Question about "Vicious Mockery"

[autistic_lilix]

First thing first: hi!

Second: I have a question about the "Vicious Mockery" spell. I'm DMing soon and one of my players is considering making a bard, so I'd like to have a better understanding of the spell.

In our last campaign, I was playing a chaotic neutral warlock tiefling named Calanix and he was pretty mean sometimes (the whole point of the character was that he was trying to go against how he was raised to be good and prove a point). Because he could be really mean sometimes and he always had the best comebacks, at level 3, I made him chose the pact of the Tome, for Vicious Mockery because it just felt in character for him.

Later in the story, he had an argument with our party's half-elf, who was being (in Nix's eyes at least) kinda racist and I've established early on that it was a sensitive topic for Calanix, so he ended up saying something along the lines of: "You should really know better, you're an half-elf! Although, I wonder what the other half is... Appart from disappointing that is". The table laughed but then our DM looked at me and asked me to roll a d4. I was kinda confused because, sure, Nix had a spell slot with Vicious Mockery but he didn't use it, right? So I told my DM and when looking at the spell description, we couldn't find anything that said that Vicious Mockery had to be used intentionally.

So, my question is (yeah, all of this for that): can you really use Vicious Mockery by accident?

[Leon]

No, not by the RAW. Its Action that you choosing to do. Unless the player has handed off a note or something to the DM to indicate that they'd casting it not in a simple conversation "by accident"

For narrative flow the Player could say the DM i cast the spell when i say "the following words" or has made it clear that its what they wish in some other means, not so much for the DM to just do without good reason.

[Sindal]

You as the player cannot accidentally cast a spell you did you say you are casting. Your character might, but that accident is still an intentional choice from you.

A spell is more than just yelling an insult. It's more like a recipe in dnd and has requirements.

If this is soenthing you've discussed previously with your dm with something like "everytime I insult, I'm casting x spell" then sure.

This applies to all spells btw
You can't accidentally cast healing word everytimr you say the word "heal" foe instance :D

[Mastikator]

Spells can never be cast by accident, unless the DM introduces special circumstances. Under normal circumstances the player should have full control of when they cast a spell and which spell.

Keep in mind that the verbal component of Vicious Mockery is not the insult, verbal component is mystical words of power. You utter mystical words of power (which the enemy can identify with a reaction, or counterspell) THEN you utter an insult which can cause psychic damage. Verbal components are always identifiable as a spell by anyone who can recognize spell casting.

[Segev]

If the table was...reasonably okay with it, I can see the DM doing that for dramatic effect, or to set up that there's a problem with his Pact that Calinix should be looking into. Or doing it with a wild magic sorcerer or a sorcerer who otherwise has "I have trouble controlling my power" as a plot point in his character arc.

But in general, no, it shouldn't happen. The DM should have more in mind for it than "heh, it doesn't say it DOES NOT activate whenever he gives an insult!" Such things should have significance to them when they deviate from the RAW in this fashion, and it WAS a deviation from the RAW.

Now, again, if everyone's okay with a d4 of damage for a joke about how much of a burn that was, sure. But it didn't sound like you were okay with it, so unless he had a serious reason to do that regarding a plot hook or something....

And yes, I do think it'd be okay if it was a plot hook, because that late in the game, a d4 isn't a big deal of damage, and your powers going wonky or involuntary as a plot hook is a valid DM tool, provided it doesn't make you unable to play your character for a full session or more.

[Kvess]

I was kinda confused because, sure, Nix had a spell slot with Vicious Mockery but he didn't use it, right? So I told my DM and when looking at the spell description, we couldn't find anything that said that Vicious Mockery had to be used intentionally.

Vicious Mockery is a cantrip. It doesn't use a spellslot. You could cast it 9600 times per day if you really wanted to, assuming you're awake for 16 hours.

There's nothing in the rules about casting spells accidentally, aside from Wild Magic surges. That said, as a DM, I would absolutely award damage to a bard's insults if I thought it was amusing to do so. Especially if it made everyone at the table laugh.

I don't think your DM intended to undermine your control of your character. If you feel differently, you should bring the issue up in a private conversation.

[Damon_Tor]

No, there's no RAW way to cast a spell by accident.

I don't hate it, if it's handled with great care and everyone is having fun.

Though there's a slippery slope here. IE, the monk goes to give someone a high-five, and the DM looks at him gravely and says "make an attack roll".

[RogueJK]

As stated, there's no way to unintentionally cast a spell (barring something like a Wild Magic Surge setting off an inadvertent Fireball/Fog Cloud/Levitate/etc., but that's a specific mechanic unique to a specific subclass).

So I told my DM and when looking at the spell description, we couldn't find anything that said that Vicious Mockery had to be used intentionally.

The same could be said of any spell description. The individual spell descriptions don't lay that out, because it's inherent to all spellcasting: It must be done intentionally.

[Slipjig]

Well, that's certainly funny (and a well-executed burn), but it's definitely not RAW. That said, lots of DMs introduce non-RAW stuff, so it might continue happening. If you aren't comfortable with that, have an above-table chat with your DM.

[JLandan]

Does this DM also have "accidental" melee attacks?

[JNAProductions]

Well, that's certainly funny (and a well-executed burn), but it's definitely not RAW. That said, lots of DMs introduce non-RAW stuff, so it might continue happening. If you aren't comfortable with that, have an above-table chat with your DM.

This, 110%.

If everyone at the table laughed at the situation, and it was a funny moment you'll look back on fondly? All good.
If that upset someone, because control of their PC was usurped or anything like that? Talk to the DM, out of character, and let them know.

[autistic_lilix]

Now, again, if everyone's okay with a d4 of damage for a joke about how much of a burn that was, sure. But it didn't sound like you were okay with it, so unless he had a serious reason to do that regarding a plot hook or something....

And yes, I do think it'd be okay if it was a plot hook, because that late in the game, a d4 isn't a big deal of damage, and your powers going wonky or involuntary as a plot hook is a valid DM tool, provided it doesn't make you unable to play your character for a full session or more.

To be honest, it's not so much as I "wasn't OK with it", it was more that it was unexpected. It still felt in character, since Nix does tend to not realise how much potential damage he can cause (even in combat, since I have absolutely no luck when it comes to initiative, he'd often be last and mostly react to incapacitate foes, more than he'd attack), and it allowed for a much needed talk about how his words can literally hurt (I've been wanting to have a talk about his behaviour for a while at that point and one of the other players knew and just jumped on the occasion) and that talk ended up being the session highlight, a little emotional, while still being (mostly) light-hearted and it offered the DM a rest.

It would have been a win-win if the half-elf didn't almost die later because he was at -2hp (knowing I rolled a 4 for Vicious Mockery) which is mostly why I'm asking. It can be great if everyone is aware, at higher levels but it can still make a difference between life and death

[autistic_lilix]

Does this DM also have "accidental" melee attacks?

Yes and no. You could accidentaly hit someone but you'd never make 4 damage with it (mostly because our strongest party member had 14 or 15 in Strenght and the rest of us didn't exceed 13 in Strenght)

[Unoriginal]

It would have been a win-win if the half-elf didn't almost die later because he was at -2hp (knowing I rolled a 4 for Vicious Mockery) which is mostly why I'm asking. It can be great if everyone is aware, at higher levels but it can still make a difference between life and death

Just saying, but you can't be at -2 HP in 5e.

[autistic_lilix]

Just saying, but you can't be at -2 HP in 5e.

We play a mix of AD&D 2, 3,5 and 5 edition. I just checked, and when it comes to death, we are using the fifth edition rule. He took a hit, dropped to 0, with 2 remaining damage. His max HP being superior to 2, he didn't instantl died. I was unsure but really, I checked just now?

[Unoriginal]

We play a mix of AD&D 2, 3,5 and 5 edition. I just checked, and when it comes to death, we are using the fifth edition rule. He took a hit, dropped to 0, with 2 remaining damage. His max HP being superior to 2, he didn't instantl died. I was unsure but really, I checked just now?

In 5e, if you're at 2 HPs and get hit for 4 damages, you're at 0 HP. There is no negative HP.

[Greywander]

We play a mix of AD&D 2, 3,5 and 5 edition.

I'd like to suggest, especially since it sounds like you're new to 5e, that you run the game RAW according to 5e rules and drop the modifications from earlier editions. If you try to tinker with a system you don't understand yet, you're going to get very mixed results. Just play vanilla 5e for a while and focus on learning the rules and understanding the design behind them and how they fit together. Later on you can start to tinker with those rules once you truly understand them.

5e is far from a perfect system, but it has a lot of good ideas that you might not notice if you homebrew them out. Wait to start tinkering with the system until you understand what its strengths and weaknesses are.

Of course, discuss this with your players as well. If they're not interested then it doesn't really matter how much of a good idea it might be. Do make an effort to convince them to at least give it a try.

[Leon]

We play a mix of AD&D 2, 3,5 and 5 edition.

Oh dear one of those groups.
a few years ago the friends with whom i played my first game of 5e were set to play a game and invited me and i found out the "dm" was playing to do a similar mix of edition and noped out of there fast, my friends did not as they really wanted to play and then much regretted it later. For all their respective strengths and weaknesses its best to pick a edition and play with that edition.

[RogueJK]

Yeah, my very first 5E group was like that. I found them online, and at the initial session the DM was like "I decided to finally try running a 5E game, so I've skimmed the 5E rules and here's all the house rules and homebrews I'm going to use", much of which was borrowed from earlier editions.

The group didn't last long. The first few sessions made it clear that the DM has no clue what he was doing with his quasi-5E mish-mash.

It's definitely necessary to gain some experience and a deeper understanding of the game system before you start monkeying with it.

[Chronos]

Back in 3rd edition, warlocks could get an ability called "Baleful Utterance", which was described as "uttering a word of the Black Speech", and had the effect of breaking a nonmagical item. And, like 5e cantrips, it was at-will. Part of my warlock's schtick was that he didn't have full control of his powers, so I instructed the DM that whenever I used a certain made-up curse word, some random object in the vicinity should break. Sadly, the DM didn't play along.

As for mixing editions, some things can transfer over fine. For instance, you could slot in bonds/traits/flaws/ideals from 5e into pretty much any RPG, and it would take only a slight amount of adaptation to fit 5e backgrounds into something like 3e. But there are a lot of other things that interact with many other parts of the system, and so if you use some of that interlocking web of subsystems without others, the whole thing can fall apart.

[RogueJK]

As for mixing editions, some things can transfer over fine. For instance, you could slot in bonds/traits/flaws/ideals from 5e into pretty much any RPG, and it would take only a slight amount of adaptation to fit 5e backgrounds into something like 3e.

Well, fluff/flavor like character roleplay traits naturally carry over easily between systems, because they're not tied to anything inherent to that specific game system.

But crunch/mechanics are another matter, and they're much less likely to be able to picked up and dropped into a different system.

However, Pathfinder had backgrounds nearly identical to what we see in 5E in what was basically a spinoff of 3E/3.5E (PF was effectively 3.75E). So yeah, that specific example is doable.

[Greywander]

As for mixing editions, some things can transfer over fine.

Sure, but my main concern is that they're fiddling with a system they don't understand. If they want to bring some things from 5e into 3e, and they're veteran 3e players, then that's fine. But bringing things from 3e into 5e when they're not familiar with 5e is going to cause problems. Learn the system first, then tinker with it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but my main concern is that they're fiddling with a system they don't understand. If they want to bring some things from 5e into 3e, and they're veteran 3e players, then that's fine. But bringing things from 3e into 5e when they're not familiar with 5e is going to cause problems. Learn the system first, then tinker with it.

I agree.

There's also the issue where things mechanically work fine, but cause issues with the underlying philosophy of the game. Take, for instance, 3e's granular Power Attack. That kind of fine-grained detail and numerical adjustments doesn't cause mechanical issues (as long as the caps are set reasonably), but does introduce a lot of "kludge" (unusual granularity, to be more neutral) into the system. Similarly, introducing something like 3e's Incarnum gets painful because it's mostly built around small, mostly trivial decisions made all the time whose effect is only meaningful in the aggregate. Lots of point shifting and bonus totaling, which is way out of keeping for 5e's normal flow.

[Witty Username]

Sounds like you did damage because rule of funny, ask your DM if that was a one time thing or going to be anytime you get a good zinger in. And if one works better for what you want from the game let them know. If your DM, has been playing for something like 4 editions, they probably are just comfortable with on the spot rulings that fit their read of the table mood.

[autistic_lilix]

5e is far from a perfect system, but it has a lot of good ideas that you might not notice if you homebrew them out. Wait to start tinkering with the system until you understand what its strengths and weaknesses are.

Of course, discuss this with your players as well. If they're not interested then it doesn't really matter how much of a good idea it might be. Do make an effort to convince them to at least give it a try.

I'll talk to them but this system is something we've already tested, balanced and so on on our previous campaign, mostly because some of the fifth edition rules are kinda trash (like: why spend all your gold on healing potions when you can just take a long rest and be healed more effectively?) so we use previous editions rules.

Another playing factor is that my dad used to play AD&D 2 all the time when he was younger, he gained quite the experience with the game and when asking for help, it's easier to ask him and have a AD&D 2 view of things rather than try to find out how it works in 5th edition and having to read through long online argument because you can't find the info you need in the official books (I love to read but this is incredibly draining).

But, yeah, I see what you mean. Magic is all 5th edition already but I'll try to talk to them about switching our usual rules regarding things such as healing for their fifth edition counterpart

[Unoriginal]

like: why spend all your gold on healing potions when you can just take a long rest and be healed more effectively?

Because an healing potion is to heal you when "you can just take a long rest" isn't an option.

The Hobgoblin Warlord isn't going to wait for a PC group to stop for however how long they have to stop before they can long rest again + 8 more hours for the long rest itself out of politeness. ESPECIALLY if the combat has already started.

Adventurers can't just do:

Spoiler: Asterix Comic

Show

Furthermore, healing potions are more expensive and less practical than just having an healer teammate, but again, sometime they can't heal the person at the moment or not as much as needed, and that's where the healing potion matters.

Plus you can craft healing potions if you're proficient in the Herbalist's Kit, to make them cheaper.

[Segev]

Yeah, speaking as somebody who played 1e, 2e, and extensively played 3e, healing potions are...never something we spent much money on. Too expensive for too little healing. In 3.5, buying either healing belts from the MIC or buying wands of cure light wounds was much better for the top-up healing needed between fights and when camping for the night, if the healer was out of spell slots. Healing potions were primarily to bring the healer back up to consciousness or to allow the rare times when a warrior or rogue was isolated out of reach of the healer and needed the extra hp to make good his escape.

5e didn't change the utility of healing potions, except in making them a viable option to brew, yourself, for less expense, if you invest a proficiency in the right tool set.

[Demonslayer666]

Maybe you didn't cast it, but your Patron did.

[Joe the Rat]

Back in 3rd edition, warlocks could get an ability called "Baleful Utterance", which was described as "uttering a word of the Black Speech", and had the effect of breaking a nonmagical item. And, like 5e cantrips, it was at-will. Part of my warlock's schtick was that he didn't have full control of his powers, so I instructed the DM that whenever I used a certain made-up curse word, some random object in the vicinity should break. Sadly, the DM didn't play along.

I feel for you. Perfect setup for a running gag, then...

[LibraryOgre]

You do not cast that spell by accident; it's components are not just "being an *******." It does not directly say "You must choose to use this spell", but it DOES say "You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range."

You've got to put the enchantment in there. If it's just any mean talk... well, speaking is a free action. If I can use Vicious Mockery as a free action, y'all're gonna HATE IT.

EDIT: FWIW, I did do something similar to a Kender player, years ago. However, there were a couple distinct differences.
1) I warned him in advance that he would use his taunt ability if he started getting too mouthy
2) Taunt made people mad, not potentially killed them.