The words are cutting people to ribbons literally" on all the complaints. Most don't even bother going that far, rather just saying that they don't like it and will change or remove it. I reiterate my belief the only reason they are ignoring the fact that it is a power that deals psychic damage is that it is irrelavent to their problem, and demanding that they respond to a 4-word post carries a heavy trace of ego.
I suspect that if the power dealt fire damage it would be a similar problem (make them hot under the collar even), if it dealt cold damage it would me a similar problem (your words chilled them to the bone), and so on. The type of damage does not impact the silliness of the power.
|
I think people are wary of the power because of the potential to derail the session into a joke competition between the players.
A 'Death Scream' power could be adjudicated in seconds; roll CHA vs WILL, boom, deal sonic damage. Next!
Players using this power will want to roleplay the insult, leading to tit-for-tat responses, out of initiative order, or reminiscing about their favourite TV shows.
It's a known fact that any Monty Python quote, in a room full of geeks (of any species) will kill at least half an hour.
Or the player isn't that inventive, leading to delays while they try to salvage something witty to say.
DM: "You sir, are beneath my contempt. I should not have to waste my efforts on a lap-dog to a slip of a girl!"
PC Bard: "Huh? Errrr...Better a lap-dog to a slip of a girl, than a...errm...a...A GIT!"
Is it sad that this power has sparked more interest in 4th edition for me than every other little bit and nibble put together since it's inception?
I can only look at it from a 3rd edition standpoint. Which means even as an at will power, its still a power, effectively a spell/bardic music/whatever ability.
If a bard in 3rd edition wanted to use some sort of vicious lampoon against an enemy, and was willing to make a perform (comedy) check and spend a bardic music, I'd let something happen. Heck, don't bards get Phantasmal Killer? Is it more appropros that the singing dude in the tight pants shows them their worst fear with magic, or cracks a joke so mean it works them up to the point of a heart attack and then the magic pushes them over the edge?
From my point of view, you seem to be the one imposing a "The words are cutting people to ribbons literally" on all the complaints. Most don't even bother going that far, rather just saying that they don't like it and will change or remove it. I reiterate my belief the only reason they are ignoring the fact that it is a power that deals psychic damage is that it is irrelavent to their problem, and demanding that they respond to a 4-word post carries a heavy trace of ego.
I suspect that if the power dealt fire damage it would be a similar problem (make them hot under the...
Granted, the vast majority of complaints are of this type and even some of the reasonable responses haven't really talked about the psychic damage. The only big one was the third post "I don't care if it is laced with magic, it is still silly." then someone about insults coming from teenage televisions shows in response to "It isn't just normal insults. Its magical insults." I also was not the one to make the first post about the psychic damage and that post was certainly not 4-words and it seemed to get ignored thoughout the remaining thread which prompted me to make my 4-word post so no, I didn't demand nor expect people respond to the 4-word post as the psychic damage had already been mentioned.
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.
My take as well - if its a daily it kind of makes sense in a 'magical attack' sort of way. Bard makes nasty magically enhanced ridicule of bad guy and blammo something really nasty befalls bad guy. But having it go off all of the time makes it cheap fodder for really bad jokes.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
My take as well - if its a daily it kind of makes sense in a 'magical attack' sort of way. Bard makes nasty magically enhanced ridicule of bad guy and blammo something really nasty befalls bad guy. But having it go off all of the time makes it cheap fodder for really bad jokes.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.
But its still a magical attack, all the Bard powers are. Think of it this way:
You're insulting a guy to give him a -2 to his attack. (That's what the power does, it doesn't just hurt people). You're using bardic magic to force an emotional response to the insult, and since you're magically mucking about in his brain meats, you cause some incidental damage to him.
If you're worried about players coming up with insults every time they use the power, I would have to ask, are you also worried about them singing 'songs of war and victory' every time they use 'War Song Strike'?
But its still a magical attack, all the Bard powers are.
All of the Paladin powers are divine and all the Barbarian powers are primal, however some of their powers seem more martial than others. Similarly, some Bard powers seem less magical than others despite having the Arcane keyword.
|
I personally believe that if the name or the concept is that hard for someone to "get over" then no amount of discussion will persuade them, and I personally believe they shouldn't even bother opening up the Bard class at all. You've chosen to attach a ridiculous or cartoon image to the power. While it may be a completely acceptable response from you, to be honest the onus is on you to make it work. When I see it, I see someone strumming a lute, spewing forth not humorous comments, but stream after stream of vitriol, with the person on the end facing a vicious mental assault. Perhaps something in the power allows the bard to see some personal character flaw the bard can take advantage of. The hammering rhythm of the lute, the bard's sneering face, the relentless spitting of character flaws ... That truly IS role playing.
Sorry, but that's truth.
|
And Pathfinder Bards have Deadly Performance as their capstone ability at class level 20. As written you're making such a spectacular performance that your target dies of extreme sorrow or joy, but the idea isn't very different from the 4e one at all. If the concept of a dangerous or deadly performance is silly, then it's not just WotC doing it. Paizo's just as guilty.
(Personally, I'd give a +2 bonus to the save DC if somebody can quote the entire Monty Python "World's Deadliest Joke" in the (nonsensical) German.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But its still a magical attack, all the Bard powers are.All of the Paladin powers are divine and all the Barbarian powers are primal, however some of their powers seem more martial than others. Similarly, some Bard powers seem less magical than others despite having the Arcane keyword.
True, but the Primal power source is kind of weird, and the Paladin ones that feel martial are generally strength based, or at least involve swinging a sword at a guy.
This power is called a spell, its charisma based, it even mentions magic in its flavor text. I get why some people might not pick up a magicy vibe off Vicious Mockery, after all, Bards do kind of blur the line between whats magic and whats mundane with their whole music=magic schtick, but I thought that it was worth pointing out the magical elements of the attack.
Here's a thought I just had:
What if the power was called So-and-So's Vicious Mockery? Would the power still feel silly or weird, or would it feel like a proper Bardic spell?
And Pathfinder Bards have Deadly Performance as their capstone ability at class level 20. As written you're making such a spectacular performance that your target dies of extreme sorrow or joy, but the idea isn't very different from the 4e one at all. If the concept of a dangerous or deadly performance is silly, then it's not just WotC doing it. Paizo's just as guilty.
And I do recall people complaining back then as well (At least, I think that some of them were directed at this similar issue rather than being against Save-or-Die).
But its still a magical attack, all the Bard powers are.All of the Paladin powers are divine and all the Barbarian powers are primal, however some of their powers seem more martial than others. Similarly, some Bard powers seem less magical than others despite having the Arcane keyword.True, but the Primal power source is kind of weird, and the Paladin ones that feel martial are generally strength based, or at least involve swinging a sword at a guy.
This power is called a spell, its charisma based, it even mentions magic in its flavor text. I get why some people might not pick up a magicy vibe off Vicious Mockery, after all, Bards do kind of blur the line between whats magic and whats mundane with their whole music=magic schtick, but I thought that it was worth pointing out the magical elements of the attack.
Being Charisma based isn't a strong indicator for me as many powers that involve talking and affecting someone with your words and gestures would likely be Charisma based despite being non-magical. Intimidate and Diplomacy are Charisma based without being magical.
I think that this was also present in 3e as well, I suspect that the bard inspiring party members to greater strength with music and song wouldn't really be considered that magical despite it being listed a supernatural ability and described as magical.
I personally believe that if the name or the concept is that hard for someone to "get over" then no amount of discussion will persuade them, and I personally believe they shouldn't even bother opening up the Bard class at all.
I find this statement somewhat infurirating. It seems to fall for me in the same category of "You are playing D&D wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter, go away," type statements.
"Because you don't like this power, I don't think you should even look at the class."
Why not, "because you don't like this class, I don't think you should play 4e?"
Bah!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Being Charisma based isn't a strong indicator for me as many powers that involve talking and affecting someone with your words and gestures would likely be Charisma based despite being non-magical. Intimidate and Diplomacy are Charisma based without being magical.
Yes, alone, being Charisma based alone isn't enough to call it magical. However, in the context of the other elements I mentioned (it being a called a spell, etc.), I feel it makes a pretty solid connection (in my brain at least) with the Bard's spellcasting abilities in 3.5, which were tied the Charisma.
I agree.
|
|
I personally believe that if the name or the concept is that hard for someone to "get over" then no amount of discussion will persuade them, and I personally believe they shouldn't even bother opening up the Bard class at all.I find this statement somewhat infurirating. It seems to fall for me in the same category of "You are playing D&D wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter, go away," type statements.
"Because you don't like this power, I don't think you should even look at the class."
Why not, "because you don't like this class, I don't think you should play 4e?"
Bah!
I'm sorry that you feel this way. It is, however, a matter of interpretation. If someone is unable to grasp how "words can kill", which is a foundation stone of the Bard class, then how can you honestly plan to interpret the Bard? Seriously, and without feeling insulted or infuriated, evaluate this thought. If you cannot justify that a Bard is able to lace his song with damaging spellpower, and if you cannot interpret the power so named as something other than silly, then I don't think this class is for you. Plain and simply. And here's why ...
You (the collective "you" audience, not the specific "Blazej" you audience) have had some rational discourse where the reasoning behind the spell has been laid out, and if you are still arguing against the precept, against the name, etc., then really, to be completely honest, this dialog has run its course. At this time, I see no reason NOT to state something alone the lines of "well, if you continue to refuse to get beyond so simple a hurdle as this, then perhaps you can shift to another class that you feel you can rationalize better."
I'm sorry that you feel this way. It is, however, a matter of interpretation. If someone is unable to grasp how "words can kill", which is a foundation stone of the Bard class, then how can you honestly plan to interpret the Bard? Seriously, and without feeling insulted or infuriated, evaluate this thought. If you cannot justify that a Bard is able to lace his song with damaging spellpower, and if you cannot interpret the power so named as something other than silly, then I don't think this class is for you. Plain and simply. And here's why ...
You (the collective "you" audience, not the specific "Blazej" you audience) have had some rational discourse where the reasoning behind the spell has been laid out, and if you are still arguing against the precept, against the name, etc., then really, to be completely honest, this dialog has run its course. At this time, I see no reason NOT to state something alone the lines of "well, if you continue to refuse to get beyond so simple a hurdle as this, then perhaps you can shift to another class that you feel you can rationalize better."
I would agree that "words can kill" are certainly a part of the Bard and are most strongly present within Vicious Mockery and Satire of THING, but I feel most of the powers don't go that far.
I would describe the greater theme being "words, song, and music carry power", I believe that one can easily avoid "words can kill", similar to a wizard avoiding powers that inflict lightning.
However, if one finds the idea of a character singing and dancing during battle slaying enemies to be too silly, then I would tend to agree that without large modifications, the Bard isn't going to have much they find appropriate. At least, not without some somewhat significant editing.
|
|
I'm sorry that you feel this way. It is, however, a matter of interpretation. If someone is unable to grasp how "words can kill", which is a foundation stone of the Bard class, then how can you honestly plan to interpret the Bard? Seriously, and without feeling insulted or infuriated, evaluate this thought. If you cannot justify that a Bard is able to lace his song with damaging spellpower, and if you cannot interpret the power so named as something other than silly, then I don't think this class is for you. Plain and simply. And here's why ...
You (the collective "you" audience, not the specific "Blazej" you audience) have had some rational discourse where the reasoning behind the spell has been laid out, and if you are still arguing against the precept, against the name, etc., then really, to be completely honest, this dialog has run its course. At this time, I see no reason NOT to state something alone the lines of "well, if you continue to refuse to get beyond so simple a hurdle as this, then perhaps you can shift to another class that you feel you can rationalize better."
I would agree that "words can kill" are certainly a part of the Bard and are most strongly present within Vicious Mockery and Satire of THING, but I feel most of the powers don't go that far.
I would describe the greater theme being "words, song, and music carry power", I believe that one can easily avoid "words can kill", similar to a wizard avoiding powers that inflict lightning.
However, if one finds the idea of a character singing and dancing during battle slaying enemies to be too silly, then I would tend to agree that without large modifications, the Bard isn't going to have much they find appropriate. At least, not without some somewhat significant editing.
Right. And while I address "words can kill" as a foundation stone, I don't mean it's the only aspect.
And really, to be honest, everything is technically "all good" until we get to that magical 1HP. Up until that point, quite technically, the entire combat is "abstract." It may not be actual physical damage, but morale, endurance and the like that the target suffers (which has been a staple of D&D combat since the beginning). To be truthful, the only time we have to justify that transition to physical damage is at 1HP. I guess you could imagine going all Pete Townshend on their heads, but you're going to have to have a few more lutes.
"Man, you have one ugly face!"
"No I don't!"
FfffWHAPPP! "Yes, you do!"
Right. And while I address "words can kill" as a foundation stone, I don't mean it's the only aspect.
And really, to be honest, everything is technically "all good" until we get to that magical 1HP. Up...
Yes, more often than not the final blow to an enemy will not come from the Bard's rapier wit. The only situation I can think of that would cause enemies to dropping in droves from snide comments and remarks, aside from a party of Bards, would be a group of minions. That might cause some interesting reactions from a party if it were to occur.
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a rimshot
|
|
Hi,
Hrm, what about the problem of enemies that just don't understand what the Bard is saying, or don't care? Can the power be used against a construct or mindless undead?
Is there a [Mind-Affecting] keyword?
I though that the idea of the power affecting what the target did was a nice idea.
For minded opponents, there is a nice symmetry between Warlords "encouraging" their allies and Bards "discouraging" them. But, that idea lends itself to there being an overlap between Warlord and Bard powers. Seems that both classes should be able to do both. A matter of Style, I suppose, with the Warlord being hard and direct, and the Bard being soft and indirect.
The words, the song, the music, the poetry. This is how the bard weaves the power together. If you wanted to restrict the bard because it was important to your story or your universe this would be fine, but there's nothing requiring the target to understand what the bard is saying. Again - that is how the bard unleashes the magic. If it were important for me to restrict such a thing, I would make it a "half damage" thing at the worst - a bard's music is universal and doesn't require linguistic comprehension, but unless the target understands the language it fails to comprehend the actual meaning of the song (which, amusingly, is what happens in real-life with our international music availability). I don't believe there is a [Mind] restriction currently in the game, but again I'd do the same thing if it were important to me, the story, etc. If a song does psychic damage and is used against a mindless target, it does half damage - the song induces a sonic resonance which is damaging, but the words and the mental attack are worthless.
Please note however, that you are restricting a class. To be fair, you would have to, perhaps, take similar measures with every other class. For example, if NPC Badguy Cleric is fully devoted to the same diety as your own PCs with divine classes, would he take full damage from any divinity-based spells? Or, should we limit the primal class to "only when in the wild" etc? Your call.
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.
I always assumed it was a massive psychic assault and the words were just the medium for delivering that assault. Rather like the wizard waving his wand about or the cleric brandishing his holy symbol. Bards attack their minds... with words. It's pretty awesome, when you think about it.
Also, I this discussion underlies a deeper problem: a lot of people are still unclear about what HP represent in a 4e game. Hit Points aren't just your physical injuries - they're your willingness to get back up, to keep fighting. That's why the warlord can restore HP by rallying you and raising your spirits, and why you can recover fully in only 5 minutes after a battle. You take a few deep breaths, steel yourself against the encounters to come, and move on.
|
You enter the 200 year old crypt of Kargat, the Lich King, one of the most ruthless dark necromancers to ever walk our waking world... Hie is personally responsible for the mutilation ot the entire city of Balzar, Causing each resident to carve out the eyes of his neighbor with a knife. He who cursed the great red dragon Jarzaban, slaying him and using his corpse as a spawning bath for his undead minions. He who summoned the very stone crypt you walk upon from the ground with just his will. He stands before you, his skeletal figure crackling with untold evil necromantic power. He hold the power of death in his very touch.
bard: Hey Moldy
Kargat(Grasping his head in agony): ARRGGG
Bard: How can you be so smart, if you don't even have a brain, hollow skull?
Kargat(kneeling from the vicious retort): ARRGHHH
Bard: Bugger off, you twit!
Karget(falling over, smoke wafting from his unliving body): ARRGGHHH....gurgle..thump.
Bard: Guess he can't take a joke.
This has been a dramatization... But I can see how this can break a moment.. The first this happened it would be hilarious. My group would love it. By the third time, they would kill the bard for ruining the scary moment.
edited to correct spelling.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe they could come out with a new class power: Sticks and Stones. Makes the target immune to taunts, but only if he says some variation of "Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
This would be a prerequisite for the more powerful "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" power, which would also reflect the insult back.
|
Maybe they could come out with a new class power: Sticks and Stones. Makes the target immune to taunts, but only if he says some variation of "Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
This would be a prerequisite for the more powerful "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" power, which would also reflect the insult back.
Don't you have some poor uninsured family to sue, Pony Boy?
;)
Maybe they could come out with a new class power: Sticks and Stones. Makes the target immune to taunts, but only if he says some variation of "Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
This would be a prerequisite for the more powerful "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" power, which would also reflect the insult back.
This sort of thing is always a bit of an issue. The line between cool and gag inducing is really rather thin.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This sort of thing is always a bit of an issue. The line between cool and gag inducing is really rather thin.Maybe they could come out with a new class power: Sticks and Stones. Makes the target immune to taunts, but only if he says some variation of "Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."
This would be a prerequisite for the more powerful "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" power, which would also reflect the insult back.
I was being silly. I hope that such an ability does not actually come into being outside of an April Fool's issue.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You enter the 200 year old crypt of Kargat, the Lich King, one of the most ruthless dark necromancers to ever walk our waking world... Hie is personally responsible for the mutilation ot the entire city of Balzar, Causing each resident to carve out the eyes of his neighbor with a knife. He who cursed the great red dragon Jarzaban, slaying him and using his corpse as a spawning bath for his undead minions. He who summoned the very stone crypt you walk upon from the ground with just his will. He stands before you, his skeletal figure crackling with untold evil necromantic power. He hold the power of death in his very touch.
bard: Hey Moldy
Kargat(Grasping his head in agony): ARRGGG
Bard: How can you be so smart, if you don't even have a brain, hollow skull?
Kargat(kneeling from the vicious retort): ARRGHHH
Bard: Bugger off, you twit!
Karget(falling over, smoke wafting from his unliving body): ARRGGHHH....gurgle..thump.
Bard: Guess he can't take a joke.This has been a dramatization... But I can see how this can break a moment.. The first this happened it would be hilarious. My group would love it. By the third time, they would kill the bard for ruining the scary moment.
edited to correct spelling.
Its all in how you sell it, no matter what class you play. Swap the Bard with a Fighter and see how silly it sounds to have a brainless thug beat the nigh omnipotent Uberlich to pieces with a sharpened piece of metal.
You enter the 200 year old crypt of Kargat, the Lich King, one of the most ruthless dark necromancers to ever walk our waking world... Hie is personally responsible for the mutilation ot the entire city of Balzar, Causing each resident to carve out the eyes of his neighbor with a knife. He who cursed the great red dragon Jarzaban, slaying him and using his corpse as a spawning bath for his undead minions. He who summoned the very stone crypt you walk upon from the ground with just his will. He stands before you, his skeletal figure crackling with untold evil necromantic power. He hold the power of death in his very touch.
Wizard: Eat bat crap, dead boy! FIREBALL!
Cleric: Behold the power of Isis's holy breasts and begone, fiend!Barbarian: Thog smash!
There are many ways to violate the mood. And there are more vicious taunts possible.
Bard: Well, either that's Kargat, the Lich King, or else we just walked in on Queen Ehlissa before she put on her make-up. Given the gaudy purple robes, I'm voting for Queen Ehlissa. Anyone else?
Kargat: ARGH!
I personally believe that if the name or the concept is that hard for someone to "get over" then no amount of discussion will persuade them, and I personally believe they shouldn't even bother opening up the Bard class at all. You've chosen to attach a ridiculous or cartoon image to the power. While it may be a completely acceptable response from you, to be honest the onus is on you to make it work. When I see it, I see someone strumming a lute, spewing forth not humorous comments, but stream after stream of vitriol, with the person on the end facing a vicious mental assault. Perhaps something in the power allows the bard to see some personal character flaw the bard can take advantage of. The hammering rhythm of the lute, the bard's sneering face, the relentless spitting of character flaws ... That truly IS role playing.
Sorry, but that's truth.
You win the thread dave :)
"You... forgot... about... the paladin."
Awesome. Best reply ever.
Sorry, but that's truth.You win the thread dave :)I think MK came in and proved that I truly am just the understudy.
Brilliant, Matthew!
<bow>
I have to agree with that one. Very well done Matthew.
|
|
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 believe that most of your comments have been well-addressed above.
- Hit Points have become extremely abstract now to the point of not just being physical damage, but also covering "the will to fight."
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
|
|
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.
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.
I think that it is even odder in the case as people offering reasons for Vicious Mockery not being silly seemingly taking opposite sides on what this power does. With some advocating that the power damages the opponents will to fight, some suggesting the effect is the outright destruction of your opponents mind (as well as others coming in between). From my perspective these two sides taking the two sides on what damage means, with the former having damage include damage to your luck and skill, and the latter having damage be, for this power, damage to the mind that resembles physical punishment.
I just noticed in the PHB II that with the vicious mockery at will power you can literally tease your enemy to death... Sorry, but that just seems kind of stupid. No more "sticks and stone can break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
I envision it as a secret arcane cant that tears at your soul.
|
|
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?
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
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 would suggest that might be a viable option allowed to different characters going for a different flavor.
I would suggest treating the descriptions given with powers as suggestions and that you modify them to match the situation. Using the exact descriptions given with the powers, in my opinion, will more often than not will produce odd results.