# Tasha's Hideous Laughter - broken?



## Masseter (Jan 5, 2008)

I've just started DMing again after a long break, and have noticed that THL seems remarkably overpowered for its level (1st or 2nd.)

As I read the spell it takes a creature completely _hors de combat_ for 1 round / caster level (longer than most fights last...) and in addition easier to hit (+4 bonus vs prone combatants) nor does hitting it seem to break the spell.  While not 'helpless' the creature is useless, unable to move, fight or cast, generally until the rest of the combat ends, and then easy to mop up afterwards.

Compared to _hold person_ which is an equal or higher level spell, it not only affects non-humanoids (albeit with a +4 save bonus) but the creature in question doesn't get to try to break the spell each round (I remember back in 3E the major complaint about _hold person_ was that it was sort of a low level save or die spell, and the 'new save each round' was presumably to overcome that complaint?)  So it seems to effectively be a level 2 (or 1!) 'save or out for the rest of combat' type spell with no HD limit - well above the power curve.

Have I missed something in the spell mechanics?  Am I getting worked up over nothing?  Advice (on spell mechanics or how to handle it in my campaign) would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 5, 2008)

Tasha's Hideous Laughter (or Tasha's Uncontrollable Hideous Laughter as it used to be called, which was better) has a random duration of 1d3 rounds, though.  You might get 1 or 2 rounds out of it, but not likely to get 3 rounds out of it.

A cleric can cast Hold Person at his 3rd level (it's 2nd-level for clerics) and get 3 rounds out of it, as long as the opponent doesn't make their 2nd or 3rd saving throw.  It probably has a better chance than THL to get a 3-round duration, and has the capacity (though unlikely to work often) to last even longer once the character is higher than 3rd-level.

Hold Person makes the target helpless, so you can kill them with a coup de grace (or better yet, your party's rogue can do that for you before the victim even gets a second chance at the saving throw against Hold Person).  Tasha's Hideous Laughter just makes the victim ineffective for a moment, and a bit easier to hit (but not as easily hit as the victim of Hold Person).

Tasha's Hideous Laughter is Close range, so you have to be close enough for an enemy to charge you (if they make their save, or if they have allies around).  Hold Person is Medium range, so you can be a good, safe distance away from melee attacks (and you could always just cast Entropic Shield or Protection From Arrows to aid against ranged attacks).


----------



## Masseter (Jan 5, 2008)

Hmmm ... my 3.5E Core PHB gives 1 round / level duration - not 1d3 rounds - has it been officially changed somewhere I didn't know about?

I do acknowledge that the paralysis (and ability to be CdGed before the creature's next turn) make _hold person_ situationally stronger (if you happen to have a fellow party member standing next to the affected creature able to make a full-round _coup_ attempt) but I'm just worried that while you don't get the 'instakill' effect of combining _hold_ with another character's _coup_, you still take a creature out for pretty much the length of the combat (my party are currently 6th level.)


----------



## Shin Okada (Jan 5, 2008)

Usually, Glitterdust is more popular 2nd-level will-save Sor/Wiz Spell. It may affect on multiple targets. No "different creature type" modifier. Even effective against mindless undead monsters. And most blinded opponents cannot do much and are easy preys, especially at the level-range which 2nd-level spell is considered to be one of meaningful offensive spells. And Glitterdust has another use, too (reveals invisible things).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 5, 2008)

Magic is broken.

Tasha's is good. So is glitterdust, web, mirror image, invisibility, scorching ray, spider climb, summon swarm, blindness/deafness, command undead, alter self, rope trick, bull's strength and protection from arrows.

Like everything else, it's situational. If you've been having a lot of encounters with single powerful humanoids with bad will saves, it's going to seem like the business. If you've been facing skeletons it's going to seem like a waste of time (but command undead would be amazing).


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 5, 2008)

Even if you don't have an ally to do the coup de grace, you can always do it yourself on your next turn.  Carry a scythe with you just for that purpose, even if nonproficient.  It ain't hard at all to hit someone who's standing still and unable to so much as twitch.

BTW, regarding the duration, I forgot that it was changed from 3.0 to 3.5 for some stupid reason.  Like a lot of core spells.  Most of them also being very senseless, poorly-thought-out changes.  But then, that's my opinion on 3.5 _in general_, too. :\ 

And yeah, Tasha's Hideous Laughter isn't that popular a 2nd-level spell, anyway.  Glitterdust or Web will more readily take a whole group of enemies out of the picture to some extent (if they can't see you, they hardly have any chance of hurting you, and if they're stuck in webs, they still can't hurt you).


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 5, 2008)

Tasha's hideous laughter is a first level spell for a bard.   I used to think that bards suck.  Now I am playing one with this spell and I've changed my mind!

Ken


----------



## Masseter (Jan 5, 2008)

Thank you for the input .... I think that helps put it in perspective.  I'm still considering house ruling it but I'll probably think harder in the light of comparison with _glitterdust_ and _web_ (whereas previously I'd only looked at _hold person_ as a comparison.)


----------



## Arkhandus (Jan 6, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Tasha's hideous laughter is a first level spell for a bard.   I used to think that bards suck.  Now I am playing one with this spell and I've changed my mind!
> 
> Ken




Bah, that just means the save DC for the bard version is lower.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 7, 2008)

Yeah, will save or screwed for first or second level spells is always a mistake IMHO.



			
				Masseter said:
			
		

> Thank you for the input .... I think that helps put it in perspective.  I'm still considering house ruling it but I'll probably think harder in the light of comparison with _glitterdust_ and _web_ (whereas previously I'd only looked at _hold person_ as a comparison.)



May I suggest the spell ends if the victim is attacked by a foe?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 7, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Yeah, will save or screwed for first or second level spells is always a mistake IMHO.




Yeah, but the list of things you think are overpowered for PCs in this game is *longer* than the list of things you think are well balanced


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the list of things you think are overpowered for PCs in this game is *longer* than the list of things you think are well balanced



2 for 1 power attack is bad for both PCs and NPCs and when low level casters can always have a 5% chance of beating high level chatacters every round, yes i think there is a problem. 

And it looks like wotc is starting to agree with me on such matters. [4E]


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 8, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 2 for 1 power attack is bad for both PCs and NPCs and when low level casters can always have a 5% chance of beating high level chatacters every round, yes i think there is a problem.
> 
> And it looks like wotc is starting to agree with me on such matters. [4E]




Frank, I assure you, I was not referring to power attack.  But, I was only teasing you, so no worries.


----------



## Sollir Furryfoot (Jan 8, 2008)

What confused me is that Tasha's Hideous Laughter changed in stats from 3.0 to 3.5.  Originally it was 1d3 rounds, close range or somesuch, but now it's a touch spell for 1 round/level, will negates.  It's effect is very pretty powerful compared to other spells of it level, but it is perhaps balanced by the fact that at the level you get it at, you aren't going to want to be in melee and your attack bonus is pretty terrible (Poor BAB and typically 8 str for a 3rd level wizard for a grand +0 bonus).


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 8, 2008)

Sollir Furryfoot said:
			
		

> What confused me is that Tasha's Hideous Laughter changed in stats from 3.0 to 3.5.  Originally it was 1d3 rounds, close range or somesuch, but now it's a touch spell for 1 round/level, will negates.  It's effect is very pretty powerful compared to other spells of it level, but it is perhaps balanced by the fact that at the level you get it at, you aren't going to want to be in melee and your attack bonus is pretty terrible (Poor BAB and typically 8 str for a 3rd level wizard for a grand +0 bonus).



It still is close range

_*Hideous Laughter*
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 2 
Components: V, S, M 
Casting Time: 1 standard action 
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) 
Target: One creature; see text 
Duration: 1 round/level 
Saving Throw: Will negates 
Spell Resistance: Yes 

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable laughter. It collapses into gales of manic laughter, falling prone. The subject can take no actions while laughing, but is not considered helpless. After the spell ends, it can act normally. 

A creature with an Intelligence score of 2 or lower is not affected. A creature whose type is different from the caster’s receives a +4 bonus on its saving throw, because humor doesn’t “translate” well. 

Material Component
Tiny tarts that are thrown at the target and a feather that is waved in the air. _


----------



## Sollir Furryfoot (Jan 8, 2008)

Ah, my bad, I think I must of mixed it up with Irresistable Dance or somesuch.  Hrm, it does seem a little overpowered but I haven't really seen a PC choose it.  But I guess my previous thought is a suggested fix if you think it's too powerful then   Make it a touch attack (Will negates still).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 8, 2008)

Assuming the PC is not a bizarre race, if the target does _not_ gain the +4 bonus, then you should consider using Hold Person instead.

So the real question is whether this 2nd level spell is too powerful, assuming that the target happens to gain a +4 bonus.  Is this versatility really enough to make it markedly better than Hold Person or other 2nd level spells?

Glitterdust and Web are really so much more versatile.


----------



## Whimsical (Jan 9, 2008)

In D&D 4e, _Tasha's Hideous Laughter_ will be renamed to _ROFLMAO_.


----------



## Gloombunny (Jan 9, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Assuming the PC is not a bizarre race, if the target does _not_ gain the +4 bonus, then you should consider using Hold Person instead.



But why?  Once you're fifth or six level (and thus able to cast _hold person_), _hideous laughter_ will probably last comfortably longer than it'll take to get rid of the laughing victim's allies.  And once you've done that, it shouldn't be hard to gang up on the laugher and finish him off even without a coup de grace.

I could see the argument for _hold person_ if you already have an ally in position for the coup, but otherwise you're gambling that the victim won't make his extra saves.  And even if you can coup the poor guy, your team had to spend two people's turns on taking him out, instead of spending the wizard's turn on taking the guy out of the fight with _hideous laughter_ and having another action to use against the guy's allies.

What am I not seeing here?


----------



## Darklone (Jan 9, 2008)

One DM I know wanted to balance the spell by adding a verbal component... the player had to tell a short joke everytime he cast the spell. Brought a lot of laughter to the table but didn't really balance the spell


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 11, 2008)

Depends on the level of the encounter.  The bad guys may be able to DDoor or Dispel Magic, too.

A Helpless target is a sitting duck to a Full Iterative Sneak Attack, and may therefore be killable in <1 round.  That is a nice option at middling or higher levels.


----------



## Kat' (Jan 11, 2008)

THL only works well against creatures with the same type as the caster (side note: the-4 DC really really hurts...) and is remarkably efficient at low levels, but less at high levels, given that save progression usually is faster than spell DC progression. And at low levels, it won't have that long a duration. Good, but not overwhelmingly so.


----------



## mvincent (Jan 11, 2008)

It seems like blindness (also 2nd level) is about as harsh as hideous laughter, but permanent, and no +4 save for non-humanoids.

And while bards can get Hideous laughter earlier... it's one of the few things that bards have going for them.

Having just killed a PC with hold person (& CdG), I'm fairly sure that my player would have prefered that the NPC Bard (in the canned adventure I used) had known Hideous laughter instead.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 11, 2008)

Something that I just thought of from the spell description: a person under the effects of THL can still make a 5 foot step (if the DM allows them when prone) or make an attack of opportunity, as neither of those are actions.


----------



## mvincent (Jan 11, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> a person under the effects of THL can still make a 5 foot step (if the DM allows them when prone)



You can crawl while prone (i.e. that is the whole reason for having crawling as an option), but you can't take 5' steps (as there would be no point to having the crawling option if you could). From the RotG (if desired):
_"*Movement While Prone*
When you're lying on the ground, you can move; however, you must crawl to do so. You crawl 5 feet as a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity."_

If you weren't prone, the RotG (if desired) still says:
_"The rules don't say so, but it's best to assume that you cannot take a 5-foot step unless you can take at least a move action during your turn."_



> or make an attack of opportunity, as neither of those are actions.



The spell description says:
_"The subject can take no actions while laughing"_

and the RotG (if desired) says:
_"In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity."_


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 11, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> RotG[/url] (if desired)



Do you have anything for those of us that don't desire to rely on the RotG?  AFAICT, the claims I have made are completely accurate based on just the core rule books.



> The spell description says:
> "The subject can take no actions while laughing"
> 
> and the RotG (if desired) says:
> "In general, if you cannot use a standard action during your turn, you also cannot make an attack of opportunity during someone else's turn. When the notes on conditions in Part One say that you cannot act (for example, when stunned), you cannot make an attack of opportunity."



Even using this RotG quote, I don't see my point being refuted.  The spell says the target can take "no actions", while the quote applies when you "cannot act".  Actions are a defined game term, acting is not.  I would argue that any time you use do anyhting like make an AoO, take a 5 foot step, or choose to Delay, you are effectively "acting" despite the fact that you are explictly not using an "action".


----------



## mvincent (Jan 11, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Do you have anything for those of us that don't desire to rely on the RotG?



If desired: common sense or Hypersmurf.


----------



## eamon (Jan 12, 2008)

Consider also that "action" is used both as a game-defined term and as a normal English word.  It's not well defined; and common sense suggests that someone doing the _ROFLMAO_ isn't also to the _AoO_ dance.  There's no real way of distinguishing between game defined and normal terms.  Taking a 5-foot step or making an attack of opportunity are actions in the broad sense, and I think that's enough to rule them out.  The rules break down too easily if you're willing to be that literalistic about interpretations.

However, not here:

Further, even the "Not an action" category specifies that they "are considered an inherent part of doing something else".  But there's no other action you could do, so even "not an action"s like 5-foot steps can't be taken, since you need to take them as part of another action.

In addition, even if you were to rule that you're able to take five foot steps, when you're prone your movement is at best hampered (and thus you can't take 5 foot steps) or more literally, you don't have a listed movement speed for it (and thus you can't take 5-foot steps).  

Concerning the ability to make AoO's: you can't make a melee attack into the adjacent squares (which would take an action) so you're not threatening anybody - rendering the AoO question somewhat moot, since there's nobody to hit...

Finally, the flavor and intent of the spell are obvious.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 14, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> Further, even the "Not an action" category specifies that they "are considered an inherent part of doing something else".  But there's no other action you could do, so even "not an action"s like 5-foot steps can't be taken, since you need to take them as part of another action.



  "Something else" is different than "another action".  Lying on the ground or laughing could be considered "something else."  An AoO can't be done as part of "another action" since an action is something that takes place on your initiative turn.



> In addition, even if you were to rule that you're able to take five foot steps, when you're prone your movement is at best hampered (and thus you can't take 5 foot steps) or more literally, you don't have a listed movement speed for it (and thus you can't take 5-foot steps).



  There is nothing in the rules to disallow 5 foot steps when prone.  There have been other discussions about this here.  While it is not something that I would generally agree with, I would say that if a DM decides to allow 5 foot steps when prone under normal circumstances, they should also allow them when under effects of THL as well, for consistency.



> Concerning the ability to make AoO's: you can't make a melee attack into the adjacent squares (which would take an action) so you're not threatening anybody - rendering the AoO question somewhat moot, since there's nobody to hit...



  Following this logic, anyone who has already acted in a round doesn't threaten.  If you've already cast a spell or done another standard action, you can't attack into adjacent squares (since that would take an action).  Since you can't make a melee attack into the adjacent squares, you're not threatening anybody.



> Finally, the flavor and intent of the spell are obvious.



If the normal use of the spell proves overpowered, and an alternate, literal interpretation lessens the power of the spell, doesn't the literal interpretation start to seem like a more reasonable one?


----------



## mvincent (Jan 15, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the rules to disallow 5 foot steps when prone.



It's stated in the FAQ and in the Rules of the Game, and implied by the core rules by the presence of the crawling option, and by inability to make 5' steps when your movement is hindered. I'm surprised that one might consider it up for debate.



> I would say that if a DM decides to allow 5 foot steps when prone under normal circumstances, they should also allow them when under effects of THL as well, for consistency.



While the issue is moot for me, I enjoy such discussions. Based on this, do you believe such DM's (for consistency) should also allow 5' steps for characters that are dazed, cowering, stunned or fascinated?


----------



## Legildur (Jan 15, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It's stated in the FAQ and in the Rules of the Game, and implied by the core rules by the presence of the crawling option, and by inability to make 5' steps when your movement is hindered. I'm surprised that one might consider it up for debate.



You know I'm not a fan of the FAQ or the RotG, but I'm with you on this one.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 15, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It seems like blindness (also 2nd level) is about as harsh as hideous laughter, but permanent, and no +4 save for non-humanoids.



Harsh does not always make strong. If I want to punish a low fort save foe, Blindness is the choice. Otherwise way too much stuff has ridiculous fort saves to make the spell worthwhile to have. Glitterdust is so much better on the battlefield 

Those I admit I am biased. I don’t think 2nd level is a good spot for blinding effects. The value of sight on the battlefield is too big with the level of tactics 3E embraces.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 16, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It's stated in the FAQ and in the Rules of the Game, and implied by the core rules by the presence of the crawling option, and by inability to make 5' steps when your movement is hindered. I'm surprised that one might consider it up for debate.
> 
> While the issue is moot for me, I enjoy such discussions. Based on this, do you believe such DM's (for consistency) should also allow 5' steps for characters that are dazed, cowering, stunned or fascinated?




I will openly admit that the arguement to allow 5' steps while prone is very weak, and I certainly wouldn't allow it in my games.  It was really thrown onto my original point as an alternate example of something besides AoOs that is not an action.

As for your question about other conditions, which are much more reasonable:  
Fascinated - No step.  The subject explicitely "stands or sits quietly."  
Stunned - Step allowed.  It only states that the subject "can't take actions."  
Cowering - Step probably allowed.  The text says the subject "can take no actions" which would allow the step.  But a DM could rule against it because the subject is "frozen in fear", and frozen is ambiguous.
Dazed - Ambiguous.  Dazed says the subject is "unable to act normally," but also has no penalty to AC (implying that they can still move to defend themselves).  This case would have to be left up to individual DMS.


----------



## mvincent (Jan 16, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Stunned - Step allowed.  It only states that the subject "can't take actions."



So when the description of dying states "_A dying character can take no actions_", you would still allow dying characters to take 5' steps?


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 16, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> So when the description of dying states "_A dying character can take no actions_", you would still allow dying characters to take 5' steps?




Nope.  The full text is "A dying character immediately falls *unconscious * and can take no actions."  An unconscioius character is "knocked out and helpless", a helpless character "is treated as having a Dexterity of 0", and a character with a dexterity of 0 "cannot move".

Interestingly enough, nothing in the text for Dying, Unconscious, or 0 Dex indicates the character falls prone, although it is implied by "knocked out", which is not a defined game term.


----------



## Darklone (Jan 16, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I will openly admit that the arguement to allow 5' steps while prone is very weak, and I certainly wouldn't allow it in my games.  It was really thrown onto my original point as an alternate example of something besides AoOs that is not an action.



I'd second that crawling 5ft while being prone is a move or even full round action, so I would never allow a 5ft step while being prone.


----------



## mvincent (Jan 16, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Nope.  The full text is "A dying character immediately falls *unconscious * and can take no actions."  An unconscioius character is "knocked out and helpless", a helpless character "is treated as having a Dexterity of 0", and a character with a dexterity of 0 "cannot move".



So can such people make AoO's (which you mentioned earlier was not an action, and does not involve moving out of your square)?


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 17, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> So can such people make AoO's (which you mentioned earlier was not an action, and does not involve moving out of your square)?




I cannot find anything explicit that denies a dying character AoOs.  However, there are many undefined terms used, such as "cannot move at all", "motionless, rigid, and helpless" and "knocked out", that could be interpreted to mean that AoOs are prohibited due to inability to move any part of your body.  Being "knocked out" could also be interpreted as having your eyes closed, giving an enemy total cover and denying AoOs.

It would be pretty cinematic to allow dying characters to make AoOs, though.  It would give enemies the ability to make that one last unexpected attack before they die, without the extra rules suggested by some books.


----------

