I would like to see the fluff of this spell to be changed into something more versatile.
In my eyes, it might as be other feelings such as sadness, apathy, love, or even being scared (though it doesn't relate to fear-effects). Generelly most feelings could create the effect the spell grants.
This could add some flavour to the spell, so it wouldn't be so silly.
Right now it seem a bit too comic relief for all game types (although the laughter should remain an option).
It seems just as plausible that something makes the enemy curl up in himself crying, than rolling on the floor laughing.
Since this doesn't imply any game mechanical changes, it is of course easy to houserule on your own.
But I hope you will consider changing the fluff and the name (perhaps somthing like burst of emotions) in a future version. This will add flavour, without any costs.
"Burst of Emotion" adds flavor...?
Unless you're playing in Pathfinder Organized Play, there's no reason you can't use your own spell, either as common in your game world or independently researched by the caster, to achieve the "Emotion" they prefer.
Plus if it was not laughter... what would you do with the feather material component?!??! /grin
According to Grodog's Greyhawk Adventures Page:
Per Gary Gygax: Tasha was a very young girl, a D&D fan who wrote her first letter to me in crayon. She suggested the laughter spell, so her name was used in the version I created based on her suggested details.
So... maybe we shouldn't change this spell over much? I'm all for modifying the spell so that it grants a round-by-round save against the effect (as I advocate for all spells that take players out of combat), but I think maybe we should leave the name and the nature of the effect well enough alone.
According to Grodog's Greyhawk Adventures Page:
Per Gary Gygax: Tasha was a very young girl, a D&D fan who wrote her first letter to me in crayon. She suggested the laughter spell, so her name was used in the version I created based on her suggested details.
So... maybe we shouldn't change this spell over much? I'm all for modifying the spell so that it grants a round-by-round save against the effect (as I advocate for all spells that take players out of combat), but I think maybe we should leave the name and the nature of the effect well enough alone.
I'm all for protecting connections to the original wherever possible, and this story, if true, is too cute to change even if I didn't care about links to the past. If this is true then wherever Tasha is today she deserves respect for her long ago contribution to the hobby we all love so much. I only wish we could still call it "Tasha's" but I suspect that's Product Identity of that other company.
I hope you will consider changing the fluff and the name (perhaps somthing like burst of emotions) in a future version. This will add flavour, without any costs.
Hideous Sobbing.
Anyway...
Yeah this spell has roots. I vote not to pull them out. I like the history posted here about it. I wonder if little Tasha knew her laughter was going to be hideous, though. ;)
Well, I can't argue against the story of little Tasha (though she is properly a mature woman nowadays).
Guess I'll have to stick to making the changes that might make certain spells more serious myself.
Well, I can't argue against the story of little Tasha (though she is properly a mature woman nowadays).
Guess I'll have to stick to making the changes that might make certain spells more serious myself.
Believe me, I am 100% behind most ideas that break conventions to make a better game... but this is a Sacred Cow that even I won't try to turn into steak. Sorry. :(
|
According to Grodog's Greyhawk Adventures Page:
Per Gary Gygax: Tasha was a very young girl, a D&D fan who wrote her first letter to me in crayon. She suggested the laughter spell, so her name was used in the version I created based on her suggested details.
So... maybe we shouldn't change this spell over much? I'm all for modifying the spell so that it grants a round-by-round save against the effect (as I advocate for all spells that take players out of combat), but I think maybe we should leave the name and the nature of the effect well enough alone.
I agree on all points. The nostalgia and meaning needs to remain intact;
and I really feel that the spells that take people out of combat for extended periods need to allow saves - at the very least reduce the effect afterwards; for instance: laughter (no actions) etc; make a save in a subsequent round the creature can act, but he's slowed.
Robert
