I'm wondering whether bystanders can tell when Vicious Mockery is being used, as opposed to just mundane insults. Is there any kind of visual effect that goes with it (i.e. magical glowing energy or anything)? The description only says, "you unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range."
Here's the reason I'm asking: I was thinking of creating a Sorcerer with the Magic Initiate feat to get the Vicious Mockery cantrip. Then, combining that with "Subtle Spell" metamagic, it seems like you could just give someone nasty looks to inflict psychic damage. Would other people be able to tell that something was happening? Would the target of the silent Vicious Mockery know where it came from?
To me, "subtle enchantments" from the description would suggest that Vicious Mockery isn't obvious as magic to observers, but is there any kind of official-ish ruling/reference on this? Or is it just up to the GM's discretion?
It's up to DM vicious mockery is a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments. It's a spell with verbal components only, which says most spells require the chanting of mystic words but it might not necessarily be the case here.
As for awareness, the spell has perceptible effect as part of it's description since you unleash insults, so again up to DM if they would be somewhat nonverbal due to a Subtle Spell feature or just the chanting of mystic words. There's this piece of Sage Advice Compendium too if it may be of interest to you;
Do you always know when you’re under the effect of a spell? You’re aware that a spell is affecting you if it has a perceptible effect or if its text says you’re aware of it (see PH, 204, under “Targets”). Most spells are obvious. For example, fireball burns you, cure wounds heals you, and command forces you to suddenly do something you didn’t intend. Certain spells are more subtle, yet you become aware of the spell at a time specified in the spell’s description. Charm person and detect thoughts are examples of such spells. Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found. It’s ultimately up to the DM whether you discover the presence of inconspicuous spells. Discovery usually comes through the use of skills like Arcana, Investigation, Insight, and Perception or through spells like detect magic.
From Jeremy Crawford: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
Vicious Mockery has only a "V" component but the "V" (or vocal) component is NOT merely the insults. As per Sage Advice: "Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect." HOWEVER, Vicious Mockery notes: "You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments". This suggests the subtlety of the verbal components is actually built into the spell casting and that specific rule in Vicious Mockery would overrule the general rule of mystic words being separate and preceding the insults.
Obviously a Sorcerer's Subtle Spell can remove the Verbal component which would mean only the insult would not even be laced with those "subtle enchantments" to detect. Sage Advice notes: "If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast". So if there WAS a chance to detect the spell with mundane means then it is gone completely with Subtle Spell.
HOWEVER, it is a little debatable if Subtle Spell removes the need to utter the insult. Spells such as Command and Suggestion still require the actual Command or Suggestion being made to be heard by the target but as per Vicious Mockery, the insults and the mystic words are inter-twined and the spell is a psychic spell. But, as Vicious Mockery goes on to note: "If the target can hear you". I believe this would overrule the idea that the insult can be delivered with no verbal insult at all, else you could give the nasty look in a zone of silence... But that doesn't mean people notice you cast a spell when you insulted them.
The effects of a spell are impossible to hide. If you cast a fireball, they might not notice the casting but they'll notice the big boom that follows. If you cast command, they might have more trouble but if someone is told to kneel and they do so out of complete compulsion its up to the DM to examine the circumstances and determine if the target might believe they would follow the command to kneel before thinking or if they understand it could only have happend by magical compulsion. Suggestion would be even more difficult to pick up since the very suggestion must seem reasonable, but there's still an element of compulsion and other guards might notice if their squad leader is told those are not the droids they're looking for and takes that suggestion without question. In the case of Vicious Mockery, it's psychic damage. We know from the Rogue Soulkife that psychic damage leaves not evidence of the damage it causes so then it will be up to the DM if the target understands they have been damaged and impacted so heavily by the insult that it must be by magical means. Here, the DM might roll Arcana, Insight or simply let them understand that the insult must have carried mystical power, despite no sign of casting.
In my games, one of the core characteristics of the world is that magic is obvious. THe gestures and words of magic are so different to normal speech that all onlookers know that something mystical is happening. Something like of the orange runes of the spellcasters in the Marvel movies, for example.
The subtle spell sorcerer ability is something major, a big, powerful feature that only that class gets.
Vicious Mockery goes on to note: "If the target can hear you". I believe this would overrule the idea that the insult can be delivered with no verbal insult at all, else you could give the nasty look in a zone of silence... But that doesn't mean people notice you cast a spell when you insulted them.
That's a good point, if the target needs to be able to hear you, then it can't be completely silent. Thanks.
I think it comes back to the idea that the Verbal component for casting the spell is mystic words which are recognizable as such. When casting suggestion, command or vicious mockery - these spells have a Verbal component to elicit the magic PLUS something said verbally to give instructions. Depending on the DM, subtle spell meta magic might remove the mystic Verbal component but it doesn't provide a way to transfer the knowledge of what the caster wants the spell to do to the target.
As a result, vicious mockery would still require insults that the target would hear, command would require a one word statement of what the caster wants the target to do and Suggestion would be a couple of sentences suggesting a course of action. None of these would appear magical to outside observers.
However, after the spell is cast, the effects of the spell may be noticed. In the case of Vicious Mockery, it does psychic damage. The damage is coordinated with the insults that were part of the spell. Even if the target didn't notice a spell being cast they might reasonably deduce that someone cast a spell on them - quite possibly who ever was insulting them somehow.
This all is very DM dependent though so you might want to ask how the specific DM would run it.
This isn't RAW or anything... RAW if you cast a spell and the spell description doesn't overtly state that it works around it, everyone around you knows that you cast a spell. However, because of the word "Subtle" in the spell's description, I've always ruled it that anyone unfamiliar with spellcasting won't notice you casting the spell. However, any experienced spellcasters would notice the distinct cadence and delivery of your insult deals damage, and the person who took the damage knows that something happened... they don't just assume that they got a random headache out of nowhere.
This isn't RAW or anything... RAW if you cast a spell and the spell description doesn't overtly state that it works around it, everyone around you knows that you cast a spell. However, because of the word "Subtle" in the spell's description, I've always ruled it that anyone unfamiliar with spellcasting won't notice you casting the spell. However, any experienced spellcasters would notice the distinct cadence and delivery of your insult deals damage, and the person who took the damage knows that something happened... they don't just assume that they got a random headache out of nowhere.
Even if people can’t specifically recognize an incantation, in a setting where magic is known to exist people are probably more likely than not to assume that brief string of otherwise nonsense you just said was something magical. Plus, on a more meta level, no cantrip is meant to be a nearly undetectable assassination tool.
The subtle spell sorcerer ability is something major, a big, powerful feature that only that class gets.
Please consider this in your rulings. Metamagic is basically the only class feature a sorcerer gets and for much of the game they only get two of them. It would be incredibly discouraging to give up a different option for Subtle Spell and then be told it doesn't work.
Just because the target has the ability to hear you doesn't mean it must hear the casting of this spell. A dirty look would work, but the target would be inexplicably protected if they were deafened or in an area of silence.
The subtle spell sorcerer ability is something major, a big, powerful feature that only that class gets.
Please consider this in your rulings. Metamagic is basically the only class feature a sorcerer gets and for much of the game they only get two of them. It would be incredibly discouraging to give up a different option for Subtle Spell and then be told it doesn't work.
100x this. Letting other classes sneaky casting of spells is a serious nerf to sorcerer.
Please consider this in your rulings. Metamagic is basically the only class feature a sorcerer gets and for much of the game they only get two of them. It would be incredibly discouraging to give up a different option for Subtle Spell and then be told it doesn't work.
But then again, if there's no sorcerer in the party, then nobody is being shortchanged.
It's up to DM vicious mockery is a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments. It's a spell with verbal components only, which says most spells require the chanting of mystic words but it might not necessarily be the case here.
I don't know if a bystander would know you are casting a spell, but I imagine they would be able to hear the caster's string of insults that are delivered loud enough for the target to hear them and be affected by the spell. I think we should expect that the bystander would hear you insulting the target if they are roughly as close to the caster as the target is.
Please consider this in your rulings. Metamagic is basically the only class feature a sorcerer gets and for much of the game they only get two of them. It would be incredibly discouraging to give up a different option for Subtle Spell and then be told it doesn't work.
But then again, if there's no sorcerer in the party, then nobody is being shortchanged.
Regardless of party composition you're giving a player a perk that is by RAW mostly reserved for one class using a limited resource to achieve and ignoring the rule that a spell with a V or S component is meant to be identifiable as a spell when you cast it. It is a deliberate aspect of the design that spells are not easy to hide. Each DM can do what they want at their table, of course, but it is undercutting the intended function of spells.
But the whole crux of the argument is that we, as DMs, are trying not to make the game less fun for the sorcerer by letting someone else do their thing for free. If there's no sorcerer, then nobody is having less fun. I don't think Dungeons and Dragons is such a delicately balanced house of cards that everything falls apart if the DM allows the caster to mask his vicious mockery as a string of hurled invective. RAW says verbal components have some degree of volume to them. This application is consistent with that requirement.
If you're asking me, I would say it would work as normal because the counterspell caster would see them casting a spell with a verbal component. Nothing about casting vicious mockery and having the insults be the same as verbal component would make the verbal component less detectable for the purposes of counterspell than casting any other spell with a verbal component. I hope I did not give the impression I was suggesting otherwise. If anything, I was agreeing with what Transmorpher said. The average NPC bystander, who I assume has no background with magic, might not be able to tell the difference between the insults and a spell being cast with those insults, but someone considering countering the mockery with counterspell would.
So how would Counterspell work with all of these shenanigans?
The Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by SubtleSpell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
If a sorcerer casts a spell with only verbal or somatic components using Subtle Spell, can an opponent use counterspell against it? If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast. So, since you can’t see the casting, counterspell is of no use.
There's spell casting and spell effect, the Subtle Spell feature only affect the spell component during casting. Any spell effect afterward aren't more or less subtle than normal and as part of vicious mockery's effect you unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature that will be affected if it can hear you, suggesting that while the enchantments are subtle, the insult are sound based.
What could prevent the spell effect would be if the target was deafened or otherwise unable to hear the caster somehow.
This Sage Advice Compendium Q&A clarify that the verbal component is separate from any verbal utterance coming after in a spell’s effect, which means that vicious mockery are mystic words before telling a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments.
Is the sentence of suggestion in the suggestion spell the verbal component, or is the verbal component separate?
Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect.
I feel like there's a difference between demonstrating that they are not the same thing and discussing whether the average NPC would be able to tell the difference.
I feel like there's a difference between demonstrating that they are not the same thing and discussing whether the average NPC would be able to tell the difference.
A V component is not meant to be something you can pass off as “normal” speech. An average NPC is probably not going to be able to parse the particulars of an incantation, but given that the existence of magic is typically a commonly acknowledged fact of life in D&D settings, they will typically recognize/assume that you were casting a spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm wondering whether bystanders can tell when Vicious Mockery is being used, as opposed to just mundane insults. Is there any kind of visual effect that goes with it (i.e. magical glowing energy or anything)? The description only says, "you unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature you can see within range."
Here's the reason I'm asking: I was thinking of creating a Sorcerer with the Magic Initiate feat to get the Vicious Mockery cantrip. Then, combining that with "Subtle Spell" metamagic, it seems like you could just give someone nasty looks to inflict psychic damage. Would other people be able to tell that something was happening? Would the target of the silent Vicious Mockery know where it came from?
To me, "subtle enchantments" from the description would suggest that Vicious Mockery isn't obvious as magic to observers, but is there any kind of official-ish ruling/reference on this? Or is it just up to the GM's discretion?
It's up to DM vicious mockery is a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments. It's a spell with verbal components only, which says most spells require the chanting of mystic words but it might not necessarily be the case here.
As for awareness, the spell has perceptible effect as part of it's description since you unleash insults, so again up to DM if they would be somewhat nonverbal due to a Subtle Spell feature or just the chanting of mystic words. There's this piece of Sage Advice Compendium too if it may be of interest to you;
Its ultimately up to the DM if you DO notice it.
From Jeremy Crawford: "Do you notice a spell being cast? The answer is based on whether you noticed any of the spellcasting components: V, S, or M."
Vicious Mockery has only a "V" component but the "V" (or vocal) component is NOT merely the insults. As per Sage Advice: "Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech. The spell’s suggestion is an intelligible utterance that is separate from the verbal component. The command spell is the simplest example of this principle. The utterance of the verbal component is separate from, and precedes, any verbal utterance that would bring about the spell’s effect." HOWEVER, Vicious Mockery notes: "You unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments". This suggests the subtlety of the verbal components is actually built into the spell casting and that specific rule in Vicious Mockery would overrule the general rule of mystic words being separate and preceding the insults.
Obviously a Sorcerer's Subtle Spell can remove the Verbal component which would mean only the insult would not even be laced with those "subtle enchantments" to detect. Sage Advice notes: "If a spell that’s altered by Subtle Spell has no material component, then it’s impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast". So if there WAS a chance to detect the spell with mundane means then it is gone completely with Subtle Spell.
HOWEVER, it is a little debatable if Subtle Spell removes the need to utter the insult. Spells such as Command and Suggestion still require the actual Command or Suggestion being made to be heard by the target but as per Vicious Mockery, the insults and the mystic words are inter-twined and the spell is a psychic spell. But, as Vicious Mockery goes on to note: "If the target can hear you". I believe this would overrule the idea that the insult can be delivered with no verbal insult at all, else you could give the nasty look in a zone of silence... But that doesn't mean people notice you cast a spell when you insulted them.
The effects of a spell are impossible to hide. If you cast a fireball, they might not notice the casting but they'll notice the big boom that follows. If you cast command, they might have more trouble but if someone is told to kneel and they do so out of complete compulsion its up to the DM to examine the circumstances and determine if the target might believe they would follow the command to kneel before thinking or if they understand it could only have happend by magical compulsion. Suggestion would be even more difficult to pick up since the very suggestion must seem reasonable, but there's still an element of compulsion and other guards might notice if their squad leader is told those are not the droids they're looking for and takes that suggestion without question. In the case of Vicious Mockery, it's psychic damage. We know from the Rogue Soulkife that psychic damage leaves not evidence of the damage it causes so then it will be up to the DM if the target understands they have been damaged and impacted so heavily by the insult that it must be by magical means. Here, the DM might roll Arcana, Insight or simply let them understand that the insult must have carried mystical power, despite no sign of casting.
This come downs to world building.
In my games, one of the core characteristics of the world is that magic is obvious. THe gestures and words of magic are so different to normal speech that all onlookers know that something mystical is happening. Something like of the orange runes of the spellcasters in the Marvel movies, for example.
The subtle spell sorcerer ability is something major, a big, powerful feature that only that class gets.
That's a good point, if the target needs to be able to hear you, then it can't be completely silent. Thanks.
I think it comes back to the idea that the Verbal component for casting the spell is mystic words which are recognizable as such. When casting suggestion, command or vicious mockery - these spells have a Verbal component to elicit the magic PLUS something said verbally to give instructions. Depending on the DM, subtle spell meta magic might remove the mystic Verbal component but it doesn't provide a way to transfer the knowledge of what the caster wants the spell to do to the target.
As a result, vicious mockery would still require insults that the target would hear, command would require a one word statement of what the caster wants the target to do and Suggestion would be a couple of sentences suggesting a course of action. None of these would appear magical to outside observers.
However, after the spell is cast, the effects of the spell may be noticed. In the case of Vicious Mockery, it does psychic damage. The damage is coordinated with the insults that were part of the spell. Even if the target didn't notice a spell being cast they might reasonably deduce that someone cast a spell on them - quite possibly who ever was insulting them somehow.
This all is very DM dependent though so you might want to ask how the specific DM would run it.
This isn't RAW or anything... RAW if you cast a spell and the spell description doesn't overtly state that it works around it, everyone around you knows that you cast a spell. However, because of the word "Subtle" in the spell's description, I've always ruled it that anyone unfamiliar with spellcasting won't notice you casting the spell. However, any experienced spellcasters would notice the distinct cadence and delivery of your insult deals damage, and the person who took the damage knows that something happened... they don't just assume that they got a random headache out of nowhere.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Even if people can’t specifically recognize an incantation, in a setting where magic is known to exist people are probably more likely than not to assume that brief string of otherwise nonsense you just said was something magical. Plus, on a more meta level, no cantrip is meant to be a nearly undetectable assassination tool.
Please consider this in your rulings. Metamagic is basically the only class feature a sorcerer gets and for much of the game they only get two of them. It would be incredibly discouraging to give up a different option for Subtle Spell and then be told it doesn't work.
Just because the target has the ability to hear you doesn't mean it must hear the casting of this spell. A dirty look would work, but the target would be inexplicably protected if they were deafened or in an area of silence.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
100x this. Letting other classes sneaky casting of spells is a serious nerf to sorcerer.
But then again, if there's no sorcerer in the party, then nobody is being shortchanged.
I don't know if a bystander would know you are casting a spell, but I imagine they would be able to hear the caster's string of insults that are delivered loud enough for the target to hear them and be affected by the spell. I think we should expect that the bystander would hear you insulting the target if they are roughly as close to the caster as the target is.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Regardless of party composition you're giving a player a perk that is by RAW mostly reserved for one class using a limited resource to achieve and ignoring the rule that a spell with a V or S component is meant to be identifiable as a spell when you cast it. It is a deliberate aspect of the design that spells are not easy to hide. Each DM can do what they want at their table, of course, but it is undercutting the intended function of spells.
But the whole crux of the argument is that we, as DMs, are trying not to make the game less fun for the sorcerer by letting someone else do their thing for free. If there's no sorcerer, then nobody is having less fun. I don't think Dungeons and Dragons is such a delicately balanced house of cards that everything falls apart if the DM allows the caster to mask his vicious mockery as a string of hurled invective. RAW says verbal components have some degree of volume to them. This application is consistent with that requirement.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
So how would Counterspell work with all of these shenanigans?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If you're asking me, I would say it would work as normal because the counterspell caster would see them casting a spell with a verbal component. Nothing about casting vicious mockery and having the insults be the same as verbal component would make the verbal component less detectable for the purposes of counterspell than casting any other spell with a verbal component. I hope I did not give the impression I was suggesting otherwise. If anything, I was agreeing with what Transmorpher said. The average NPC bystander, who I assume has no background with magic, might not be able to tell the difference between the insults and a spell being cast with those insults, but someone considering countering the mockery with counterspell would.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The Sage Advice Compendium has a ruling on this, a V S spell altered by Subtle Spell is impossible for anyone to perceive the spell being cast and therefore is not valid target for counterspell .
There's spell casting and spell effect, the Subtle Spell feature only affect the spell component during casting. Any spell effect afterward aren't more or less subtle than normal and as part of vicious mockery's effect you unleash a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments at a creature that will be affected if it can hear you, suggesting that while the enchantments are subtle, the insult are sound based.
What could prevent the spell effect would be if the target was deafened or otherwise unable to hear the caster somehow.
This Sage Advice Compendium Q&A clarify that the verbal component is separate from any verbal utterance coming after in a spell’s effect, which means that vicious mockery are mystic words before telling a string of insults laced with subtle enchantments.
I feel like there's a difference between demonstrating that they are not the same thing and discussing whether the average NPC would be able to tell the difference.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A V component is not meant to be something you can pass off as “normal” speech. An average NPC is probably not going to be able to parse the particulars of an incantation, but given that the existence of magic is typically a commonly acknowledged fact of life in D&D settings, they will typically recognize/assume that you were casting a spell.