4E Bard teases enemies to death

[TigerDave]

NockerGeek wrote:

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'm not entirely sure I can agree with this. I've been playing D&D since it first came out, and have over three decades of experience with this game, and it's ALWAYS been this way. We've ALWAYS understood that HP means more than physical damage, just as combat has always meant more than one swing per dice roll. Whether or not 4E has presented a more perfect interpretation of this abstraction is immaterial to the objections posted.

As to the ability of psychic damage being able to harm the "mindless" individual, I still stand with earlier statements I've made. You can adjust the game as you see fit, if it meets the needs of your gaming group. My concern is that if you "steal" from a bard's power because it doesn't make "rational" sense in an imaginary world, you render the class inconsequential. This just brings me back to my statement earlier - if it's this much grief, just ignore the class altogether.

[NockerGeek]

Arcmagik wrote:

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.

[Matthew Koelbl]

NockerGeek wrote:

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.

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.

As far as everything else... it seems clear this thread has hit the usual point where folks are arguing in circles, so I'll give one final last bit of advice and then step aside.

In the end, if you want to come up with a reason or scenario where a power shouldn't work? You can. You can do so with every attack in every edition of the game. But that shouldn't be the standard by which a power can be judged - the standard should be whether you can come up with a reason why it would work, because the GM and the players have narrative control of the game.

No one is going to kick in your door and stop you from gaming if you allow a psychic attack to scramble the programming of a construct. And if you yourself find that 'unrealistic', then you need to take a long hard look over exactly where realism comes into play here. I can see complaints about it regarding things we can observably understand in the real world, such as movement/physics/etc. I don't think perfectly matching realism in this case is strictly necessary (or even possible), but I can understand the concern.

Complaining about unrealism in a certain result between multiple elements that have no basis in the real world on which to judge? Nonsense. Pure and rampant absurdity. If you think constructs should be immune to charm and psychic damage because its 'classic', then sure - you are the DM, you can go ahead and rule as such. But it isn't making things more realistic. There are just as valid reasons for those powers to affect it as to not.

If it really is vital to your gameworld to have golems immune to such things, then that is a decision you can make. Keep in mind the other ramifications of such a change carefully (such as returning us to the days of certain classes being rendered useless in the wrong dungeons). If you agree with those consequences, and find changing the mechanics to more perfectly suit your view of things, then go ahead and do so. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think it is wrong to complain about them not doing so in the core rules, however. When it is perfectly rational to let these powers work on such things, and doing so better fits with their design (one focused on keeping the game more enjoyable for more players), then they have made the right call as designers.

[NockerGeek]

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

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?

[Cpt_kirstov]

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I never thought I would say this, but I am with scott on this one. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for a bard to be able to do.

More over, i actually think it is really cool. It can represent anything from words so barbed they literally cut, to winding up a thug so much that he charges at you and tumbles over the edge of the castle tower when you side step. Its is a perfectly cool and bardie kind of power.

(havn't read the whole thread yet, so please excuse me If this has been brought up already.)

Why take a defining trait of a race that everyone HATES to adventure with *coughKendercough* and make it a core ability? I would think they would have learned with how kender were treated in Dragonlance games..

[Matthew Koelbl]

NockerGeek wrote:

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?

Hmm, hard to say for sure. While there is some balance decision made regarding keywords, I don't think it is a large one. There are both advantages and disadvantages to having the psychic keyword (you can get bonuses with feats, but deal less damage against certain enemies), so I don't think the removal of it is weighed as a significant advantage. In this case, Vicious Mockery does psychic damage because that is appropriate to the power - I don't think there is any need to look further than that, any more than there is to wonder why fireball does fire damage.

Anyway, lets see what the Keywords represent:
Psychic: A damage type keyword, representing powers that harm the mind.
Charm: An effects type keyword, representing powers that control or influence the subject's actions.

So, Vicious Mockery is Pyschic + Charm. Thus, it likely represents weaving magic into a vicious mental assault that then hinders the foes attacks.

Blunder is simply a Charm effect, and does non-typed damage. So I would surmise it represents using magic to confuse a foes senses - at which point they physically trip and blunder in a way that is physically damaging. (With again the note that hp aren't just physical representations, etc, etc.)

Keep in mind, as well, that there is room for reflavoring the powers as long as the mechanics remain the same. Some don't prefer this, but the PHB does encourage it, and it goes to again emphasize that the explanation for the power lies in the narrative control of the gamers.

Anyway, didn't mean to get so quickly drawn back in the thread after proclaiming I was done with it, but your question seemed a good one, and worth answering. But, again, I recommending reading through the PHB and the section on powers for a bit of insight in to this, in general. :)

[Zombieneighbours]

Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

I never thought I would say this, but I am with scott on this one. It is a perfectly reasonable thing for a bard to be able to do.

More over, i actually think it is really cool. It can represent anything from words so barbed they literally cut, to winding up a thug so much that he charges at you and tumbles over the edge of the castle tower when you side step. Its is a perfectly cool and bardie kind of power.

(havn't read the whole thread yet, so please excuse me If this has been brought up already.)

Why take a defining trait of a race that everyone HATES to adventure with *coughKendercough* and make it a core ability? I would think they would have learned with how kender were treated in Dragonlance games..

I have never played in a dragonlance game and no next to nothing about them to be honest.

But to me the idea of getting some one so blind with rage that they throw themselves of a cliff trying to charge you is kind of cool.

And given that it is an impliment power, playing a magicially enhances note on a violin that starts to burn some ones sanity away also appeals to me.

I don't think this power has to be in anyway silly or annoying.

[spaceace11]

Honestly what seems a bit silly is for people to get so bent out of shape over what it just flavor text. The italic descriptions of spells are just a bit of fluff that has no mechanical element. They're merely a suggestion on how to describe each power. See page 54 of the PHB.

Vicious Mockery could just as easily be a primal scream, a song, a whisper, a power word, a terrifying warchant, a spell cast through music, an insult, etc. Whatever fits your bard's character. Getting hung up that they decided to go with an insult for the default description seems pointless.

[Generic Villain]

Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:

Talking nice to plants will help them grow...

That's not substantiated. If Mythbusters is to be believed, noise of *any* sort helps plants grow, the louder the better.

[drjones]

NockerGeek wrote:

Arcmagik wrote:

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

As a for instance, the ooze in keep on the shadowfell is immune to charm and fear, thus this spell would not work on him at all despite not being resistant to psychic damage. The damage type is an important keyword but it is not the only keyword that matters. More common in 4e monster design so far has been resistance/weakness to damage type this is good imo because it does not shut players out of the fight completely and allows exceptional feats (critting a daily etc.) to have an effect where everyday attacks bounce off.

Besides, if it really peeves a DM that monster X is vulnerable to ability Y they can fix that with a swipe of the pen before the game starts. If you players get annoyed that none of their powers ever work that is your problem.