Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Augoeides" data-source="post: 6911876" data-attributes="member: 6690101">For the life of me, I cannot figure out why both of the Bard guides rate Vicious Mockery as gold and partly blue.<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?363601-Bardic-Lore-A-Basic-College-of-Lore-Bard-Guide" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?363601-Bardic-Lore-A-Basic-College-of-Lore-Bard-Guide</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468629-GUIDE-A-party-without-music-is-lame-A-Bard-Guide" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468629-GUIDE-A-party-without-music-is-lame-A-Bard-Guide</a>You're giving up your action for the round in order to give your opponent disadvantage on their next attack.&nbsp; Oh, and you do a pittance of damage.How is this any better than True Strike?&nbsp; You give up your action (and, thus, your guaranteed ability to do something useful) in order to give your opponent a _possibility_ of failing to do something useful (and only under specific circumstances (i.e. he doesn't have multiple attacks and isn't a caster)).&nbsp; The only scenario I can see where this would be useful is if you have a large adventuring party all attacking one opponent who gets only one attack per round and isn't a caster.Don't misunderstand.&nbsp; I fully grasp the roleplaying fun of this spell.&nbsp; But, mechanically?&nbsp; It seems like a loss.&nbsp; I don't believe that roleplaying should ever have to make up for mechanics.I could easily grasp VM's potential if it gave the opponent disadvantage in their attacks (one attack at levels 1-4, two attacks at levels 5-10, three attacks at levels 11-16, and four attacks at levels 17+) as long as those attacks are in the round following the casting of Vicious Mockery.I've seen comment by some players that Vicious Mockery, as written, is good enough.&nbsp; I'm just not grokking the rationale to make that claim.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Augoeides, post: 6911876, member: 6690101"] For the life of me, I cannot figure out why both of the Bard guides rate Vicious Mockery as gold and partly blue. [URL]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?363601-Bardic-Lore-A-Basic-College-of-Lore-Bard-Guide[/URL] [URL]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468629-GUIDE-A-party-without-music-is-lame-A-Bard-Guide[/URL] You're giving up your action for the round in order to give your opponent disadvantage on their next attack. Oh, and you do a pittance of damage. How is this any better than True Strike? You give up your action (and, thus, your guaranteed ability to do something useful) in order to give your opponent a _possibility_ of failing to do something useful (and only under specific circumstances (i.e. he doesn't have multiple attacks and isn't a caster)). The only scenario I can see where this would be useful is if you have a large adventuring party all attacking one opponent who gets only one attack per round and isn't a caster. Don't misunderstand. I fully grasp the roleplaying fun of this spell. But, mechanically? It seems like a loss. I don't believe that roleplaying should ever have to make up for mechanics. I could easily grasp VM's potential if it gave the opponent disadvantage in their attacks (one attack at levels 1-4, two attacks at levels 5-10, three attacks at levels 11-16, and four attacks at levels 17+) as long as those attacks are in the round following the casting of Vicious Mockery. I've seen comment by some players that Vicious Mockery, as written, is good enough. I'm just not grokking the rationale to make that claim. [/QUOTE]

Verification