Allowing Vicious Mockery via telepathy

[Oofta]

This would be a cool ability for a fiend or aberration. But one of the drawbacks of the verbal component vs telepathic is that not only can your target hear you but so can everyone else. On that basis, would you allow Vicious Mockery in sign language?

Which goes back to the question - can you whisper verbal components? For this specific spell, could you whisper it in their ear?

The book doesn't really say anywhere that I know of, I've allowed it to be a "low mumble" in my campaigns. Something someone next to you could hear but not shouting out the words.

 

[Quartz]

I'm of the loud school. I suppose this dates back to when I played the Hero System and Incantations (-1/4 IIRC) was one limitation but a limitation had to actually be a limitation, automatically noticed by everyone nearby.

 

[posineg]

The target has to hear you, it does not need to understand you. That to me implies that the magic is carried by sound, not necessarily content.

I think that "Hear" is a invention of people who have sound. I could be wrong but is this the correct us of the word hear(past tense), "When the telepath spoke to me in my mind, I 'heard' his thoughts."?

 

[Galendril]

I think that "Hear" is a invention of people who have sound. I could be wrong but is this the correct us of the word hear(past tense), "When the telepath spoke to me in my mind, I 'heard' his thoughts."?

So a telepath never has to speak their spells? They just need to think them??

 

[posineg]

So a telepath never has to speak their spells? They just need to think them??

No one said the spells do not need to be spoken if they have a verbal component, only that if the effect of a spell needs to be "heard", a telepath should be able to effect a target by using telepathy since the target "hears" in there mind.

 

[MNblockhead]

I would be tempted to homebrew a rule that VERBAL components simply means WORDS must be used. These can be spoken, signed, written (on paper, the dirt, in the air), or thought. I would lead to some very flavorful variations of spell casting.

To avoid breaking the system TOO much, I might caveat this with the need for the words to connect with the target. That would be more limiting than RAW as the target need not hear your words according to RAW. Maybe a middle ground would be that the words must be manifested in the world, outside your mind somehow. Speaking them is one way, having them transmitted to another mind is another. It is not enough to think the words to yourself, they have to be transmitted outwards in some fashion.

Using sign-language for verbal components raises some interesting issues. First, they are different than somatic components. By signing verbal components you are spelling out words with your fingers--another Wizard who understood arcane sign-language would be able to vocalize them. Somatic are symbolic movements that communicate or interact with reality in ways beyond words. The deaf and mute should not be precluded from casting spells with verbal components. Would signing get in the way of somatic components? I would think that there would be ways for wizards to work out a system that allowed signing and somatic components.

All that said, I can see going the other way. Enforcing RAW, where "particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion." If you want to cast silently, be a sorcerer with subtle magic. Or become a bard and use a musical instrument or other performance art to weave magic. If you are a Wizard, and get you tongue cut out, well, that's a risk of the trade. It is also a good adventure hook for lower tier play. Your wizard gets his or her tongue cut out and must seek a cleric with sufficient power to cast regenerate.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So a telepath never has to speak their spells? They just need to think them??

You still have to babble the incantation. Just the deaf target isn't immune to suggestion because they still receive the command. It's a minor benefit of a ribbon ability that counters a minor fluff penalty of the spell (that doesnt matter 99.9% of the time). How often do you think this comes up to NOT just roll with a cool idea? Twice a campaign?

I swear some DM's look for any reason to say no...

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me it comes down to the character, not the mechanics.

Does it make sense for this particular character in this particular game to be able to Viciously Mock someone via telepathy? Is the telepathy an important aspect of the character? Does the player play the PC such that the telepathy is used intrusively, obnoxiously against other people? If that is the case, then yeah, I'd probably allow the PC to gain the mechanical benefits that come with that spell. Because it makes sense for this specific character to have developed this ability.

For other PCs? Ones for whom telepathy is barely used, inconsequential, or its use is treated very politely? Most likely, the player themself probably wouldn't even ask to try.

I am very much a story-first DM, and that any game mechanics are only used to enhance the story. I don't care at all about "consistency" of the game rules between PCs, between NPCs, or between sessions or most especially campaigns. So I'd never have any necessity or reason to worry about coming up with "one rule" for this situation that applies across the board forevermore. To me that's pointless. A Nature Cleric can gain a few extra specialized uses out of their nature spells that the war cleric cannot... even if both PCs are in the same game. Just like a telepathy-strong GOO warlock might use its telepathy differently than just a Evocation wizard who happens to have the Detect Thoughts spell as one of their myriad of abilities. And in each case, I'll see what has happened within the game, whether what the player tries or wants to do is effective and/or cool, and makes sense for the way the character has been played. If it does, then sure, I'll allow it no problem. Especially because I keep my eyes open for every PC and what they might accomplish later on, so its not like equality won't eventually find its way in the game.

 

[Oofta]

No one said the spells do not need to be spoken if they have a verbal component, only that if the effect of a spell needs to be "heard", a telepath should be able to effect a target by using telepathy since the target "hears" in there mind.

Except that vicious mockery's only component is verbal.

 

[Galendril]

For me it comes down to the character, not the mechanics.

Does it make sense for this particular character in this particular game to be able to Viciously Mock someone via telepathy? Is the telepathy an important aspect of the character? Does the player play the PC such that the telepathy is used intrusively, obnoxiously against other people? If that is the case, then yeah, I'd probably allow the PC to gain the mechanical benefits that come with that spell. Because it makes sense for this specific character to have developed this ability.

For other PCs? Ones for whom telepathy is barely used, inconsequential, or its use is treated very politely? Most likely, the player themself probably wouldn't even ask to try.

I am very much a story-first DM, and that any game mechanics are only used to enhance the story. I don't care at all about "consistency" of the game rules between PCs, between NPCs, or between sessions or most especially campaigns. So I'd never have any necessity or reason to worry about coming up with "one rule" for this situation that applies across the board forevermore. To me that's pointless. A Nature Cleric can gain a few extra specialized uses out of their nature spells that the war cleric cannot... even if both PCs are in the same game. Just like a telepathy-strong GOO warlock might use its telepathy differently than just a Evocation wizard who happens to have the Detect Thoughts spell as one of their myriad of abilities. And in each case, I'll see what has happened within the game, whether what the player tries or wants to do is effective and/or cool, and makes sense for the way the character has been played. If it does, then sure, I'll allow it no problem. Especially because I keep my eyes open for every PC and what they might accomplish later on, so its not like equality won't eventually find its way in the game.

It’s a given that each DM is empowered to rule as they like.