D&D 5E What's up with Vicious Mockery?

[orderofthings]

Honestly, this spell is just not something you're supposed to measure in numbers. I have a lot of fun reading your posts when you guys start talking about damage output and damage per round and all, but I don't think it's appropriate with this spell. The utility of the spell goes beyond a party vs. monsters scenario. You can cast this spell on the mayor in the middle of his speech and ruin his political career forever. You can cast this spell on the Redbrand Ruffians when they confront the party for the first time, and weaken their hold on Phandalin without the market erupting in a bloodbath.
Sometimes, you can't just blast everyone in the room with a fireball, or commit murder in public. That's why we have bards and used to have thieves in the party; to do things other than kill.
If you read this spell description and have to make a chart validating it's effectiveness in combat, you need to make another chart that shows versatility in non-combat scenarios compared to, say, thunderclap. Can you cast said spell on one guy in a crowded room? Can you cast it without alerting the people upstairs? Can you do it during a courtroom trial without getting thrown in jail?
Thunderclap; No, No, and No.
V-Mockery; Yes, Yes, and well... maybe get charged with contempt of court but it's better than attempted murder.

 

[Mick Miller]

All of my Vicious Mocks rhyme . . .

It was once known as a jumpoline
As splendid a thing as I’ve ever seen
Till your Mum in her bonnet
She leapt upon it
Ever since, it’s been a Trampoline

Or my favorite:

Oh if only I had just a little more time
I'd sing you oh such a rhyme
But I don't so I'm just gonna say, your father was an ogre and mum was fithy whore, you smelly fat bastard.

 

[Dausuul]

As others have said, it's a bit situational, but in the right situation it's golden. Against a large number of foes, it's worthless. But when you have one big foe that's laying down big damage with each attack, it really shines. Think of it like a spell that combines direct damage with healing.

I share the annoyance with the flavor of it. If I were playing a bard, I'd be tempted to nerf myself with a rule that vicious mockery can't take a creature below 1 hp. So it's sapping the target's will to survive and fight, but can't actually kill anything on its own.

(I would not impose such a nerf on a player in a game I was DMing, though. My annoyance does not rise to the level of "this thing gotta go," it's just the occasional sigh.)

 

[Blue]

Think like this: Say that Fire Giant's boulder will do 29 damage on a hit, and it has a 50/50 chance of hitting. So 14.5 expected damage. The disadvantage reduces it to a 25% chance to hit (yes, I did pick the best mathematical place for advantage, but with bounded accuracy it should in the range). So now expected 7.25 damage. So it's a cantrip that prevented ("healed") 7+ damage on average per round as well inflicting a bit of damage in return. Pretty good for an at-will resource usable while the bard is concentrating on some other debuff or crowd control spell.

 

[Hjorimir]

It fits the support role of the bard. Combine this with a Healing Word spell and you can really turn things around for an ally under the gun.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Think like this: Say that Fire Giant's boulder will do 29 damage on a hit, and it has a 50/50 chance of hitting. So 14.5 expected damage. The disadvantage reduces it to a 25% chance to hit (yes, I did pick the best mathematical place for advantage, but with bounded accuracy it should in the range). So now expected 7.25 damage. So it's a cantrip that prevented ("healed") 7+ damage on average per round as well inflicting a bit of damage in return. Pretty good for an at-will resource usable while the bard is concentrating on some other debuff or crowd control spell.

Nitpick: the best mathematical place for disadvantage is when the giant needs a 20. This reduces expected damage from 29/20 to 29/400. Or 1.45 to 0.0725. All depends on how you're defining "biggest".

/pedant

 

[TallIan]

Nitpick: the best mathematical place for disadvantage is when the giant needs a 20. This reduces expected damage from 29/20 to 29/400. Or 1.45 to 0.0725. All depends on how you're defining "biggest".

/pedant

I would define “biggest” as whatever reduces the damage I take the most.

If the attacker requires a 11 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -5 or 25% less damage if the attacker requires a 20 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -1* or 5% less damage.

So 10 damage becomes 7.5 damage or 20 (from the crit) damage becomes 19 damage.

*its actually a bit less but 1 is close enough for this example.

EDIT: see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?654979-The-math-of-Advantage-and-Disadvantage for a good explanation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would define “biggest” as whatever reduces the damage I take the most.

If the attacker requires a 11 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -5 or 25% less damage if the attacker requires a 20 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -1* or 5% less damage.

So 10 damage becomes 7.5 damage or 20 (from the crit) damage becomes 19 damage.

*its actually a bit less but 1 is close enough for this example.

EDIT: see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?654979-The-math-of-Advantage-and-Disadvantage for a good explanation.

Had you read the thread you linked fully, you might have noticed that I'm very active in it. I argue against the above interpretation as technically incorrect, but somewhat useful.

To hit you with disadvantage at a 2, my chances to hit go from 20/400 (1/20) to 39/400. That's a change of 19/400.

At a 11, the chance to hit go from 200/400 (1/2) to 100/400 (1/4). A difference of 100/400.

At a 20, the chances to hit go from 20/400 (1/20) to 399/400, a difference of 379/400.

Disadvantage has the largest effect at 20.

Parceling out damage as some fractional per round value is misleading. If you're hit by the giant, you don't take a fractional amount of the 29 damage. Dice do, over time, trend to the trend, but any given roll doesn't care what was last or what is next. So, at an 11, disadvantage halves your chance of being hit. That's nice. At a 20, though, it's almost 20 times lower. If you have the choice between giving disadvantage to a target number of 11 or one closer to 20, you'll always get more effect out of the higher target number. Any reduction is good, of course, so hitting the giant with disad when he's pounding on the mage is still a nice thing, but if you have the choice between having the mage hold the door while blurred or the fighter, the size of the "effect" is obvious.

 

[5ekyu]

I would define “biggest” as whatever reduces the damage I take the most.

If the attacker requires a 11 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -5 or 25% less damage if the attacker requires a 20 to hit the effect of disadvantage is essentially -1* or 5% less damage.

So 10 damage becomes 7.5 damage or 20 (from the crit) damage becomes 19 damage.

*its actually a bit less but 1 is close enough for this example.

EDIT: see http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?654979-The-math-of-Advantage-and-Disadvantage for a good explanation.

Agreed, outside of niche cases which really are not in doubt in the first place (need a nat 20 to do any dmg wont usually be a winning approach anywhere near as often as do more damage round after round).

Practically speaking ehst matters more often than not is how much you take (actual loss), not how much you reduced it (ratio).

I give this example...

If you get an offer with a redeemable code - buy a one dollar item you need for a dime or buy a ten dollar item you need for 7 dollars but you can only choose one with the code, which would you choose? The dollar deal gets you the "biggest ratio" (like the disad applied to need a 20) but the ten dollar deal saves you more money (like the disad on the 11 roll).

Most same folks would take the ten dollar deal in a heartbeat from any rational math based analysis decision or just common sense.

The niche case would be if there was a singularly vital reason that the one dollar item was critical to something more than it's one dollar value suggests.

But the beauty of this is when it comes to these discussions, math doesn't care what you believe so those who truly believe on faith the disad the 20 approach (as opposed to those who just use it for net trolling) and use it in their own decision making will get exactly what's coming to them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agreed, outside of niche cases which really are not in doubt in the first place (need a nat 20 to do any dmg wont usually be a winning approach anywhere near as often as do more damage round after round).

Practically speaking ehst matters more often than not is how much you take (actual loss), not how much you reduced it (ratio).

I give this example...

If you get an offer with a redeemable code - buy a one dollar item you need for a dime or buy a ten dollar item you need for 7 dollars but you can only choose one with the code, which would you choose? The dollar deal gets you the "biggest ratio" (like the disad applied to need a 20) but the ten dollar deal saves you more money (like the disad on the 11 roll).

Most same folks would take the ten dollar deal in a heartbeat from any rational math based analysis decision or just common sense.

The niche case would be if there was a singularly vital reason that the one dollar item was critical to something more than it's one dollar value suggests.

But the beauty of this is when it comes to these discussions, math doesn't care what you believe so those who truly believe on faith the disad the 20 approach (as opposed to those who just use it for net trolling) and use it in their own decision making will get exactly what's coming to them.

If you only have 5 dollars, there's only one deal you can take. It's not the best example, esoecially with your explanation, as it says that you should always take the 30% off. That's ironic, as you conclude that someone taking only the dime deal without considering the other is "getting what's coming to them." It would appear you're discounting options as well.

A better example would be if you are forced to bet 10 bucks in a game where you lose it on a certain chance. You can play two games: normal or double-shock power. You can get in the line to lose 1 in 20 times or 1 in 2 times. If you double-shock, the odds in the first go to 1 in 400 to lose, and the second go to 1 in 4.

The obvious choice is the 1 in 20 game. You keep your [-]hitpoints[/-] 10 dollars way more often. But, the reality is that the 1 in 20 game isn't open that often, so if you have to play, double-shocking the 1 in 2 game is a good play. You keep your [-]hitpoints[/-] dollars half again as often.