Cutting words

[wunderkid]

My concept for my next character is basically along the lines of rogue3/bardX, looking at playing somewhat of a prankster. Specializing in battlefield control, so he pops up casts a spell like dissonant whispers then disappears back into the shadows.

My question is do you think that while hiding I would be able to use cutting word to lessen an opponents search check?

RAW it seems to be quite clearly a no, as making noise gives away your position. I'm asking more from a balance perspective.

I was thinking along the lines of ventriloqism, they are looking for you, almost find you but you throw your voice to distract them and make them look elsewhere. Fits thematically with both the bard and style of play I'm going for. And I'll be going arcane trickster too so my mage hand could knock over vases etc to help with this illusion.

Also are there any spells/items/features that may help with this theme and style I'm going for?

Many thanks
Matt

[R.Shackleford]

Balance? No you shouldn't be able to use cutting words like that. You are actively making noise and giving yourself away, what you are essentially asking for is a way to get a free hide check.

[Sir cryosin]

The way you can fluff it is your throwing your voice or throwing a sound to make the target look elsewhere.

Edited: I didn't read all sorry
if I was DM I might allow it but it's a question to ask your DM.I'm afb but my understanding of cunning words is you make a sound or noise to temporarily distract an enemy. But I can't remember if it's only for a attack or if it can be used for checks.

[R.Shackleford]

The way you can fluff it is your throwing your voice or throwing a sound to make the target look elsewhere.

Except that is leading to making cutting words white powerful.

It also sets a bad reputation of allowing that to work.

Why can't I cast fireball but throw my voice? That way I can stay hidden and cast my spell?

Really steps on the toes of subtle spell metamagic, if you had subtle spell I wouldn't think it would be unbalanced to use it with other features like cutting words (or even a weapon attack) to make that action silent.

[tieren]

Except that is leading to making cutting words white powerful.

It also sets a bad reputation of allowing that to work.

Why can't I cast fireball but throw my voice? That way I can stay hidden and cast my spell?

Really steps on the toes of subtle spell metamagic, if you had subtle spell I wouldn't think it would be unbalanced to use it with other features like cutting words (or even a weapon attack) to make that action silent.

Except in his case he has rogue levels with cunning action, so he could for instance cast cutting words on his action and then use a bonus action to hide again, since he just affected the target with cutting words the target would have the modifier on their ability check.

In your example if he were a rogue/wizard he could also cast the fireball, then hide again RAW.

[R.Shackleford]

Except in his case he has rogue levels with cunning action, so he could for instance cast cutting words on his action and then use a bonus action to hide again, since he just affected the target with cutting words the target would have the modifier on their ability check.

In your example if he were a rogue/wizard he could also cast the fireball, then hide again RAW.

Cutting words is a reaction so no, he couldn't use cutting words as an action. Unless I'm mixing it up with something else?

Edited below

The point of the fireball example is that by letting people throw voices is that you don't need cunning action or any attempt to hide again.

Which steps on cunning action's toes, subtle spell, and balance in general.

In hidden and I attack with a thrown dagger, why can't, instead of grabbing the skulker feat, just say I throw my grunt so that I don't get found out when I attack?

Throwing your voice at will in such a way gets very very troublesome.

[PeteNutButter]

When considering allowing something to be refluffed, the question you should ask is, "Is there already something in the rules that does this?"

If something gets refluffed to replace an existing ability, than that upsets game mechanics and shouldn't be allowed.

So by "refluffing" his cutting words into ventriloquism, he is effectively doing what casting Minor Illusion would do. Answer: No, you can't do that.

If he has that cantrip, he could totally use it to mislead a foe searching for him. As a DM I'd maybe give the foe disadvantage on the perception check, depending on how smart or wise it is.

[R.Shackleford]

When considering allowing something to be refluffed, the question you should ask is, "Is there already something in the rules that does this?"

If something gets refluffed to replace an existing ability, than that upsets game mechanics and shouldn't be allowed.

So by "refluffing" his cutting words into ventriloquism, he is effectively doing what casting Minor Illusion would do. Answer: No, you can't do that.

If he has that cantrip, he could totally use it to mislead a foe searching for him. As a DM I'd maybe give the foe disadvantage on the perception check, depending on how smart or wise it is.

First... Minor Illusion is an action not a reaction. Minor Illusion doesn't really stack up as a comparison here.

What is being asked is if Cutting Words can be used in such a way that the sound of the rogue bard will come from another place so that he doesn't blow his cover.

This will happen on the target's turn as it is a reaction.

To do, essentially, the same thing with Minor Illusion you would need Subtle Spell and to cast minor illusion before the creature searches so that they search in the wrong place. The creature may still find the rogue bard in this situation.

Cutting words doesn't care about where the target searches and you don't have to use it before the target seaches.

What the player wants to do is essentially gain Subtle Spell for their cutting words so that they don't become unhidden when they use an ability.

You could refluff subtle spell (no V or S) to be a "throwing the voice" kind of effect and it would be cool... But you would need 2 or 3 levels of Sorcerer to gain access to it.

[wunderkid]

Except when you make an attack you're revealed. So the fireball doesn't even work with subtle spell.

And you're also not casting fireball in response to a skill check.

And cutting words isn't a spell.

And as mentioned nothing stops me throwing a spell then jumping bad into stealth with cunning.

Really not seeing much of a comparison there. It's comparing two very different things.

Basically what it comes down to in a nut shell is -d6 vs a notice check broken x times per day. To me not at all, but that's why I'm asking here, the general consensus so far seems to be a RAW says this so absolutely not knee jerk reaction. Which I'm not saying is wrong at all, that's why I asked for your opinions, that's simply my opinion on how your opinions have felt so far xD

There is RAW, then there is being silly.

I could hide behind a wall, make illusionary copies of my voice all over, and then use cutting words. Now logically they have no way of telling which voice is the real one. But RAW the second I make a noise I'm revealed.

Likewise cutting words isn't magical. It's mundane and reflects using my "wit to distract, confuse, and otherwise sap the confidence and competence of others."
So minor illusion is perfectly capable of saying those words using my wit that undermines their confidence while looking for me, that is assuming that mundane voice throwing is completely off the table.

[tieren]

Cutting words is a reaction so no, he couldn't use cutting words as an action. Unless I'm mixing it up with something else?



My bad, I think I mixed it up with Dissonant Whispers. (never actually played a bard).

In a prior edition didn't there used to be a ventriloquism spell that would allow something like this?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Firstly, you're confusing RAW and RAI. By rules as INTENDED (or INTERPRETED), it's pretty odd that you can hide better by insulting the searcher. By rules as WRITTEN, it just says "ability check;" Perception/Instigate is an ability check, ergo the ability works. Balance-wise, it's identical to using an Inspiration Die on yourself, and stealth is just one of many types of opposed skill rolls the ability works on; it's no better or worse than others.

So I say yes. If you can fluff it-- ventriloquism, the whole voice-echoing-from-nowhere, whatever-- knock yourself out. There's no rules or balance issue in question here, hysterics about upsetting the delicate perfect balance in the edition where balance isn't a big concern anymore aside.

[Ruslan]

By Rule of Cool, I'd let the player do that. The good ol' throw-a-rock-the-other-way trick never failed before.

[PeteNutButter]

Firstly, you're confusing RAW and RAI. By rules as INTENDED (or INTERPRETED), it's pretty odd that you can hide better by insulting the searcher. By rules as WRITTEN, it just says "ability check;" Perception/Instigate is an ability check, ergo the ability works. Balance-wise, it's identical to using an Inspiration Die on yourself, and stealth is just one of many types of opposed skill rolls the ability works on; it's no better or worse than others.

So I say yes. If you can fluff it-- ventriloquism, the whole voice-echoing-from-nowhere, whatever-- knock yourself out. There's no rules or balance issue in question here, hysterics about upsetting the delicate perfect balance in the edition where balance isn't a big concern anymore aside.

I stand corrected.

I just reread the ability and it doesn't actually say you do so by talking. It says you, "Use your wit to distract, confuse, and otherwise sap the confidence and competence of others."

So nowhere in there does it say you have to talk. Therefore you can use your wit to toss a pebble and distract them RAW and RAI.

The title of an ability has no bearing on its mechanics. Compare it to using a Maul to attack with a Greenflame Blade cantrip.

[R.Shackleford]

Except when you make an attack you're revealed. So the fireball doesn't even work with subtle spell.


You are also not hidden when you cast a spell that has Verbal component due to needing to say magical words.

The point is that letting people "throw their voices" has ramifications on other areas of the game that you won't want.

It is t that cutting words = fireball, it is that if you can "throw your voice" with cutting words then why can't you with fireball.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It is t that cutting words = fireball, it is that if you can "throw your voice" with cutting words then why can't you with fireball.
Because one is just shouting "look over here, loser!" and the other is a complex magical process that involves words, gestures, implements and more?

[Ruslan]

It is t that cutting words = fireball, it is that if you can "throw your voice" with cutting words then why can't you with fireball.In the immortal words of Rich Burlew, instead of making assumptions that don't fit the text and then complaining the text is wrong, why don't you make assumptions that fit the text?

Cutting Words gives the foe a penalty on a check. That's literally what it does. This is a fact. Now, why don't you make a set of assumptions that fit that fact? You could assume, for example, Cutting Words doesn't require speaking to begin with (RAW doesn't mention speaking). You can make an assumption that it's a special kind of magic specifically made to distract (while Fireball is a special kind of magic made to burn but not to distract). Etc.

The assumptions you could make that DON'T contradict the (legal by RAW) use of Cutting Words to give the foe a penalty to their check to find the Bard are limitless.

[R.Shackleford]

Because one is just shouting "look over here, loser!" and the other is a complex magical process that involves words, gestures, implements and more?

That should say "it isn't"

Cutting words and fireball are both *class feature that does a cool mechanical thing*. Call them spells, supernatural, extraordinary or whatever else it doesn't matter.

Consistency is a great thing. You should be consistent in your rulings.

Cutting words is very magical. Without any fail your distraction works? Sounds magical to me.




In the immortal words of Rich Burlew, instead of making assumptions that don't fit the text and then complaining the text is wrong, why don't you make assumptions that fit the text?

Cutting Words gives the foe a penalty on a check. That's literally what it does. This is a fact. Now, why don't you make a set of assumptions that fit that fact? You could assume, for example, Cutting Words doesn't require speaking to begin with (RAW doesn't mention speaking). You can make an assumption that it's a special kind of magic specifically made to distract (while Fireball is a special kind of magic made to burn but not to distract). Etc.

The assumptions you could make that DON'T contradict the (legal by RAW) use of Cutting Words to give the foe a penalty to their check to find the Bard are limitless.

From SRD

"Cutting Words

Also at 3rd level, you learn how to use your wit to distract, confuse, and otherwise sap the confidence and competence of others. When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll. You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage. The creature is immune if it can’t hear you or if it’s immune to being charmed."

Bolded by me.

Please tell me again how it literally doesn't say what I bolded.

It's also a charm effect as creatures immune to charm are immune to cutting words. This could be debated but it's quite clear.

[Ruslan]

Well, you nailed it. It's a charm effect. It convinces the target of something that's not real. It hears you, but still thinks you're somewhere else, because magik. Thus the penalty to their check. Anyway, I found a set of assumptions that convinced me this would work, and I'm happy with my assumptions. Peace.

[Temperjoke]

That should say "it isn't"

Cutting words and fireball are both *class feature that does a cool mechanical thing*. Call them spells, supernatural, extraordinary or whatever else it doesn't matter.

Consistency is a great thing. You should be consistent in your rulings.

Cutting words is very magical. Without any fail your distraction works? Sounds magical to me.





From SRD

"Cutting Words

Also at 3rd level, you learn how to use your wit to distract, confuse, and otherwise sap the confidence and competence of others. When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature’s roll. You can choose to use this feature after the creature makes its roll, but before the GM determines whether the attack roll or ability check succeeds or fails, or before the creature deals its damage. The creature is immune if it can’t hear you or if it’s immune to being charmed."

Bolded by me.

Please tell me again how it literally doesn't say what I bolded.

It's also a charm effect as creatures immune to charm are immune to cutting words. This could be debated but it's quite clear.

"The mute bard desperately tried to use sign language to impart his devastating witticisms upon the hobgoblin, but due to the hobgoblin not understanding sign language, the bard was knocked out with a swing from the hobgoblin's club."

Sorry, that's what came to mind. xD

[wunderkid]

That bolded part is precisely why I am taking the road of it is a verbal effect, yes the rules do not say you actually speak, but the clear intention is that you do.

As far as it being magical, it's explicitly not magical, it will be unaffected by any kind of counterspell or antimagic field, otherwise by your definition almost every single class feature is magic as its something a normal person is unable to achieve. The things a lot of classes can do are so amazing they might appear to be magical, but that doesn't automatically make them magic in nature

So basically it comes down to:
Stealth states if you make a noise you are revealed. that's strict RAW.

If however you can misdirect that noise via an illusion or ventriloquisim or other effect does that mean you're no longer revealed?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Cutting words and fireball are both *class feature that does a cool mechanical thing*. Call them spells, supernatural, extraordinary or whatever else it doesn't matter.
Except that it DOES, because your entire argument is about how you divide such things up. Spells are pretty clearly distinct from class features, on account of there being all sorts of special rules for how they work. You wouldn't rule that Channel Divinity fails if you're wearing armor you're not proficient in, or that Second Wind doesn't work in an antimagic field, would you?

I do miss 3e's Ex/Su/Sp tags, though.


Cutting words is very magical. Without any fail your distraction works? Sounds magical to me.
So do abilities like Slow Fall and Blindsense. Does that mean they're magic? Meanwhile, Charm Person can fail. Does that mean it's mundane?

[R.Shackleford]

Well, you nailed it. It's a charm effect. It convinces the target of something that's not real. It hears you, but still thinks you're somewhere else, because magik. Thus the penalty to their check. Anyway, I found a set of assumptions that convinced me this would work, and I'm happy with my assumptions. Peace.

My problem wasn't that it was magical or not. It wasn't that it was a charm effect or not.

That wasn't my point at all.

Letting people throw their voice with cutting words is a bad ruling because there will be no consistency of you don't let them do it with other effects.

Hand waving inconsistency is a good way to get players to check out. Not only is it unfair but it can cause rifts due to favortism.

My main point was that it steps on the toes of subtle spell and the base rules. It takes 3 levels of Sorcerer to get this ability that you would let just anyone have...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Letting people throw their voice with cutting words is a bad ruling because there will be no consistency of you don't let them do it with other effects.

Hand waving inconsistency is a good way to get players to check out. Not only is it unfair but it can cause rifts due to favortism.

My main point was that it steps on the toes of subtle spell and the base rules. It takes 3 levels of Sorcerer to get this ability that you would let just anyone have...
You can throw your voice when casting Fireball just fine, but you're still [drawing glowing runes in the air/glowing with divine light/going super-Sayan] and the effect still clearly eminates from you when you're done. Boom, consistency, balance, and a role for Subtle Spell.

It's also very clearly not a spell, so I'm not sure why you feel that it's important that spells work exactly the same way.

[Ruslan]

Letting people throw their voice with cutting words is a bad ruling because there will be no consistency of you don't let them do it with other effects.

Hand waving inconsistency is a good way to get players to check out. Not only is it unfair but it can cause rifts due to favortism.
Once again, this is what CW does. It gives a penalty to a check. It doesn't burn, it doesn't turn the target into a newt, it doesn't summon a genie, it gives a penalty to a check, no more and no less. Find a set of assumptions that are consistent with it giving a penalty to a check, and you will find peace.

You DO NOT need to find similar assumptions for Fireball, because Fireball doesn't give penalty to a check. There is no reason for CW and Fireball to work identically or even similarly. That is a non-sequitur.

[R.Shackleford]

Except that it DOES, because your entire argument is about how you divide such things up. Spells are pretty clearly distinct from class features, on account of there being all sorts of special rules for how they work. You wouldn't rule that Channel Divinity fails if you're wearing armor you're not proficient in, or that Second Wind doesn't work in an antimagic field, would you?

I do miss 3e's Ex/Su/Sp tags, though.


So do abilities like Slow Fall and Blindsense. Does that mean they're magic? Meanwhile, Charm Person can fail. Does that mean it's mundane?

Those abilities don't effect others, you aren't casting/performing slow fall on another creature. Nor are you casting/putting blindsense on another creature.

Magic can fail, I never said it couldn't. But what is happening with Cutting Words is a charm effect that you force onto another creature that doesn't fail. Typically the only things that you push onto other creatures that don't have a chance of failure is magical effects.

Please read the end of my response with cutting words on it. It may not be a spell but it is magical.

And it doesn't matter if Cutting Words is magical or not. I have an example of how this same thing applied to materials gets out of hand due to it copying a feat.

A rogue that is hidden, without the lurker feat, could say that they throw a dagger but in a way that their grunts and body sounds are "thrown" to another place and that they should be able to stay hidden.

Ruling that you can throw your voice causes problems and isn't consistent with the rule. And if you try to be consistent about throwing sounds then you will step in more toes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Please read the end of my response with cutting words on it. It may not be a spell but it is magical.
Again, it means nothing. Cutting Words is its own ability. You could reasonably extrapolate a ruling to cover Bardic Inspiration as well, but not much else.


A rogue that is hidden, without the lurker feat, could say that they throw a dagger but in a way that their grunts and body sounds are "thrown" to another place and that they should be able to stay hidden.

Ruling that you can throw your voice causes problems and isn't consistent with the rule. And if you try to be consistent about throwing sounds then you will step in more toes.
No it bloody well doesn't. Throwing your voice is a well-established thing that most people accept easily, whereas your example is intentionally nonsense.

[wunderkid]

Those abilities don't effect others, you aren't casting/performing slow fall on another creature. Nor are you casting/putting blindsense on another creature.

Magic can fail, I never said it couldn't. But what is happening with Cutting Words is a charm effect that you force onto another creature that doesn't fail. Typically the only things that you push onto other creatures that don't have a chance of failure is magical effects.

Please read the end of my response with cutting words on it. It may not be a spell but it is magical.

And it doesn't matter if Cutting Words is magical or not. I have an example of how this same thing applied to materials gets out of hand due to it copying a feat.

A rogue that is hidden, without the lurker feat, could say that they throw a dagger but in a way that their grunts and body sounds are "thrown" to another place and that they should be able to stay hidden.

Ruling that you can throw your voice causes problems and isn't consistent with the rule. And if you try to be consistent about throwing sounds then you will step in more toes.

Only a grunt isnt something you can 'throw' it's an involuntary sound made by the exertion of making that attack. And is quite frankly clutching at straws for how throwing your voice can break the system.

basically what you're telling me is that if a rogue coughed at the same time as a bomb went off nearby the rogue would be automatically revealed, because if he wasn't then it's deviating from the rules.

Or if he sneezes behind a deaf person? The rules don't say anything about them having to hear you only that if you make a noise you're revealed? Can't deviate from those rules.

In fact a rogue could throw their voice if they wanted to in order to distract a guard, I can't see a GM who would say 'throwing your voice doesn't exist in the rules therefore you can never ever do anything like that'

My point is that throwing your voice exists in the real world, cutting words isn't remotely magical, its using your wit to undermine their confidence. A thrown voice used in this exact manner exists in many many horror movies, 'warmer, warmer, colder', 'oh I wouldn't look there if I were you', 'humming the jaws theme tune'

All of course with more wit than I'm capable of.

But I will say flat out RAW it doesn't work. I'm not trying to argue if you're playing a strict RAW game then you wouldn't be able to do this at all. But I can't see it being broken in itself, or breaking the game by allowing thrown sounds to anywhere near the degree that's been expressed.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But I will say flat out RAW it doesn't work. I'm not trying to argue if you're playing a strict RAW game then you wouldn't be able to do this at all. But I can't see it being broken in itself, or breaking the game by allowing thrown sounds to anywhere near the degree that's been expressed.
By strict RAW I think the only real question is if Cutting Words counts as an attack; otherwise it can absolutely mess with a Perception check.

[wunderkid]

By strict RAW I think the only real question is if Cutting Words counts as an attack; otherwise it can absolutely mess with a Perception check.

"You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase), you give away your position."

It's wether or not you can alter where your words come from via illusion or mundane means or if you follow the letter of the law to the smallest details

[JackPhoenix]

My point is that throwing your voice exists in the real world, cutting words isn't remotely magical, its using your wit to undermine their confidence. A thrown voice used in this exact manner exists in many many horror movies, 'warmer, warmer, colder', 'oh I wouldn't look there if I were you', 'humming the jaws theme tune'

"Throwing your voice" requires the right distance to an audience (if they are too close, they can pinpoint where exactly is the sound coming from), and you can't realy make it sound like the voice comes from too far away from you...sure, it looks like the ventriloquist's voice comes from the puppet, but the puppet is only a foot or two away from him...close enough to reveal your hiding place.

Pretending the sound comes from an entirely different part of the room can't be done just about anywhere, it depends on the local acoustic properties. The manner used in horror movies doesn't work in real life without movie tricks.

[Maltoon]

You might consider one level in Warlock to get Awakened Mind (Great Old One Pact) and avoid the sound problems when sneaking not to mention any language barriers.

[Giant2005]

Also are there any spells/items/features that may help with this theme and style I'm going for?

Just get yourself a Cloak of Elvenkind - they are only Uncommon and very nearly guarantee that you will never fail a stealth check again.

[wunderkid]

Cloak is on my short list, I need to convince the DM which is why it's not an auto pick. I should pass most stealth checks already.

Interesting that cutting words has no language prerequisite. I know spells often have that as a caveat, but I'm glad it's not one that cutting has

[Yuroch Kern]

My concept for my next character is basically along the lines of rogue3/bardX, looking at playing somewhat of a prankster. Specializing in battlefield control, so he pops up casts a spell like dissonant whispers then disappears back into the shadows.

My question is do you think that while hiding I would be able to use cutting word to lessen an opponents search check?

RAW it seems to be quite clearly a no, as making noise gives away your position. I'm asking more from a balance perspective.

I was thinking along the lines of ventriloqism, they are looking for you, almost find you but you throw your voice to distract them and make them look elsewhere. Fits thematically with both the bard and style of play I'm going for. And I'll be going arcane trickster too so my mage hand could knock over vases etc to help with this illusion.

Also are there any spells/items/features that may help with this theme and style I'm going for?

Many thanks
Matt

If you're aiming for a ventriliquism effect, Minor Illusion(sound) would be a better use of resources. It allows use of your voice, afterall, and allows discrete changing of the noises. Since you can use your voice, CW would be appropiate to use, IMO, on the Investigation check to either find you or the one used to Deceive them in looking in the wrong area. It would most likely allow them to automatically determine the Illusion, and look harder elsewhere.