Words of Terror Dispute

[Samwich]

There is a small disagreement in my group right now, and I figured I would get some outside opinions on it.

One of the players in my group is playing a College of Whispers Bard, and he frequently uses the Words of Terror ability. For those unfamiliar, it allows the player to frighten somebody they speak with for at least one minute.

The dispute is that the player thinks that once he speaks for at least a minute, he can automatically activate this effect, whereas I think that he has to declare that he is using the power at the start of the conversation. It is a small disagreement and hasn't really caused any issues, but I am curious to see what people think.

[DwarfDM]

I would rule that he has to call it up front. Or else a Wizard can say: "I cast Mordenkainen's private sanctum, and i started 10 minutes ago so it is done now"

And that would be silly.

[PhantomSoul]

For reference:


Words of Terror
At 3rd level, you learn to infuse innocent-seeming words with an insidious magic that can inspire
terror.
If you speak to a humanoid alone for at least 1 minute, you can attempt to seed paranoia in its
mind. At the end of the conversation, the target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw against
your spell save DC or be frightened of you or another creature of your choice. The target is
frightened in this way for 1 hour, until it is attacked or damaged, or until it witnesses its allies
being attacked or damaged.
If the target succeeds on its saving throw, the target has no hint that you tried to frighten it.
Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a short or long rest.


If only for narrative reasons I'd definitely want it to be said beforehand so that the DM or the player can actually infuse the effect into the conversation if it's being RPed (it could even be more informative for the player, since it could give a hint of what the NPC actually fears, which then gives them something to work with in future conversations). The ability doesn't state either way, but it does give the explicit indication that the seeding happens during the conversation (or ambiguously whether you can only start infusing into conversation after one minute of conversation has already happened, technically speaking, but a minute of conversation isn't that long anyhow so that probably happens most of the time you reach a minute of talking anyhow), and based on that I'd say it should either be said beforehand (interpretation 1) or said that it will now be attempted after a minute (ambiguous interpretation). I'd consider mitigating that by saying that if they try to infuse fear triggers into the conversation but the conversation doesn't last long enough, then the ability doesn't count as having been used... but that could get to be a slowdown from the character just always saying they're doing it.

[JoeJ]

The description of the ability in XGtE sounds like it's something the bard is doing while they're talking, so I'd think they have to declare it and then spend the minute (which doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be declared at the beginning of a conversation; it can happen partway through.)

[MightyDuck]

In terms of RAW, there is nothing that says that you have to announce that you're using words of terror at the start of the conversation, its not a spell with a 1 minute cast time, the 1 minute speaking to the target is just a trigger to be able to use the feature, the speaking to the target isn't a feature of the ability and the saving throw only takes effect at the end of the conversation. Honestly, the only situation I can think of where it would matter that the player mentions it before hand is if you plan on countering the ability or enforcing additional charisma checks throughout the conversation to make it more challenging, which you really shouldn't be doing as that is A, not how the feature works as written and B, just over-complicates things and makes it harder on the player. I'd rule that you don't have to announce it beforehand and can use the feature at any point after the conversation has been going on for over a minute and i wouldn't require the player to actively RP the feature as targets that succeed on their saving throws don't know that you were trying to scare them, which implies that you don't have to say anything overtly threatening.

[RSP]

I think the only reason a distinction on this would matter is if the DM is going to make the character declare the use of the ability at the start of the conversation, but then interrupt the conversation before a minute is up, and then declare that the ability was used unsuccessfully.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think the only reason a distinction on this would matter is if the DM is going to make the character declare the use of the ability at the start of the conversation, but then interrupt the conversation before a minute is up, and then declare that the ability was used unsuccessfully.

But in those situations, the difference between the player saying something and not saying something is how the DM scripts the event.

If the conversation was going to go in the same direction in either scenario, it shouldn't really matter too much if the player says he's using his ability at the start of the conversation. If it does matter (like if the DM tries to counter it by ending the conversation partway through), I feel like that's a real garbage play for an ability that's supposed to be undetectable.

Or, to irritate a DM for the sake of making a point, I'd just stay in a constant state of casting Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum, 9 minutes and 45 seconds before stopping and restarting the process.

For a minute-long channel that requires a conversation, usable once per short rest and can't do anything with combat applications, what's it gonna harm? Surely less than my legal, spiting act that costs nothing?

[Kadesh]

Ask the DM what he thinks.

[Chronos]

Another case where it could matter is if you don't know at the start of the conversation if you want to use the ability. Maybe the person you're talking with is already helpful and you don't need to, or maybe the conversation isn't going the way you'd like and you decide you want to leave them frightened.

Though in that case, you can probably just extend the conversation for an extra minute to include the scary stuff.

Fluff-wise, I could argue it either way. The obvious interpretation is that you're spending that minute saying scary things, and that after 60 seconds, the cumulative effect is to make someone afraid. But it could also be that you're spending that minute sizing up the person and figuring out what their fear triggers are, before springing it all at once at the end.

Ultimately, I'd probably rule that you have to decide at the start, but I'd give leeway for a character whose role-play is clearly intended to be frightening, because it can break immersion to say at the start of a conversation "I'm using X ability now".

[Keravath]

To be honest, the text doesn't say how it works.

Option 1: As you speak you say words in a certain way as to make them induce fear. In this case, you decide in advance and speak in a way so as to induce fear.

However, the text doesn't SAY that is how it works. It says "you learn to infuse innocent seeming words with an insidious magic" ... it does not say that this has to occur as you say them. You could potentially, at the end of the conversation, make the person perceive your innocent seeming words as fear inducing.

Leading to Option 2:
You converse with a person for at least a minute. At any time before the end of the conversation you can change how the target perceived your words with your insidious magic so that the innocent seeming words inspire terror.

Since it is magic, and you are affecting the mind of the target, you could potentially just use the ability at the end of the conversation by saying that you make your innocent sounding words induce fear or carry a hidden meaning.

Keep in mind that the character is not necessarily saying the words any differently. The words are innocent sounding. The effect of the magic is in the mind of the person hearing the words ... so depending on how the DM wants to run it ... it could be done as the words are said or retroactively to the whole conversation ... no role playing is required since the words are always "innocent sounding" ... the fear is in the magic. So, I would say both points of view are equally valid pending a decision by the DM on how it should work.

P.S. Remember though that the bard has to be speaking to the target alone ... whichever way you run it won't work in a group situation.