Is it me or is this spell a little too powerful for a first level spell?
A 6th level Bard player in my group (5 PCs) uses this alot, and today he completely disabled a major 10 HD foe with it for 6 rounds. The save DC was 15, and the 10 HD Fighter had only a +3 on Will saves.
So for 6 rounds he was pretty much prone and unable to fight back as the party demolished the helpless fighter in less than 3 rounds of unanswered attacks.
It seems a tad powerful that a 1st level spell can "potentially" disable any high level (spell has no HD limit as to what it can affect) opponent for a long amount of time.
Im thinking of applying a house rule of either.....
1) imposing a HD limit that this 1st level can affect (like the Sleep spell).
2) each round if the prone target is attacked it may reroll the saving throw.
Any opinions?
The enemy in question was a beefed up Shukak, The Lizard King from EaBK. He was beefed up with the Half-Dragon template as per the sidebar for a higher level party.
Even though my group is only 6th level, there are 5 of them.
Assuming the caster wasn't also of the creature type Dragon, the opponent would have gotten a +4 to the save. Close range, allows SR, fully negated by a single save, and unable to affect a huge block of creatures (mind-affecting, so undead, constructs, vermin, etc. are immune). Truly, the bard doesn't often shine in combat. I'd leave this one alone.
Assuming the caster wasn't also of the creature type Dragon, the opponent would have gotten a +4 to the save. Close range, allows SR, fully negated by a single save, and unable to affect a huge block of creatures (mind-affecting, so undead, constructs, vermin, etc. are immune). Truly, the bard doesn't often shine in combat. I'd leave this one alone.
Noted. I also didnt want to nerf the Bard as it's limited enough.
That said the +4 bonus to saves didnt apply because the Bard was also under the Tongues spell so he casted it in Draconic. :)
Just seems tough for a Bard 1 spell.
The "houmor does not translate well" passus has nothing to do with language. Just tell a joke to an asian (as long as you are not of asian heritage yourself, ie. grown up in a Europe/USA), chances are, that you will have to explain, why your joke is supposed to be funny, even if he/she speaks perfect english. For different races in the D&D sense, this difference should be even more severe. So Shoukak should have gotten a +4 bonus to his save, leaving him with less than a 50% chance of being affected, fair, especially for the normally weak bard.
Edit: and in comparison to Hold Person (2nd level cleric, so available at 3rd level) you are not helpless, when you are under the spell, but in the end it is always annoying if a BBEG fails his save to a save-or-die-spell. And remember! Whatever your players do to you, you can do to them and they have only one character, you have a limitless number.
I'd think that its pretty much balanced out by the low DC that 1st level spells have. Just to get this to have a 50% chance or so of working the bard had to actually cast 2 spells, tongues and Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Furthermore as levels go up the number of good alternative higher level spells increases and their DCs are better. Furthermore I'm not sure about this 'casting in draconic' idea. The spell says that creatures of a different type get a +4 because humour does not translate well - but does not say that one can choose to negate this by being able to speak the language of the creature of a different type.
In this case in particular - well its one thing to use magic to speak draconic and another thing entirely to have the mind set of a dragon, I don't think being able to translate ones repertoire of "so three guys go into and bar, a priest of Pelor, a priest of Hextor and a Merchant from... " would necessarily be considered amusing to a dragon. I'd say that, by RAW, that +4 bonus should stand.
Edit - Damn beaten to the punch line by Belfor.
I can live with that. :)
Semi-OT... Even if Shukak went down like a punk, I wouldn't sweat it. He looks pretty scary on paper, but when it came to crunch time, my players wiped him up as well. One shot from a ray of enfeeblement allowed the fighter in my group to wrestle him to the ground long enough for everyone else to start pounding on him... I think he got one shot off with that trident before he was begging Semuanya for forgiveness in the lizardfolk afterlife.
My son's bard saved his own rear by casting THL on Kullen. Twice. Then he used it to completely embarrass Auric in front of the patrons of the Feral Dog. The party got its comeuppance during the games, when Khellek cast confusion on the party paladin.
I could see giving another save if the bard's allies start pummeling the victim--that would be in line with other enchantments.
Another bard spell that can be a pain for unprepared dungeon-masters: glitterdust. Our bard pretty much single-handedly won round one of the games with that spell. It was also very useful on 2nd go-rounds with stalkers in HOHR and Augerric in AGOW--helped equalize what were otherwise really tough fights.
Heh, glitterdust is one of my "must have" spells...passable detection of invisible creatures and a nice area attack with a Will save.
|
Tasha's Hideous Laughter really isn't all that bad as far as enchantments go. I wouldn't house rule anything about it, as it is a 2nd level spell for everyone but the Bard. Bard's already have few options in battle that aren't buffs, so letting them shine every now and again with a well placed enchantment isn't unbalancing IMVHO. There are far more broken spells at those low levels than THL.
I would just congratulate your player on an effective tactic and move on. The AoW is full of bad guys that are going to eat your party's lunch. No need to worry about that. Like the STAP, it is an incredibly well designed AP, and will give you plenty of opportunity to make your players soil there pants with all manner of bodily excrement.
|
|
Heh, glitterdust is one of my "must have" spells...passable detection of invisible creatures and a nice area attack with a Will save.
Agreed, Glitterdust is one of the best all around low level spells. A must have spell for sure. I think of it as being a lot like Grease in terms of it's utility. There are so many things a creative player can do with spells like that. They sometimes get overlooked for more "flashy" spells, but my casters always get more mileage out of Glitterdust than say Scorching Ray, which is probably the most commonly taken 2nd level spell along with Invisibility.
|
Tasha's Hideous Laughter is, in my opinion, an overpowered spell. When I made my initial list of 'banned' spells for all the books (about a dozen or so in the end), it and Otto's dance were the first ones. Glitterdust isn't as powerful, in my opinion, as the creatures can still fight back (they just have that annoying 50% miss chance). Having a 'save or die' spell (which it effectively is) as a 1st level is a bit too much. Other 'save or dies' at 1st (Sleep, Color Spray) are based off of hit dice instead, so balanced that way. Even as a 2nd level, it's still noticeably powerful compared to other 2nd levels.
My recommendation, just remove Tasha's. There's plenty of good spells still for Bards to play with, especially with the Spell Compendium. Tasha's will make a joke out of any high level fighter encounter you make (unless you deign to give him/her Iron Will like crazy).
Edit: As for Shukak, yeah, you don't need Tasha's to kill that guy. 7th level Fighter or not, 5 6th level characters will still make short work of him.
|
Is it me or is this spell a little too powerful for a first level spell?
Don't you know who Tasha is? Fairness isn't really her style...
Other 'save or dies' at 1st (Sleep, Color Spray) are based off of hit dice instead, so balanced that way. Even as a 2nd level, it's still noticeably powerful compared to other 2nd levels.
Tasha's laughter affects only one (1) creature, as opposed to potentially an entire enemy party with sleep or especially color spray. That, coupled with the saving throw bonus for differently-typed creatures, makes it pretty well balanced with hold person, which is only a 2nd level cleric spell.
|
|
Tasha's laughter affects only one (1) creature, as opposed to potentially an entire enemy party with sleep or especially color spray. That, coupled with the saving throw bonus for differently-typed creatures, makes it pretty well balanced with hold person, which is only a 2nd level cleric spell.
My problem with Tasha's is that
1. It can be a 1st level spell2. It has no restrictions based on HD
3. It's a 'save or die' not a 'save, save, save, save or die'.
Sleep and Color Spray (1st levels) are both limited by HD.
Hold Person (2nd level) is similar, but allows a new save every turn, and also only effects certain types.
Tasha's still is quite unbalanced compared to other spells of similar level, in my opinion. It effects any type (with the exception of a +4 save if not the same), is only one save, and is a round/level of prone while the party beats on it. Sleep or Color Spray become less useful the higher level the party gets, and Hold Person only lasts as many rounds as the creature fails its save.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
3. It's a 'save or die' not a 'save, save, save, save or die'.
Huh. I guess Daze is a save or die spell too at your table. The spell does not make you helpless, it makes it so that you cannot take actions for x rounds. You can't CDG a laughing creature as you can with sleep and color spray.
Also, the +4 to saves is not marginal and so easily waved away, particularly given the low level of the spell.
|
|
Huh. I guess Daze is a save or die spell too at your table. The spell does not make you helpless, it makes it so that you cannot take actions for x rounds. You can't CDG a laughing creature as you can with sleep and color spray.Also, the +4 to saves is not marginal and so easily waved away, particularly given the low level of the spell.
Daze, like Sleep and Color Spray, also has a Hit Dice limitation. It also only lasts a single round.
The Hit Dice thing is my biggest argument. If Tasha's had a HD limitation as well, I would not have nearly as large a problem.
And I never said it made you Helpless. However, prone and on the ground for a few rounds is more than enough time for the fighters to power attack you to pieces.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Daze, like Sleep and Color Spray, also has a Hit Dice limitation. It also only lasts a single round.
The Hit Dice thing is my biggest argument. If Tasha's had a HD limitation as well, I would not have nearly as large a problem.
And I never said it made you Helpless. However, prone and on the ground for a few rounds is more than enough time for the fighters to power attack you to pieces.
Except they have fundamentally different effects. Sleep and color spray enable a CDG, THL does not. Plus, on most targets, THL has an additional 20% chance of failing.
The HD issue is largely irrelevant - the bonus to the save and the fact that it is a 1st level spell will keep THL from being too powerful. Yes, it will remain viable, but no more poweful than Color Spray (which can still stun a group of creatures regardless of their HD) or even Magic Missile. Is it as good as Hold Person, a 2nd level spell that does not have a language limitation, offer a bonus to saves, and offers the ability to CDG? No.
You might as well ban magic missile because it doesn't have a saving throw and shocking grasp does. Or, ban shocking grasp because it does so much more damage than magic missile. You're comparing apples and oranges.
|
|
Except they have fundamentally different effects. Sleep and color spray enable a CDG, THL does not. Plus, on most targets, THL has an additional 20% chance of failing.The HD issue is largely irrelevant - the bonus to the save and the fact that it is a 1st level spell will keep THL from being too powerful. Yes, it will remain viable, but no more poweful than Color Spray (which can still stun a group of creatures regardless of their HD) or even Magic Missile. Is it as good as Hold Person, a 2nd level spell that does not have a language limitation, offer a bonus to saves, and offers the ability to CDG? No.
You might as well ban magic missile because it doesn't have a saving throw and shocking grasp does. Or, ban shocking grasp because it does so much more damage than magic missile. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Tasha's is broken because of not how well it does against low level creatures, but how it can cripple high level ones. Take a level 20 wizard against a party of level 1s. Yes, his save will be very high. However, a natural 1 is a natural 1, and even against a 5th level party, that would lay him low for 5 rounds, free for power attacks, easy hits (-4 to AC), etc.
So, the HD issue isn't irrelevant. No other 1st level (Magic Missile? Please, it's only 3d4+3 damage even at 5th level, it's fine, same with Shocking Grasp). My point still stands. No 1st or 2nd level spell should be able to lay low a 20th level character (though yes, I understand, he most likely would have guards, minions, etc.).
In general, I'm not saying it's OMG POWERFUL, just that it is too powerful to be a 1st level spell. I might allow it as a 3rd/3rd level spell, but it really doesn't belong amidst spells that either do relatively low damage or have a limitation on HD to prevent their use against high level opponents.
Edit: Probably should add that I don't want to continue arguing it here. The OP already pointed out that a 1st level spell can lay low a 10th level character for quite a while. My answer is, yes, it's broken for a 1st level spell, or a 2nd. To fix? Make it limited by HD, on par with other 1st level spells, or allow a save every round to counter it, on par with 2nd level spells.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Tasha's is broken because of not how well it does against low level creatures, but how it can cripple high level ones. Take a level 20 wizard against a party of level 1s. Yes, his save will be very high. However, a natural 1 is a natural 1, and even against a 5th level party, that would lay him low for 5 rounds, free for power attacks, easy hits (-4 to AC), etc.
Well, I guess Hold Person is too powerful for the same reason. And don't forget the monk's stunning fist. A low level monk could stun a 20th level wizard and then, OMG!, the party could beat down the wizard for a round. Wow, low level monks are broken.
Or, the wizard could cast grease and cause the high level fighter to fall to the ground. Then, OMG! he's prone and has to spend an action to stand up and everyone gets an attack of opportunity. Grease is broken!
Or, the wizard could cast charm person and convince the opponent to lie down and take a nap. Then, OMG! the fighter CDG's him. Charm Person is broken!
Or, the opponent could have a 6 Str, and the wizard could cast ray of enfeeblment (which has no save) and roll a 6. Then, the fighter could CDG the helpless wizard. OMG! Ray of Enfeeblement is broken.
So, the HD issue isn't irrelevant. No other 1st level (Magic Missile? Please, it's only 3d4+3 damage even at 5th level, it's fine, same with Shocking Grasp). My point still stands. No 1st or 2nd level spell should be able to lay low a 20th level character (though yes, I understand, he most likely would have guards, minions, etc.).
No, the point doesn't really stand. I guess all poisons are equally powerful because a high level opponent could have a low Con and could roll a natural 1. So, any poison that could kill someone should be treated as if it always kills someone. I guess we should also treat the pick as if it always does more damage than the longsword. After all, you could get a critical hit with the pick, and if you did, it would do a lot more damage than the longsword. Clearly, the pick is a better weapon because it could do more damage.
These are ridiculous corner cases. 19 times out of 20 (i.e, the other 19 results on a d20), THL will be a waste of time on high level opponents.
In general, I'm not saying it's OMG POWERFUL, just that it is too powerful to be a 1st level spell. I might allow it as a 3rd/3rd level spell, but it really doesn't belong amidst spells that either do relatively low damage or have a limitation on HD to prevent their use against high level opponents.
Which would be fine except Hold Person is so much better and it's a 2nd level spell. Hold Person actually does allow a CDG, does not give a +4 bonus to saves and also does not have a HD limitation.
If you're that concerned about the power level, just give THL a save every round. That way, in the highly contrived event that (i) the bard wastes time casting a 1st level spell instead of doing something likely to be effective and (ii) the 20th level wizard rolls a 1 on the first save, he can always roll again on his turn and shake off the effect. That would make the spell very similar to hold person but clearly inferior due to the effect (prone v. helpless), the save bonus, and the language limitation.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
In response the the argument of hold person vs. Tasha's Hideous Laughter, I would like to point out that hold person does have a limitation: it only works on humanoid foes. Hold Monster works on anything, but is a 5th level spell.
Okay, we now return to your previously scheduled bickering. :D
I would like to point out that hold person does have a limitation: it only works on humanoid foes. Hold Monster works on anything, but is a 5th level spell.
And hold person has, in essence, a "built-in" +4 on saves, being 4 levels lower than hold monster with a correspondingly lower save DC...
And don't forget, the person under Hold Person gets a new save every round to break it.
Yeah - but chances are they won't be alive to try and make that save. There is a thread around here where I outline what happens when a, by the book, standard orc does a coup de grace on some one. It essentially comes down to 'make a DC 24 fort save or die' - this is for a 1/2 CR Orc. Essentially speaking if you are facing a level appropreate creature with a physical attack your dead - you'll never make the Fort save.
And don't forget, the person under Hold Person gets a new save every round to break it.
Which doesn't help him at all, since he's most likely dead after the first round -> CDG
In regards to the post above where getting a high-level character to laugh uncontrollably is considered too terrible to allow - am I the only one here who actually LIKES the idea that a low-level character who is excessively bold (or stupid) and terribly lucky might actually be able to one-up an extremely high level character? I thought that was the whole idea behind "a 1 always fails." Keeps everyone humble. Not to commit the cardinal sin of comparing D&D to reality, but even the toughest, "highest-level" among us can't enter a "live-fire" combat without SOME element of danger. If the little guy gets lucky once, maybe the big guy is a little less arrogant next time.
In regards to the post above where getting a high-level character to laugh uncontrollably is considered too terrible to allow - am I the only one here who actually LIKES the idea that a low-level character who is excessively bold (or stupid) and terribly lucky might actually be able to one-up an extremely high level character? I thought that was the whole idea behind "a 1 always fails." Keeps everyone humble. Not to commit the cardinal sin of comparing D&D to reality, but even the toughest, "highest-level" among us can't enter a "live-fire" combat without SOME element of danger. If the little guy gets lucky once, maybe the big guy is a little less arrogant next time.
Right on! I'm with you all the way, PF.
Not broken. It's a great spell for its level. As far as making a powerful opponent unable to take actions for x rounds, most likely lower level opponents won't beat on the guy for enough damage to kill him anyway. He still gets his armor bonus and most other bonuses as well, though he takes a -4 penalty to his AC and attack rolls, but the dude should have a high enough AC and hit points that a low level group will simply not hit the guy enough times or deal enough damage to kill him before the spell expires. BTW, I've seen PCs knocked prone that just wailed away on their opponents on their backs and kicked the holy crap out of them without ever standing back up until after the fight.
The arguments against the spell are pretty weak to me. Sounds nitpicky and you would have to throw out about half the spells in the book by the logic being used. THL is one of the spells that works less times than it succeeds. If your players get lucky with it, bravo for them for using the spells exactly as it was intended and pulling out a cool and hilarious victory that they can brag about with their friends. That's what the game is all about, man.
|
|
Not broken. It's a great spell for its level. As far as making a powerful opponent unable to take actions for x rounds, most likely lower level opponents won't beat on the guy for enough damage to kill him anyway. He still gets his armor bonus and most other bonuses as well, though he takes a -4 penalty to his AC and attack rolls, but the dude should have a high enough AC and hit points that a low level group will simply not hit the guy enough times or deal enough damage to kill him before the spell expires. BTW, I've seen PCs knocked prone that just wailed away on their opponents on their backs and kicked the holy crap out of them without ever standing back up until after the fight.
The arguments against the spell are pretty weak to me. Sounds nitpicky and you would have to throw out about half the spells in the book by the logic being used. THL is one of the spells that works less times than it succeeds. If your players get lucky with it, bravo for them for using the spells exactly as it was intended and pulling out a cool and hilarious victory that they can brag about with their friends. That's what the game is all about, man.
QFT
Steve Greer makes the best arguement for Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
In effect, if you are not targeting your 'own' with it, the save DC is all of 7 plus ability modifier (10+1 for spell level -4 for racial difference), or 8 plus ability modifier for wizards/sorcerors. Given how crummy a DC that is, even a decent WIS modifier for a low-level fighter gives them better than average odds of beating the DC of the spell. Since your example was a 5th level fighter, and I shall assume a whopping bonus of +2 on said fighter's Will save bonus, that *in effect* boils the DC of his natural die roll to 5 or 6 plus the caster's ability modifier ... even if the character has an ability modifier of +5, that gives said fighter a natural 10 or 11 to beat the spell.
This sounds more like griping about throwing about a bad die roll than anything else. Although permitting tongues to bypass the +4 bonus was a poor judgement call and sounds like what was responsible for your bad guy's failure to resist the spell. Take your lumps - the group is at low level, plenty of opportunities will arise to frag thier characters as the campaign progresses.
Take your lumps - the group is at low level, plenty of opportunities will arise to frag thier characters as the campaign progresses.
This was the most idiotic reasoning ive seen posted yet in this thread. Its not about animosity, taking lumps, or finding ways to kill my group. Try adding more constructive replies.
Ive been DMming the same group of people for a range of 10-15+ years. Its never been about wrecking the group with a bad guy.The tongues thing was poor judgement,in that I agree. It would have made no difference as I think the save was a 3 or 4 iirc.
Sunderstone, I've seen much more idiotic responses. Dig up the thread where a school teacher from Canada complained that Dungeon was using words that were too big for him... like tureen and marsipan (sp?), and lobbied the dumbing down of D&D. A number of posts on that thread and many others are more deserving of that kind of label, IMO.
Edit: For the record, I'm not agreeing that there was anything idiotic about what was said, just pointing out a more deserving target.
|
This was the most idiotic reasoning ive seen posted yet in this thread. Its not about animosity, taking lumps, or finding ways to kill my group. Try adding more constructive replies.
While Steve has made a great point about this comment, I am going to add one other thing to all that he said above because it addresses something I feel he missed.
This community has always had a strong sense of openness and willingness to listen to whatever people have to say, even people that bitterly disagree, but there is always an understanding that everyone deserves respect and that hotly debated posts will not degenerate into a flamewar. Debates on these boards are handled with civility and courtesy even when at their most acrimonious. Please take a moment to ensure that you too are working to maintain the high standard the many long-time contributors here have established. Posts like the above do not materially support your reasoning and do not enhance the community experience.
Take your lumps - the group is at low level, plenty of opportunities will arise to frag thier characters as the campaign progresses.This was the most idiotic reasoning ive seen posted yet in this thread. Its not about animosity, taking lumps, or finding ways to kill my group. Try adding more constructive replies.
Ive been DMming the same group of people for a range of 10-15+ years. Its never been about wrecking the group with a bad guy.The tongues thing was poor judgement,in that I agree. It would have made no difference as I think the save was a 3 or 4 iirc.
Each group, indeed each participant within a given gaming group, derives different sources of enjoyment from the games we as a community play.
In reply to your comment, it was not intended to communicate any degree of personal animosity for one's players. Your 15+ years of DM'ing I rather doubt is a unique range of experience, as many here can attest. Some perhaps among us enjoy the challenge of taking down a bad guy, perhaps seeing how close it gets to the wire. And so on.
There were several constructive replies posted within my comment regarding Tasha's Hideous Laughter, as well as amongst the additional other replies which have been posted in regards to your observations. Perhaps one should consider one's own advice ?
In the interests of avoiding a flame war, however, I would retract the part you found offensive, after the hyphen.
In our SCAP campaign this was my wizard's workhorse spell; he took people out with it regularly, including Nabithrond--on the first round of that fight, making it a non-fight. In the AoW game I'm running the party has a routine against living BBG's of Enervation (or, recently, Energy Drain) followed by Tasha's. This took out Ilthane--another non-fight--and is in general good against dragons and excellent against humans.
As a player I would support weakening this spell, as I found it annoyingly overpowered even when I was the one using it. The only thing comparable is Glitterdust, and that spell is, in my opinion, badly overpowered. I am pressing my GM to change them for the next game or I'm going to feel obliged not to take either one. (I mention this to make it clear that this is not just a case of "GM wants to take power away from players.")
Giving Tasha's a save every round makes it a weaker Hold Person, but you could give a second save only if the foe is attacked, or (a stronger version) only if they're injured. "Ow! Hey! That's not funny!"
Mary Yamato
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
In our SCAP campaign this was my wizard's workhorse spell; he took people out with it regularly, including Nabithrond--on the first round of that fight, making it a non-fight. In the AoW game I'm running the party has a routine against living BBG's of Enervation (or, recently, Energy Drain) followed by Tasha's. This took out Ilthane--another non-fight--and is in general good against dragons and excellent against humans.
However, if this IS a routine, then it could be argued that since, obviously, the party's enemies are watching them fight, they could easily prepare against the tactic accordingly, such as using magic items to protect themselves against necromancy and whatnot.
This took out Ilthane--another non-fight--and is in general good against dragons and excellent against humans.
I can see how this works on thuggy humans pretty well - but I'm real surprised that its any kind of a go to spell against a Dragon. Dragons have good saves across the board.
What is Ilthane? Young Adult Black? If so thats +11 to Will saves right there. That should save her against anything but, well, bad luck. Presuming a PC with 22 in the prime stat this would be a DC of 10+1+6= DC 17 - with +11 a Young Adult Black should make that roll 75% of the time - and I might me underestimating her age. At mature Adult she'd have a +15 to her will save. That said Heightening this spell would be very potent.
I would have to say that the one thing that makes spells like Tasha's and Glitterdust seem overpowered is that most adventuring groups use PCs with higher stats then the game is designed around. I would guess that most PC spellcasters, even at first level, have their primary stat set to at least 17, if not higher. The game is designed around the Elite array, which assumes a highest stat of 15, with a possible 17 for racial adjustments. When all spell DCs are at least 1 or 2 points higher than the game was balanced around, it has a dramatic affect.
That being said, I don't think either spell is really that over-powered, but may seem more so in the hands of spontaneous casters because they can use it more than once. A wizard is much less likely to take Tasha's or Glitterdust, and even if they do have it, it often might not be prepared. Glitterdust loses a lot of it's benefits if you don't fight invisible creatures that often, or creatures that can't see (it's useless against Grimlocks, for example).
Tasha's strangely isn't language dependent, but it doesn't affect many creature types (animals, undead, constructs, vermin, some magical beasts, etc), and the DC on it will generally never get over 20, unless you have a PC specializing in Enchantment and with some major stat boosts. It is very powerful against single creatures with poor will saves, but if said creature has a fair number of minions, it may wear off before you get to them. The range also limits it quite a bit - until higher levels, if a big melee opponent makes the save, they might just charge that bard next for telling a bad joke. If you wanted to tweak it at all, I would maybe just rule that the anti-compulsion bit of the various protection spells suppresses the affect of Tasha's even though it doesn't explicitly give you control over the subject.
As pointed out above, plenty of other low level spells can be just as powerful. Web is an awesomely powerful 2nd level spell, and Obscuring Mist gives my PCs fits. And then there's Phatasmal Assailants which does 4 points damage to Int and Wis (if I remember right) when the save IS made.
In response the the argument of hold person vs. Tasha's Hideous Laughter, I would like to point out that hold person does have a limitation: it only works on humanoid foes.
It might be fair, then, to limit THL to things that have a sense of humour - to things that can laugh. As well as mindless undead, it would also have no effect on abberations, intelligent insects (eg: thri-keen), or elementals (some leeway there, djinni and effreti certainly do have a sense of humour).
perhaps a knowledge check might alow one to know some dragon jokes ... but why make the game more complicated than it is?
|
Are you going to punish your players for taking advantage of their enemies weaknesses? What would have happened if the enemy had been a wizard? Or worse, a cleric, with good will AND good Wisdom? The bard used a spell targets against the hulking brute's mind, and succeeded. Would you rather them throw fireballs at the high level monks and finger of death on the fighters?
If you want broken, get an unseelie fey warlock with winter's chill letting the player use twice his Cha modifer on the save DC for his baleful polymorph SLA. (+mod to DC, -mod penalty to enemy saves) All day long.