Couple Questions from last night's session

[Diarmuid]

So my group came upon a couple interesting oddities in our game last night. The DM came up with a ruling on the spot to keep the game moving but after the game the incidents came up again for conversation and as a group we really couldnt nail down a specific solution that everyone could agree on.

Scenario 1
NPC casts Confusion on PC's. NPC then goes Invisible. The random roll comes up "Flee away from caster at top possible speed.". We were somewhat split on whether the effected PC would flee from the caster's last known location, would be able to act normally, or simply delay (the last was the least likely amongst our group but it was worth mentioning.

Scenario 2
Same as scenario 1, but the random roll comes up "Do nothing but babble incoherently.". This same PC had ended up attacking a comrade the previous round, so that comrade decided to disarm the confused PC. Can/Would the confused PC resist this?

For scenario 1, we went with "flee from last known location" to keep the battle going. For scenario 2, we went with a simply Standard action to disarm and no rolls/mechanics were involved. Afterwards, this opened up the conversation to say that if he had no way to prevent this, was he Helpless, and in that regard, could he have been coup de gras'd?

[ahenobarbi]

I'd say spell description is pretty clear...

1) "A confused character who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently."

2) "Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character. Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes."

And disarming is an attack.

[Volos]

A confused character is not paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy... so no, you could not have attempted a coup de grace on him.

[Diarmuid]

I see what you're saying, but we took that section to mean that if you were supposed to flee or attack, but could not move for some reason then the babbling would come into play.

I our scenario, nothing was physically stopping the confused character from fleeing, we just didnt know if not having something to flee from qualified for the babbling.

[ahenobarbi]

Me thinks not knowing where caster is makes fleeing away from him/her/it impossible but ... well fleeing from where character could guess caster is works too.

[Volos]

I see what you're saying, but we took that section to mean that if you were supposed to flee or attack, but could not move for some reason then the babbling would come into play.

I our scenario, nothing was physically stopping the confused character from fleeing, we just didnt know if not having something to flee from qualified for the babbling.

Being unable to see/hear/smell(if they have scent) the caster would keep the character from attacking or fleeing from the caster. Also being out of range would keep the character from attacking the caster or the neast creature. Out of range, in this case, would mean either not having access to a ranged weapon or being outside of charging distance from the intended target. Disarming the character would be considered an attack, which would make the confused character attack the person who attempted to disarm them on following turns. If the one who attempted to disarm the character did something to provoke an AoO from the confused character, the confused character would make that AoO (even if they were unarmed). Anything else you need cleared up?

[Diarmuid]

Not being able to see/hear/smell doesnt mean you cant simply pick a square and attack it. Sure you could be wrong, but you can sure as heck try. It was this logic that led the DM to make the ruling that you have an idea where the caster is so you would flee from that. We all accepted it, but I was hoping to find something more "official" or something with a more compelling argument.


As for the disarming, the actual wording of the spell specifies that the confused character would attack that person on their next turn, but would not take AoO's against a character it is not already engaged with. So it sounds like the Disarm should have been resolved as normal (opposed rolls) but would not have provoked an AoO as the comrade had not already been attacked by the confused person.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Scenario 1: There's no clear RAW on whether a Confused character (hereafter referred to as Bozo) is able to flee from or attack an undetectable character. One apropos - but clearly houseruled - solution is to roll randomly (coin flip probably) to see if Bozo deems the action impossible. If he doesn't, he runs toward or away from the last known location, attacking or fleeing respectively. If Bozo deems it impossible, he babbles incoherently.

Scenario 2: As has been stated, attempting to disarm someone counts as an attack. Bozo would resist the disarm attempt, attack the disarmer next turn and, in your case, make any appropriate AoOs. If Bozo hadn't just attacked the disarmer, though, he wouldnt' get the AoO.
Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).I interpret "it has just been attacked" to mean that any action that happens after that attack is subject to relevant AoOs, but not the attack itself.

[Volos]

I interpret "it has just been attacked" to mean that any action that happens after that attack is subject to relevant AoOs, but not the attack itself.

This is what I was trying to get at. Sorry if I wasn't clear.