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

Ovinomancer said:

Okay, then, simple question: you have two targets. The first needs an 11 to hit, the second a 20. You have disadvantage on your attacks. Who do you attack? Why?

Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 danage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1. Who do you attack now?

Click to expand...

It wasn't a response to me but i will answer you question as it shows exactly the point...

"you have two targets. The first needs an 11 to hit, the second a 20. You have disadvantage on your attacks. Who do you attack? Why?" The answer is if my goal is doing damage and doing the most damage, "i will attack the guy where i need the 11 - and the key bit is **that is the exact same answer it would be if roll was with advantage, normal or with disadvantage. Quite literally, the "disadvantage" on the 20 makes zero difference - it is meaningless - it is so trivial that the better move is to attack the guy with the 11. So, the disadvantage on the 20 guy is pointless - he would not be my target of choice. The disadvantage on the 11 guy, that will play a role since it will stop some hits and save some damage and save enough to outweigh the 20 guy.

Second part...

"Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 damage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1. Who do you attack now?"

Even with the dramatic shift if the stakes between them you throw in to make your case sound tempting, the answer is the same. Not gonna win on a 1 in 400 chance either way as a part of the strategy. So its better for me to go after the one in four guy for damage and let someone else deal with the 20 guy thru a save effect or something like a grapple or restrain.

Key being is this - the change in the results is not by the "increase in % of a hit" if shots are not being taken against them. if 19 out of 20 hits miss thats already so far moved into "dont bother - use different option" land that the disad is pointless. if 10 out of 20 hit, then shifting that to 5 out of 20 hit is well worth it.

It comes back to do you want to "spend an action" to stop a little less than one attack in 20 or do you want to spend your atteack to stop about 5 more attacks in 20?

Ovinomancer said:

Curiously, though, assuming ad arguendo tgat you're right and disadvantage is much, much more effective at 11 vice 20, would you give a cloak of displacement to a high AC fighter or to a low AC mage? Why? I'd bet you'd pick the fighter because it will seriously reduce his chance of being hit and he'll take the brunt of the attacks over a campaign. So, even here, the choice is also dependant on tge likelihood of being attacked -- you cannot say you'll get the best bang from the mage even assuming your argument holds because the mage will suffer many fewer attacks than the fighter.

Click to expand...

The cloak would go the the target who is the worst off based on two factors (all else equal):
Who is getting **hit by** the most attacks (not targeted by, hit by)?
Who is worse off at dealing with the damage they are taking (lower HP, no quick self-healing, no damage reductionetc)?

If those are the same character, its an obvious winner. if those point to different characters it will be a eyeballs judgement call to see who is helped the most.

A high Ac fighter with lots of Hp and bonus action action surge would likely not ever be the choice for that cloak - since he is already getting missed a lot, has a lot of HP and has a bonus action heal for when the few attacks that hit him start to add up.

again, the choice is made to reduce the damage we take by the largest amount, not to create the "greatest one character percentage change." if instead of the mage taking taking 100 it will help them take only 50 that is better than reducing the damage one character takes from 10 to 2 even tho that is an 80% reduction and the former a 50%.

But, hey, the beauty of this is - i do not have to convince you. I am really just speaking to others and i pretty much feel i have made my points as well as i can.

So, you have the floor. i am done with this particular back and forth with these two posts.

Ovinomancer said:

That's my point -- choice matters. If you can choose, the @20 gets more from disadvantage. Frex, to get a 50% probability to kill the target in X attacks, a normal @11 needs to have 3x the hitpoints of an @20. Add in disadvantage and the @11 needs 398 times the hitpoints. If you can choose to put out an @20 disadvantage target or an @11 dusadvantage target, which will you choose? The @20 because the effective multiplier to hitpoints is staggeringly larger.

Click to expand...

No I would choose to disadvantage the @11 because the actual HP I would likely loose is larger. I dont care about the multiplier, I care about the actual HPs lost

That's the issue, really. You're confusing the base cases with tge disadvantage cases. You see that you lose half as much of a big number vs 200 times less of a smaller number and think that bigger is better. You've confused the fact that an 11 is worse than a 20 normally (you lose 10 times more hitpoints @11 than @20 normally) and think that the big differences are because of disadvantage when they're 10x off on the baseline. In reality, disadvantage halves the lose @11, and reduces it by a factor of 20 @20. So, which is the bigger effect? Reducing a number by 1/2 or 1/20? Clearly, it's 1/20.

Click to expand...

Again, my HPs are measured in absolute values NOT percentages or multipliers. Bigger IS better in this case, I don't care if I reduce 4 HPs to 1 I care that I reduce 60 HPs to 30. The loss if 3 HPs is insignificant, even though it is only 1/4 of what I could have lost, I could probably move straight into the next combat. The loss of 30 HPs is more significant, I will probably haave to spend healing potions or spells or take a short rest to get some of those 30 back before I can move onto the next combat.

Disadvantage has the largest effect at 20. If you can choose which target number gets used with disadvantage, it's obvious you'd choose the 20. Hence my statements to that effect. If you want to say that the guy with a target to be hit of @11 will taje more damage than the gal with @20, you don't need disadvantage to tell you this. Disadvantage, by having the largest effect where you're already taking less damage, will not tell you differently -- it's still better to have a high AC with disadvantage than a low AC with disadvantage, just like it's normally better to have a high AC over a low one.

Click to expand...

No it's not, if I had two opponents one requiring 20 to hit and one requiring 11 I would disadvantage the 11 to hit, because the 20 is so unlikely to hit anyway.

If you're making holistic choices in encounters as to use of resources, then you're taking into account much more than largest effect. If you're baseline assumption that putting disadvantage on the low AC is better, you'll be disappointed by results a lot of the time. If you assumption is the high AC is best, you'll also be disappointed. Tactical choices must be made at the time. That doesn't impinge, though, on where disadvantage has the largest effect.

Click to expand...

I was trying to show you why the higher number or lost HPs at 11+ is more important the the higher ratio of lost HP at 20. HPs area resource like anything else, trading one resource for another (HPs for spell slots) is part of the management of the game. When is best to do one thing depends on when that thing saves you the most resources. The tactical choices to be made are dependent on when that choice is best and when it is worst, because when the choice offers the least value better tactics dictate a different choice.

OverlordOcelot said:

Con save instead of wis is pretty huge, especially since the creatures that tend to have high HP and 1-2 big attacks like giants or purple worms, who are good targets for giving disadvantage, also tend to have really high con saves. It seems a little biased to list 'does an average of 1 point per tier more damage' as a major advantage while treating 'goes against the best saves of the targets you're likely to use it on' and 'is more resisted' as minor disadvantages, when one of them halves the damage when it happens and the other makes it

Click to expand...

The problem that I've found in practice when using Vicious Mockery against big, dumb heavy hitters - which is where you'd think it would be the most effective - (such as the zombie t-rex in ToA) is that while they're likely to fail the Wis save, they're also likely to land attacks even with disadvantage due to really heavy melee attack bonuses (like +10). Disadvantage isn't that great against something that is going to connect with an attack roll of like 5 or higher. Basically, I do think it's a pretty great cantrip in tier one, but it hits the wall HARD at tier two.

5ekyu said:

It wasn't a response to me but i will answer you question as it shows exactly the point...

"you have two targets. The first needs an 11 to hit, the second a 20. You have disadvantage on your attacks. Who do you attack? Why?" The answer is if my goal is doing damage and doing the most damage, "i will attack the guy where i need the 11 - and the key bit is **that is the exact same answer it would be if roll was with advantage, normal or with disadvantage. Quite literally, the "disadvantage" on the 20 makes zero difference - it is meaningless - it is so trivial that the better move is to attack the guy with the 11. So, the disadvantage on the 20 guy is pointless - he would not be my target of choice. The disadvantage on the 11 guy, that will play a role since it will stop some hits and save some damage and save enough to outweigh the 20 guy.

Click to expand...

So, disadvantage in this case has no effect on your decision making at all. That cuts both ways, though. Having a 20 target number is already a big enough effect that it doesn't matter if you have disadvantage or not on the 11. Disadvantage on the 20 jut makes it even worse of an option (20 times worse, actually).

So, then, what would you say to attacking a target needing an 11 with disadvantage vs needing a 12? Which would you pick? According to you, the 11 is the largest effect with 12 slightly smaller, so you should pick the 12, right? No, clearly not.

Second part...

"Now, imagine a second layer. You hit for 10 damage. The @11 has 200 hitpoints, the @1 has 1. Who do you attack now?"

Even with the dramatic shift if the stakes between them you throw in to make your case sound tempting, the answer is the same. Not gonna win on a 1 in 400 chance either way as a part of the strategy. So its better for me to go after the one in four guy for damage and let someone else deal with the 20 guy thru a save effect or something like a grapple or restrain.

Click to expand...

Right, as I said, you're making tactical claims based on adding more information rather than looking at disadvantage alone to make your claims. Disadvantage has it's largest effect at 20, but that doesn't mean that the largest tactical effect in any given situation with a host of other options and conditions wouldn't favor a different choice (and it could often do so). This doesn't change the fact that the effect of disadvantage is largest at 20 ceteris paribus.

Key being is this - the change in the results is not by the "increase in % of a hit" if shots are not being taken against them. if 19 out of 20 hits miss thats already so far moved into "dont bother - use different option" land that the disad is pointless. if 10 out of 20 hit, then shifting that to 5 out of 20 hit is well worth it.

It comes back to do you want to "spend an action" to stop a little less than one attack in 20 or do you want to spend your atteack to stop about 5 more attacks in 20?

Click to expand...

As I noted above, the LD50 point for @20disad with 10 hitpoints is 277 attacks. LD50 for @11disad with 200 hitpoints is 78 attacks. Even giving @11 the advantage of 20x hitpoints, the average time to death is almost 1/4 that of @20. Yet you persist in claiming that the effect of disadvantage is maximized at 11 even though you still know that attacking the @11 is the best strategy even with a 20x hitpoint advantage. You acknowledge this in the examples above, but still say that the impact is larger at 11 despite choosing otherwise.

5ekyu said:

The cloak would go the the target who is the worst off based on two factors (all else equal):
Who is getting **hit by** the most attacks (not targeted by, hit by)?
Who is worse off at dealing with the damage they are taking (lower HP, no quick self-healing, no damage reductionetc)?

If those are the same character, its an obvious winner. if those point to different characters it will be a eyeballs judgement call to see who is helped the most.

A high Ac fighter with lots of Hp and bonus action action surge would likely not ever be the choice for that cloak - since he is already getting missed a lot, has a lot of HP and has a bonus action heal for when the few attacks that hit him start to add up.

again, the choice is made to reduce the damage we take by the largest amount, not to create the "greatest one character percentage change." if instead of the mage taking taking 100 it will help them take only 50 that is better than reducing the damage one character takes from 10 to 2 even tho that is an 80% reduction and the former a 50%.

But, hey, the beauty of this is - i do not have to convince you. I am really just speaking to others and i pretty much feel i have made my points as well as i can.

So, you have the floor. i am done with this particular back and forth with these two posts.

Click to expand...

Okay, mage with 15 AC with cloak and 30 hitpoints (5th level +2 con) versus giant (+8 to hit, 21 damage per hit, 2 attacks). LD50 (average #rounds before 50% of trails result in death) is 3 (normal is 2). The cloak extends the mage 1 round. Nice.

Fighter with 21 AC (plate, shield, defense style) with cloak and 42 hitpoints versus giant (+8 to hit, 21 damage per hit, 2 attacks). LD50 is 9 rounds (normal is 4 rounds).

So, yes, you're right, a high AC high hitpoints character will likely last longer than a low AC low hitpoint character normally. But, in the above example, disadvantage improves the life expectancy of your primary choice by 6 seconds vs a level appropriate foe. With the fighter, they will naturally last longer in the fight, but the LD50 is doubled. And this is using target numbers of 7 for the mage and 13 for the fighter. If you want to push the 11 is bestest, the LD 50 for the mage with a 19 AC is from 3 normally to 6 rounds with disadvantage. The mage lasts 1 round less than the fighter at normal and 3 rounds less at disadvantage. The margin is less as well (+3 rounds vs +4 rounds), and this is an 11 vs a 13.

The impact of disadvantage is mathematically largest at 20. Period. Other factors may change the tactical choices made (and often do). In the above, the cloak marginally increases the average mage's ability to absorb damage while is very much increases the average fighter's ability to stay in the fighter, and that's over a much smaller range than 11 to 20.

TallIan said:

No I would choose to disadvantage the @11 because the actual HP I would likely loose is larger. I dont care about the multiplier, I care about the actual HPs lost

Click to expand...

I'm thinking you might have misunderstood the question because your answer doesn't make sense. You're 100 times more likely to be hit @11 than @20 (100/400 / 1/400 = 100) meaning you will lose 100 times the hitpoints. Sure, you'll "save" (1/2 / 1/20) 10 times the number of hitpoints by not being hit than @20 (because @20 normal is hit less anyway), but you'll still lose 100 times as many hitpoints.

If you only focus on hp "saved" while ignoring that you're still losing hitpoints at a rate 100 times faster, you're going to have the wrong view of things.

Again, my HPs are measured in absolute values NOT percentages or multipliers. Bigger IS better in this case, I don't care if I reduce 4 HPs to 1 I care that I reduce 60 HPs to 30. The loss if 3 HPs is insignificant, even though it is only 1/4 of what I could have lost, I could probably move straight into the next combat. The loss of 30 HPs is more significant, I will probably haave to spend healing potions or spells or take a short rest to get some of those 30 back before I can move onto the next combat.

Click to expand...

Um, no. I will lose more hitpoints @11 with disadvantage than I will @20 with disadvantage (or without, for that matter). You've confused the biggest delta for the biggest effect. @20 disad almost eliminates hitpoint loss. It is massively more efficient at preserving hitpoints than disadvantage @11.

No it's not, if I had two opponents one requiring 20 to hit and one requiring 11 I would disadvantage the 11 to hit, because the 20 is so unlikely to hit anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes. Now, think on that and realize that it's the fundamental answer -- @20 is better at preventing damage than @11. So much so that you're obviously inclined to avoid hard to hit targets in favor of easier to hit targets, regardless of the hp "saved" in that equation.

I was trying to show you why the higher number or lost HPs at 11+ is more important the the higher ratio of lost HP at 20. HPs area resource like anything else, trading one resource for another (HPs for spell slots) is part of the management of the game. When is best to do one thing depends on when that thing saves you the most resources. The tactical choices to be made are dependent on when that choice is best and when it is worst, because when the choice offers the least value better tactics dictate a different choice.

Click to expand...

Let's test this idea. I have 100 hitpoints. @11, I get hit 1/2 the time for, let's say, 10 hitpoints a whack. In 20 attacks, I'm likely to be hit 10 times, losing all my hitpoints. If I get disadvantage, I'll only be hit 5 times, "saving" 50 hitpoints! Aweomse! (and this is awesome, it's a good thing)

Now, if I'm the same but @20, I'll get hit once for 10 hitpoints. If I have disadvantage, the vast likelihood is that I'll not be hit at all, thereby saving all 100 of my hitpoints.

@11 I'm still losing 50 hitpoints. @20, I'm losing no hitpoints. The argument that disadvantage "saves" 50 hitpoints and that makes it better than the 10 @20 is fatuous and like saying that going out and buying something on sale is somehow "saving" money. You're still spending, just at a lower rate. And the difference between @11 is like getting a 50% off coupon vs @20 being a 99.9975% off coupon and saying that you're "saving" more with the 50% off coupon.

There are still many, many times where it makes sense to apply disadvantage to a lower target number versus a higher one, but that's contextual, not baseline. Fundamentally, disadvantage has the largest effect at 20, although you may get more use out of it elsewhere in actual play because many other factors obtain.

Ovinomancer said:

Um, no. I will lose more hitpoints @11 with disadvantage than I will @20 with disadvantage (or without, for that matter). You've confused the biggest delta for the biggest effect. @20 disad almost eliminates hitpoint loss. It is massively more efficient at preserving hitpoints than disadvantage @11.

Click to expand...

Isn't the biggest delta what we are looking for? Where does imposing disadvantage on incoming attacks have the biggest effect? Where do I not lose the most HPs? Not HPs in proportion to what I could have lost, total HPs lost.

Yes. Now, think on that and realize that it's the fundamental answer -- @20 is better at preventing damage than @11. So much so that you're obviously inclined to avoid hard to hit targets in favor of easier to hit targets, regardless of the hp "saved" in that equation.

Click to expand...

I think that I wasn't clear on this. I would apply disadvantage to the @11+ because I think this would do more damage to me. Implying that I feel that disadvantage @11+ is more effective that disadvantage @20.

Let's test this idea. I have 100 hitpoints. @11, I get hit 1/2 the time for, let's say, 10 hitpoints a whack. In 20 attacks, I'm likely to be hit 10 times, losing all my hitpoints. If I get disadvantage, I'll only be hit 5 times, "saving" 50 hitpoints! Aweomse! (and this is awesome, it's a good thing)

Now, if I'm the same but @20, I'll get hit once for 10 hitpoints. If I have disadvantage, the vast likelihood is that I'll not be hit at all, thereby saving all 100 of my hitpoints.

Click to expand...

ummm no, if I reduce one hit of 10 damage to not being hit* I have not taken 10 damage I have not saved 100HP, just 10.

In the eg you give,
@11+ I will be dead at the end of combat I have lost 100 HP
@11+ DIS I will survive 20 rounds of combat with 50 HP at the end - not quite enough to go for another round
@20 I will survive the combat with 90 HP - plenty of HP left to carry on fighting
@20 DIS I will survive the combat with 100HP - plenty of HP left to carry on fighting

So in both cases of @20 I come out of the combat almost without a scratch.
In the first casae of @11+ I'm in no shape to carry on - I'm dead
In the second case of @11+ I could, with a bit of luck or a healing potion, go another round

@11 I'm still losing 50 hitpoints. @20, I'm losing no hitpoints. The argument that disadvantage "saves" 50 hitpoints and that makes it better than the 10 @20 is fatuous and like saying that going out and buying something on sale is somehow "saving" money. You're still spending, just at a lower rate. And the difference between @11 is like getting a 50% off coupon vs @20 being a 99.9975% off coupon and saying that you're "saving" more with the 50% off coupon.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm still losing 50HP, but I'm not losing the other 50 as well, I still have 50HP to carry on doing stuff. Losing 10 HPs leaves me with 90 HPs to do stuff. Not losing 10 HPs is certainly better than losing them, but not as nice as not losing 50. I would not be doing anything different if I have 90/100 HP compared to the action I would take if I had 100/100HP. I would be doing things very differently if I had 1/100 HP.

Think of it this way, if they both attacked you, without disadvantage, you'll die
If you impose disadvantage only on the @20, you die - the 11+ still does 100 damage.
If you impose disadvantage on the @11+ you will walk away with 40 HP

So which of those three have the biggest change to the outcome?

*I know it's not actually 0 but its close enough for this argument

Chaosmancer said:

That's honestly one of my only complaints with the cantrip. How the heck do I work in something literally dying from being insulted. It's hilarious on one hand, but I can't ever come up with a good rationale for it. Except suicide, which tends to be a downer at the table.

Click to expand...

It's less the words, but the psychic damage behind it. Bards are silver-tongued, their words are empowered with magic.

But one I've thought about comes from too much Honor Harrington, characters are always commenting that someone got so enraged that might just drop dead of apoplexy, ie. a rage-induced stroke.

My next Bard is going to flavor Vicious Mockery as horrible Dad puns. We'll see how long that character lasts.

TallIan said:

Isn't the biggest delta what we are looking for? Where does imposing disadvantage on incoming attacks have the biggest effect? Where do I not lose the most HPs? Not HPs in proportion to what I could have lost, total HPs lost.

Click to expand...

No, and that's been my point. You're caught up on "big delta must mean best" but it just means big delta. It's like saying that you've saved more money because you bought a $100 item for 50% off than if you didn't buy it at all. The biggest delta there is the 50% off versus none off, but you didn't save any money at all in the first case, and $100 in the second. The biggest effect is the second one.

I think that I wasn't clear on this. I would apply disadvantage to the @11+ because I think this would do more damage to me. Implying that I feel that disadvantage @11+ is more effective that disadvantage @20.

Click to expand...

Why would you imply what you feel? Why not just say it? Sorry, weird pet peeve quirk. Carry on.

Again, I think you misunderstand the question? The question was not about you, but about which target you'd rather attack -- @11 with disadvantage or @20 with disadvantage. You answered this question the first time (I thought) but now it seems you're trying to answer a different question? Given @11 with or without disadvantage is an easier target than @20 without (much less with), I'm pointing out that @11 with disadvantage cannot be that large of a benefit because it's the obviously better choice of whom to attack.

To further this question, would you rather attack a foe where you need an 11 with disadvantage or a 12 with disadvantage? Why? I think that the answer here will be pointing in the direction I'm going. (To answer my own hypothetical, it should be obvious that attacking the 11 is preferable to the 12 because of the higher hit chance.)

ummm no, if I reduce one hit of 10 damage to not being hit* I have not taken 10 damage I have not saved 100HP, just 10.

Click to expand...

Sigh. My wife feels the same way. She says she's saved me money because she bought whatever on sale. I point out that you've saved nothing because you actually spent money. The same applies here. If I take 10 damage, I've spent 10 hitpoints. If I take no damage, I don't save 10 hitpoints, I've saved all of my hitpoints because I haven't spent any at all -- I still have every one of them. Similarly, if I spend all of my hitpoints, I haven't saved any (obviously). If I spend half of them, I also haven't saved any -- I've spent half of them.

In the eg you give,
@11+ I will be dead at the end of combat I have lost 100 HP
@11+ DIS I will survive 20 rounds of combat with 50 HP at the end - not quite enough to go for another round
@20 I will survive the combat with 90 HP - plenty of HP left to carry on fighting
@20 DIS I will survive the combat with 100HP - plenty of HP left to carry on fighting

So in both cases of @20 I come out of the combat almost without a scratch.
In the first casae of @11+ I'm in no shape to carry on - I'm dead
In the second case of @11+ I could, with a bit of luck or a healing potion, go another round

Click to expand...

Sure. Now go 40 rounds. Which is better now? 60 rounds. 100 rounds. There's only one choice that has the possibility to last 100 rounds, and it's not 11.

Yes, I'm still losing 50HP, but I'm not losing the other 50 as well, I still have 50HP to carry on doing stuff. Losing 10 HPs leaves me with 90 HPs to do stuff. Not losing 10 HPs is certainly better than losing them, but not as nice as not losing 50. I would not be doing anything different if I have 90/100 HP compared to the action I would take if I had 100/100HP. I would be doing things very differently if I had 1/100 HP.

Click to expand...

How many resources do you use to correct the 50 hitpoints spent vs the none spent? You spend far more resources to keep an 11 up than a 20 -- the overall cost is much, much higher. But you still say it's better despite admitting that you're down half your hitpoints and have to spend healing potions vs not having to do that at all because you got a bigger discount at the damage shop?

Weird.

Think of it this way, if they both attacked you, without disadvantage, you'll die
If you impose disadvantage only on the @20, you die - the 11+ still does 100 damage.
If you impose disadvantage on the @11+ you will walk away with 40 HP

So which of those three have the biggest change to the outcome?

Click to expand...

Wait, what? I'm confused. Are you trying to propose a situation where 2 creatures are attacking you simultaneously where one needs an 11 to hit you and the other needs a 20? And you're saying that since the 20 will rarely hit you anyway, the biggest reduction in incoming damage is to disadvantage the 11? Sure, totally agree. This is that tactical thing that I was talking about where a specific situation leads to a choice that makes sense within that situation. This isn't an underlying feature of the biggest effect of disadvantage, though, it's the specific tactical situation you're proposing -- 2 opponents, one inept and one fearsome. This also touches on the other point I was making about situational choices -- you cannot choose the 11 or the 20 only. If you could, you'd clearly choose the 20 by itself. So, in that sense, the biggest effect is still at 20 as it reduces your total incoming damage to nearly zero -- no resources used on your part. But, since you cannot choose, you have to weigh the entirety of the situation, and, indeed, in this situation you'll get the best use out of disadvantaging the fearsome opponent vs the inept one.

Turn this around, though, and ask if you have two party members, one hit on an 11 and one hit on a 20, and you can pick one to stand in the door and hold off a big monster or horde from the rest of you, which will you pick? Clearly the 20 and not the 11. Situation matters. But, as far as largest mathematical effect, it remains with the 20 as it reduces incoming hits by a factor of almost 200 versus a factor of 2 at 11. End point.