Laughing Touch Fey Sorcerer Ability


Rules Questions


Ability Text wrote:
Laughing Touch (Sp): At 1st level, you can cause a creature to burst out laughing for 1 round as a melee touch attack. A laughing creature can only take a move action but can defend itself normally. Once a creature has been affected by laughing touch, it is immune to its effects for 24 hours. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.

Question: Is creature under effect of this effect has ability to make Attacks of Opportunity?

Liberty's Edge

It limits the actions you can take, but it doesn't take away your ability to make a melee attack. So you threaten and can make a melee attack.

RAI probably you shouldn't be able to take an AoO, but RAW nothing stops you.


In reference to this ability although I it's not on topic this ability is one of the reasons I love having someone in the party with this ability when Im playing a grappler. No standards means no break attempts.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:

It limits the actions you can take, but it doesn't take away your ability to make a melee attack. So you threaten and can make a melee attack.

RAI probably you shouldn't be able to take an AoO, but RAW nothing stops you.

One could argue that AoOs are not move actions, and since the affected creature "can only take a move action", then they cannot perform AoOs, the same way they cannot perform Free, Swift, or any other action that is not, specifically, a move action.

Liberty's Edge

Gray Warden wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

It limits the actions you can take, but it doesn't take away your ability to make a melee attack. So you threaten and can make a melee attack.

RAI probably you shouldn't be able to take an AoO, but RAW nothing stops you.

One could argue that AoOs are not move actions, and since the affected creature "can only take a move action", then they cannot perform AoOs, the same way they cannot perform Free, Swift, or any other action that is not, specifically, a move action.

No, you can't.

Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all, so something that limits action doesn't affect them. You need something that limits attacks.

CRB wrote:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.

The target can take free actions when he takes a move action. The ability needs to stop all actions, specific that it stops free actions or stop the specific kind of action he wants to take to affect it, as long as the target can take some kind of action.

Or you would argue that he can't see as that isn't a move action?

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all

So you agree they aren't move actions either. Cool beans.

Liberty's Edge

Gray Warden wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all
So you agree they aren't move actions either. Cool beans.
Quote:
A laughing creature can only take a move action but can defend itself normally.

As you are trying to argue that taking only move action precludes all non-actions, do you want to explain what it means "can defend itself normally"?

By your logic, the target can't try to make saves as it isn't a move action.

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Attacks of Opportunity aren't actions at all
So you agree they aren't move actions either. Cool beans.
Quote:
A laughing creature can only take a move action but can defend itself normally.

As you are trying to argue that taking only move action precludes all non-actions, do you want to explain what it means "can defend itself normally"?

By your logic, the target can't try to make saves as it isn't a move action.

Let's make a few things clear, since you seem to have taken this matter to heart and cannot really grasp subjects: I am not claiming, or trying to argue, anything here, I've simply proposed an alternative interpretation that I can realistically see coming, in an attempt to bridge RAW and someone's perceived RAI, that may have some merits, or it would at least be worth considering. In fact, I do, personally (see, this is my opinion) believe that AoOs should be allowed, if anything because of the deliberately vague "can defend itself normally" phrasing, rather than anything else.

I understand that we are on the rules forum, where people go deliberately out of their way to be as pedantic and obtuse as they can, but here, in the real world, when we happen to talk about an attack, we also imply that to be some sort of action, I don't know what kind, perhaps its own kind of action, and if not in straight game terms, at the very least because it is, for the character, a form of inter-action with the world around them, which is why I could, while disagreeing on the conclusion, understand someone arguing in this light. I don't personally feel this is the way rules were supposed to be intended, but I definitely acknowledge this as a legitimate way to intend them.

And so we are super clear, if you read "One could argue..." on a public forum, perhaps it would be better if you didn't reply with:

Diego Rossi wrote:
No, you can't.

because, unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure that one can argue whatever they want, and whether you disagree or not has literally no impact on what one can argue about. So I hope this has been clarified.

That being said, if you still feel so strongly about this matter, how would you handle an ability or effect that precluded the target from performing actions in general? Would you be of the opinion that they would still be able, beyond any reasonable doubt, to perform AoOs since they are, in fact, not actions?


It would seem that an AoO is the very definition of defending oneself normally. Lol.

F***, why do I come in here...? I hate the rules arena... we all turn into a bunch of @$$holes... welcome to the Thunderdome, b!tch...

Liberty's Edge

If it preclude taking actions, the game term, yes, it will not preclude thing that aren't defined as actions, the game term.
You are conflating actions, the game term with acting the ability to act, as defined in the dictionary.

Making an AoO is decidedly acting the dictionary term but isn't an action, the game term.
Similarly, making a reflex save is acting the dictionary term but isn't an action, the game term.

Let's look at a condition that reduces you to a single move action and what it says:

CRB wrote:
Nauseated: Creatures with the nauseated condition experience stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention.The only action such a character can take is a single move actions per turn.

If "can take ... single move actions per turn" already includes " unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention" why does it expend all that text to reiterate it?

Because being limited to a single move action doesn't automatically imply that you can't do any of those actions. It only makes it more difficult.

You are right that you can present whatever argument you want to present, but when you say "One could argue" you are using a figure of speech, so it is a bit questionable that you then take umbrage if someone replies with another figure of speech.

But I will accept your rebuke, and correct what I said:
"Yes, you can argue that, but your argument has no value, as you are trying to argue that something that affects actions (game term) affects things that aren't actions (game term)."

Silver Crusade

Diego Rossi wrote:
If it preclude taking actions, the game term, yes, it will not preclude thing that aren't defined as actions, the game term.

Ok, so if something precludes taking actions, I can still perform AoOs, because they are not actions, no matter what. Correct?

In which case I'll leave this here, just as a reminder that sometimes it would be better not to be too confident, and to allow some doubt and flexibility here and there:

Dying wrote:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

Liberty's Edge

Gray Warden wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
If it preclude taking actions, the game term, yes, it will not preclude thing that aren't defined as actions, the game term.

Ok, so if something precludes taking actions, I can still perform AoOs, because they are not actions, no matter what. Correct?

In which case I'll leave this here, just as a reminder that sometimes it would be better not to be too confident, and to allow some doubt and flexibility here and there:

Dying wrote:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

Let's bold a different part:

Dying wrote:

If your hit point total is negative, but not equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you’re dying.

A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions.

and then cite the unconscious condition:

Quote:
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature’s Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.

Again you are muddling the water trying to equate action, the game term, with the ability to act.

They are two different things.


Free actions despite take almost no time at all are still actions as they are found in the rules under “Actions in Combat”. Action is literally in the name of the “Free Action”. For an example of a “no action” here is an excerpt from the acrobatics skill. “ Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.” As for AoOs being defensive in nature how is stabbing someone in the back as they turn to run away from you a purely defensive action. Yes in some situations AoOs can be defensive in nature but not all situations.


Furthermore I quote “ Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take ACTIONS, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any).” but if AoOs are not actions then a stunned person can still perform them.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Laughing Touch Fey Sorcerer Ability All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.