Tasha's Hideous Laughter - broken?

[Legildur]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.