RAW is rules as written. There is no statement within Hideous Laughter that you cannot hold your breath. You are infering that you cannot hold your breath by bringing in standard english definitions and logic and trying to apply that to a game that is completely based in fiction and that violates logic and standard english definitions at every turn.
It might make external sense, but this game does not make external sense most of the time. I do not ask it to. Any attempt to ask this game to make external sense is an exercise in futility. So with that said: I pick my battles. I choose to try to look at the game from a standpoint of does it make INTERNAL sense. For that I look at RAW without trying to compare it to reality. Too many people compare the rules to reality and then get tripped up by that attempt.
I could provide a massive list of nonmagical violations of reality that this game has on a regular basis but what would be the point? We would start with falling, proceed to archery, then take a turn through firearms, make a dip into strength issues and keep going until Doomsday comes. This game is completely rediculous IF you look at it through the eyes of external logic.
So, the RAW (what is written, not inferred) is that Hideous Laughter has no statement that you cannot hold your breath. Any GM that states this is using GM Fiat which as I have said...is NOT a problem.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way if they fail the second save on hideous laughter it's still a good send them away for a few rounds tactic as Jiggy pointed out.
Spell components 5g
Robe of the archmagi 75000g
Look on the BBEG's face when he comes back from a laughing fit in space Priceless
Nicos:
The problem is that Pathfinder (and D&D in general) has for years violated the standard definitions and even when they do not the general design principle is: If it is not stated, it cannot do it, even if the language can be broken down to infer it by definition.
Again I am going to state: it is completely reasonable for a GM to rule this way (ie: GM fiat). But again, it is up to a GM to rule this way. It is not written.
- Gauss
Lord Fyre: Logic and Physics are thrown out all the time in this game. [...] Oh, and firearms are radically incorrect if we are looking at logic, common sense, and physics. A muzzleloader firing between 2 to 5 times in 6seconds (not including magic)? Utterly, completely rediculous. Not remotely possible. And yet, we have it.
You have a point. Well traited British Infantry could get off four shots a minute - and at this rate they were considered some of the most dangerous soldiers in Europe at the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several are making an argument based on the name of the spell, not the mechanic of the spell. Uncontrollable and Laughter is just a flavorful idea on what the spell seems to do. The spell has nothing to do with anything 'uncontrollable', nor 'laughing'. The spell only causes you to fall prone and forced to make a save so as not to lose a full round action, etc.
If you're trying to define the title, not the defined spell mechanic, you're seeing it wrong. The spell name means nothing really, only what the spell does mechanically is what matters.
It seems some are reading too much into the name of the spell.
gamer-printer: Welcome to what many people try to do when debating rules. They use part of the fluff (even if that is reasonable fluff) to justify a rules position.
- Gauss
So if laughing is just fluff why do the rules cover humor not translating well to other types of creatures and not working on those with animal intelligence?
I mean if all it does is make you prone and unable to act then humor shouldn't be an issue.
Talonhawke:
You just answered your own question. The rules are what cover various things. When there are not rules you ask questions like 'why'. Corner cases like this always come up with 'why'. This is not covered in the rules.
- Gauss
My mom is Japanese and she doesn't get western humor, and I find Japanese humor kind of odd, more than funny. Humor doesn't necessarily translate well between RL human cultures, let alone other beings intelligent or otherwise - just sayin'.
I agree that nothing in the spell prohibits holding ones breath. But to say as gamer-printer that the laughing is fluff isn't accurate. I'll also point out that if laughing being undefined has no effect on holding ones breath we hit the corner case of witches being able to cackle while holding there breath when it would be beneficial.
My mom is Japanese and she doesn't get western humor, and I find Japanese humor kind of odd, more than funny. Humor doesn't necessarily translate well between RL human cultures, let alone other beings intelligent or otherwise - just sayin'.
If the spell isn't causing laughter by its effects then why does the humor matter? That's the question I'm asking. Laughter is an effect of the spell however it's an effect that isn't covered by raw as a condition with listed effects.
I agree that nothing in the spell prohibits holding ones breath. But to say as gamer-printer that the laughing is fluff isn't accurate. I'll also point out that if laughing being undefined has no effect on holding ones breath we hit the corner case of witches being able to cackle while holding there breath when it would be beneficial.
If the spell isn't causing laughter by its effects then why does the humor matter? That's the question I'm asking. Laughter is an effect of the spell however it's an effect that isn't covered by raw as a condition with listed effects.
Humor? That's not a necessary component for laughter. Drugs and other chemical imbalances can cause laughter. Laughter isn't a condition, so it has no in-game effect (you answered it yourself.) And I see no problem by the rules for Cackling in a vacuum, underwater or otherwise.
Not saying that laughter shouldn't be condition for your house rule, but by RAW it has no effect. The spell name and the description (unless it specifically defines mechanics) means nothing more than to fit your head around a flavor idea.
Most spells are named and described for what they do. UHL is an especially colorful one, but mechanically only does what has already been stated, and nothing else.
I feel I ought to chip something in here. I know Pathfinder is fantasy but let's interject the science that the mechanic is trying to simulate.
The phrase "holding your breath" is intended for circumstances where the act of breathing *in* will cause something harmful to happen. You are in a cloud of toxic gas, or underwater, or something. So inhaling while underwater causes instant problems, as does inhaling toxic gas. But you can safely *exhale* during these times without a problem, so "holding your breath" must refer to preventing yourself from inhaling.
When you are in the void of space, inhaling does nothing. You simply cannot. But there is not toxic material entering your lungs; there is nothing at all. If you were forced to laugh this would become a soundless gasping spasm but would not do any more damage than you are already getting.
The number of rounds that you can hold your breath is also the number of rounds that you can survive without new air entering your lungs. At this point your lungs will try to inhale autonomically because you are now suffocating.
So if I was your GM I would rule that a person in space will get the full amount of time (or perhaps I would penalize him based on the Vacuum environment) and would not start dying instantly.
Peet
So we are at the point that laughing underwater or in space doesn't cause one to start suffocating. Can a caster use a verbal spell in space? Nothing under suffocation says speaking cant be done while holding ones breath. Even the rules for drowning don't cover what holding your breath means so can we now cast underwater with impunity to drowning?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically the character, in space, now gets to take a Full Round Action to try to break the laughter, 6d6 cold damage. Except that while they're doing that full round action, and laughing, they most assuredly aren't holding their breath. So they go to 0 hit points and disabled (even if they make the second save), then go to -1 hit points, then die. The damage is all but irrelevant at that point...
Debate on whether you can hold your breath whilst laughing or not aside, that's not actually how the suffocation rules work.
When you're not 'holding your breath' - whether that's because you've hit the time limit allowed by your Con score, or whether you can't hold your breath under the circumstances (such as when you're unconscious underwater), you don't instantly go to the 'you failed your Con check' part of the suffocation rules, you go to the 'start making Con checks' part of the suffocation rules. The example of this is under what happens if you're unconscious underwater in the 'Drowning' section right after the 'Suffocation' section in the core book, page 445.
On the other hand, the Breaching the Gulf power states that the character 'immediately begins to suffocate', which (if you check the suffocation rules) actually is the nasty part of suffocation. So if you fail the save Vs that (level 15) power and you need to breathe then you're dead in three rounds, no matter what, unless you can get back (or stop yourself needing to breath). The hideous laughter is only helpful in stopping the guy try a full-round action to return (or casting that level 1 air bubble spell which would solve his suffocation issues).
Of course, a level 15 Sorcerer can cast level 7 spells already (a level 15 Wizard would be on level 8 spells, of course), so a once-per day bloodline power which likely has a lower save DC than your best save or suck spells, and which gives the target at least a minimal chance of survival even after failing the initial save is... well, nothing to be to amazed at. The fact that robes of arcane heritage gave Sorcerers something nice... well, they desire something, don't they? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we are at the point that laughing underwater or in space doesn't cause one to start suffocating. Can a caster use a verbal spell in space? Nothing under suffocation says speaking cant be done while holding ones breath. Even the rules for drowning don't cover what holding your breath means so can we now cast underwater with impunity to drowning?
Well the rules say you can cast underwater if you make a concentration check.
Casting spells while submerged can be difficult for those who cannot breathe underwater. A creature that cannot breathe water must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell underwater (this is in addition to the caster level check to successfully cast a fire spell underwater). Creatures that can breathe water are unaffected and can cast spells normally. Some spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.
So, to answer your question, it looks like the rules say, "Yeah, cast underwater with impunity to drowning, just so long as you make that concentration check."
:)
I find it interesting that so many people are trying to argue what laughing and holding your breath mean mechanically.
I'd like to end the suspense. I did a search through the CRB for laughing, and you know comes up? The various places where the Hideous Laughter spell is mentioned, and the Laughing Touch spell. Interestingly in the short description of HL on page 233 the only thing it says is "Subject loses actions for 1 round/level." It doesn't even say they get the prone condition. Which means from a design perspective the biggest part of that spell is the subject losing their actions for 1 round/level. It doesn't say laughter ensues which causes... because laughter has no mechanical application.
Want to hear (or in this case read) something even more interesting. The only mechanical reference to holding breath is in the Swim skill, and the language there says nothing about the type of action holding your breath is. In fact it just says "holding your breath" is limited to 2 x your constitution score if you do nothing but move actions or free actions. For every standard action you take that total number is reduced by one. In their words, "(Effectively, a character in
combat can hold his breath only half as long as normal.)"
Try as you might, you will never find a application for either laughter or holding your breath (other than the amount of time a character can do so, and what other actions it affects). They are not part of the mechanical rules. Which means, as many have pointed out, they fall clearly under GM fiat. This means you can rule laughter and breath holding however you choose, but if you have a rules lawyer at the table, get ready for them to tell you you are mechanically wrong, because you are.
@ Gauss, gamer-printer
I can not reallyundestard your position. lets see this example, fireball state
"It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze"
so, there is a bronze sword in the ground then fireball explode. Then, as "melt" is not defined by the rules and is just fluff, can I just take the sword and attack with it?.
It's simple, science and physics doesn't ever enter the equation. This has been true about D&D since the beginning. That's why early on other game publishers tried to create different systems in an attempt to bring what they perceived as reality into the game. And for all intents and purposes - that has never truly worked for any game system.
Once you try to put science and physics into how a spell works you're on the slippery slope of breaking the game. The real world is far, far more complicated than any game, and especially Pathfinder/D&D game system which is only a hand-wave to reality.
As a GM, I'd say the bronze sword is melted on the floor. This not a game mechanic issue - Fireball states it will melt bronze. I don't need math or mechanics to change that, nor make it true. Simply stated bronze weapons in the vicinity of a fireball looses it's edge and no longer functions as a weapon. It would be GM fiat to define how a spell works specifically in a given situation - I don't need rules to do that.
Again, the spell name really has no mechanical meaning, so trying to make one up is just a thought exercise with no real meaning into the game. Trying to give mechanical definitions to spell names is not a worthwhile exercise, except for developing some group's houserule. If you can't stick with RAW you are playing an alternate version of PF. While there's nothing wrong with that - it does not serve you to base a forum rules debate on such a premise.
I say again, science and physics has absolutely no place in defining how spells work. It isn't reality - its magic, simply stated.
Nicos:
In the case of fireball and a sword you would follow the appropriate rules on Hardness, energy damage, and weapon hitpoints. If the weapon has not been destroyed, then yes, you may take the sword and attack with it. If it has been destroyed then you may declare it melted.
At no point have I said I would not rule as you are suggesting it should work. What I said is that it is not part of the RAW. As MendedWall12 so nicely put: It is not in the mechanics of the game.
I have consistently stated that the RAW on Hideous Laughter does not include the inability to hold your breath. THEN I stated that it is reasonable for a GM to rule that Hideous Laughter does in fact prevent you from holding your breath.
My position is 'what is RAW?' Great! Now that we know what RAW is we can modify it.
- Gauss
|
I have a Starsoul Sorcerer. At 11th level, he'll have a Robe of Arcane Heritage, and will be able to access his 15th level bloodline ability.
At 15th level, your caster level is increased by 3 when casting spells of the teleportation subschool. In addition, once per day you can teleport a single creature within 30 feet into the void of space if it fails a Will save. The save DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 your sorcerer level + your Charisma modifier. The target can attempt a new saving throw as a full-round action each round to return. While trapped in the airless void, the target suffers 6d6 points of cold damage per round and must hold its breath or begin to suffocate.
A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.
So, as near as I can tell, I have a once-per-day "Kill Anything...
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. On the creature's next turn, it may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. If this save is successful, the effect ends. If not, the creature continues laughing for the entire duration.
nobody puts baby in the Phantom Zone..
|
|
Oh hey - they updated the text for that from the original 'immediately begins to suffocate'... sorry, I hadn't noticed that.
In that case, Breaching the Gulf is hardly an overly-impressive power for a level 15 full caster. It's okay, and funny as heck, so I like it; but even if you're not holding your breath you still get the series of Con checks before you actually start to suffocate, so... basically it's just doing you the cold damage each round, unless you're really unlucky on your Con saves. It's pretty nice at level 11, but at level 15 you're starting to rock stuff like Spell Perfection and all sorts of stuff much more likely to be considered game changers than this, IMHO...
It's simple, science and physics doesn't ever enter the equation. This has been true about D&D since the beginning.
Nonsense! Rubbish I say! Actually, science and physics have always been a very important part of the rules and many rules within the game specifically exist to simulate the laws of physics.
For example, if you are unsupported in mid-air, the rules state that you will fall downwards. This simulates a property which in physics is known as 'gravity'. The rules state that you will also take damage from this fall, and you will take more damage the further you fall, but that you may also mitigate this damage by jumping downwards. Though they are abstractions they serve to simulate the notion of gravity represented in the real universe.
That's why early on other game publishers tried to create different systems in an attempt to bring what they perceived as reality into the game. And for all intents and purposes - that has never truly worked for any game system.
Well, ultimately when a game designer refers to "realism" what he is really referring to is "believability." Suspension of disbelief is very important in an RPG as the enjoyment comes from immersing yourself in a fantasy world. If the world is not believable then the illusion is shattered. An incident that is not believable because it makes no sense puts a sour taste in the mouths of the players, and consistent lapses in believability can ruin a game. It's up the DM to maintain believability in his game and he should absolutely houserule things if it improves believability.
And frankly I wonder how many other RPGs you've played if you don't think any other game was able to do this. There are plenty of other games that are much more believable than D&D. D&D remains the most popular mainly because it was the first role-playing game, not because it is the best.
Once you try to put science and physics into how a spell works you're on the slippery slope of breaking the game.
Only if the spell is poorly written.
Again, the spell name really has no mechanical meaning,
On this we agree. The name of a spell is like a brand name devised by the mage who developed it in the first place. Of course the name is more useful if it matches what the spell does, but the spell description is naturally separate from the title.
I say again, science and physics has absolutely no place in defining how spells work. It isn't reality - its magic, simply stated.
From the way you talk it sounds more like religion - like being told at a Catholic School that something is a divine mystery you cannot possibly understand and you must simply accept it.
There is nothing wrong with delving into the how and the why of the workings of magic in your game, and if you are playing a wizard I would think it odd if you had no interest in the subject.
Peet
Nonsense! Rubbish I say! Actually, science and physics have always been a very important part of the rules and many rules within the game specifically exist to simulate the laws of physics.
To a degree, however describe the physics of Teleport and Wish? It's magic I say, and trying to define how magic works in your game that appeals to your particular suspension of disbelief is perfectly fine thought exercise, as long as it doesn't change the mechanics.
For example, if you are unsupported in mid-air, the rules state that you will fall downwards. This simulates a property which in physics is known as 'gravity'. The rules state that you will also take damage from this fall, and you will take more damage the further you fall, but that you may also mitigate this damage by jumping downwards. Though they are abstractions they serve to simulate the notion of gravity represented in the real universe.
Some spells and game mechanics do in fact have a physical aspect that matches reality. Many do not. How does the Fly spell work in real world terms?
You can houserule whatever you want, and I've already previously stated in this thread that if your particular group's decision on how a spell or any mechanic works differently in your particular game is a perfectly fine thing to do. All my posts only apply to trying to alter the meaning of RAW in a rules debate on a forum discussion.
I'm not saying you can't houserule it differently, just that making a case based on a misreading of the rules or trying to apply mechanics that aren't there is the mistake being made by the OP and others in this thread.
This discussion is about Core rules, not houserules.
That's why early on other game publishers tried to create different systems in an attempt to bring what they perceived as reality into the game. And for all intents and purposes - that has never truly worked for any game system.
Well, ultimately when a game designer refers to "realism" what he is really referring to is "believability." Suspension of disbelief is very important in an RPG as the enjoyment comes from immersing yourself in a fantasy world. If the world is not believable then the illusion is shattered. An incident that is not believable because it makes no sense puts a sour taste in the mouths of the players, and consistent lapses in believability can ruin a game. It's up the DM to maintain believability in his game and he should absolutely houserule things if it improves believability.
I'm a game designer and I meant realism, not believeability.
Some games are better with some aspects of reality more than other games. D&D/PF is not the most realistic game, and never intended to be. I am saying that no game perfectly simulates reality, so trying to use reality to justify how a spell works differently than what the mechanics state it does - is an exercise in futility.
And frankly I wonder how many other RPGs you've played if you don't think any other game was able to do this. There are plenty of other games that are much more believable than D&D. D&D remains the most popular mainly because it was the first role-playing game, not because it is the best.
Been playing since 1977, including D&D/AD&D 1e/2e/3x/PF, Runequest (original version), Harn, Rolemaster, Aftermath, Twilight 2000 (original version), Traveler, Space Opera, Paranoia, HOL, Vampire the Masquerade (original version) - and have dabbled in a dozen other game systems at Cons. Many were fun, some more than others, while all fit within my suspension of disbelief more or less, none seemed truly realistic.
It's not like religion, and I'm not trying to imply that all spells are beyond knowing and understanding in real world terms it's just that so much of the game has no basis in reality, it's magic. Necromancy, resurrection, wish, fly, invisibility, teleport... metaphysics means outside of the category of physics, which is where magic exists, divinely and otherwise.
To a degree, however describe the physics of Teleport and Wish? It's magic I say, and trying to define how magic works in your game that appeals to your particular suspension of disbelief is perfectly fine thought exercise, as long as it doesn't change the mechanics.
Why shouldn't it change the mechanics? It the mechanics are impeding the fun of the game then the GM should absolutely change them. It's his job.
As to Teleport and Wish, defining these is not that hard if you already have a mechanism for why magic works in the first place. Some things are harder than others, but Teleport is pretty easy. Wish mainly is used for simulating other spells that you didn't bother to memorize so as long as those other effects work then it is generally all right.
Some spells and game mechanics do in fact have a physical aspect that matches reality. Many do not. How does the Fly spell work in real world terms?
Fly is another easy one since it is basically a simple application of kinetic energy.
All my posts only apply to trying to alter the meaning of RAW in a rules debate on a forum discussion.
...
This discussion is about Core rules, not houserules.
My first post was to point out that the RAW does not actually apply to the situation as discussed, because 'holding one's breath' applies to keeping stuff *out* of your lungs rather than in. And when the RAW doesn't cover a given situation, you *must* houserule in order to proceed with the game. Even saying "That doesn't work" is a houserule. You might as well base your houserule on reality.
I'm a game designer and I meant realism, not believeability.
I don't believe you :P
Funny, I am actually a game designer too.
I am saying that no game perfectly simulates reality, so trying to use reality to justify how a spell works differently than what the mechanics state it does - is an exercise in futility.
Well, we have two things here - First, even though no game perfectly simulates reality (and they never will just because of the sheer processing power needed), that is no reason not to try have the game *better* reflect reality.
Second, you seem to be missing the point of the thread. I am not trying to "justify how a spell works differently than the mechanics state." My OP is that the existing mechanics don't cover the situation.
What we are talking about is how the rules for two different spells interact and whether and how a third rule (about "holding breath") can be applied. My point is that the third rule is not meant to cover things taking place in vacuum (mainly because it is a condition that almost never comes up in a game).
So the GM should come up with something based on how he knows things really work, using the original rule as a starting point. It often comes up that something happens in a game that is not covered by the rules and a GM ruling is always how you proceed.
Been playing since 1977, including D&D/AD&D 1e/2e/3x/PF, Runequest (original version), Harn, Rolemaster, Aftermath, Twilight 2000 (original version), Traveler, Space Opera, Paranoia, HOL, Vampire the Masquerade (original version) - and have dabbled in a dozen other game systems at Cons. Many were fun, some more than others, while all fit within my suspension of disbelief more or less, none seemed truly realistic.
I haven't been at it as long, only since 1980 for me. I never played Aftermath or Space Opera, and I don't know what HOL is, but aside from Paranoia (which is meant to be silly), pretty much all the other ones you listed are more realistic than D&D, to varying degrees.
Harnmaster was probably my favourite on your list but I did a lot of Traveller and some Vampire. Also a lot of Shadowrun 2e. Tried Star Frontiers, Cyberpunk, HKAT!, and James Bond briefly but never really got into them. Also played a fair bit of Toon when I was young but of course that was not especially realistic. :)
Even if you never found them "truly realistic," it sounds like they were realistic *enough* for you to accept them. For me, 1e D&D almost never was, and it was only when there was a really compelling story (such as the Dragonlance series) that I ever felt it was worthwhile. I never played 2e but 3e/PF is much better. Nevertheless it does sometimes fail and if I am GMing I intervene in such cases.
Peet
So we are at the point that laughing underwater or in space doesn't cause one to start suffocating. Can a caster use a verbal spell in space? Nothing under suffocation says speaking cant be done while holding ones breath. Even the rules for drowning don't cover what holding your breath means so can we now cast underwater with impunity to drowning?
Well, that is not what I am saying, actually. What I am saying is that it works differently between water and space.
When underwater, you hold your breath to keep the water out of your lungs. I would have to agree that doing so would become much more difficult when laughing, and since there are rules about how spellcasting becomes much more difficult undewarter I would probably reference those rules first.
When in space, though, there is no effect if *space* gets in your lungs. So the "hold your breath" rule would apply even if you no longer actually attempt to hold your breath. It would simply be the amount of time you could go without air.
Peet