Problem with enemies abound

[Darkstar952]

Has anyone had a problem with how enemies abound is worded?

You force one creature you can see to make an Intelligence save. It automatically succeeds if it is immune to being frightened. On a failure, the target regards all creatures it can see as enemies, allies included. Each time the target takes damage, it can repeat the save, ending the effect on a success.

Whenever the creature chooses a target, it must choose at random from among the creatures it can see within range. If an enemy provokes an opportunity attack, the creature must make that attack if it's able to.


As it triggers when the creature chooses a target it was so easy for the target to manipulate it so that there was no effect from the spell. For example using a melee weapon and ensuring that only an actual enemy is in range, so they are the only enemy to be randomly selected. Or using AOE spells and continuing to place it selectively to hit only the actual enemies. Or the worst case where the character simply put away their weapons and didn't attack so as not to risk hitting an ally.

None of this seems to fit the idea behind the spell that the character sees everyone around them as an enemy.

[Quoxis]

If you choose to go meta on it, yeah, you can cheat your way out of the downsides of the spell. That’s out-of-game knowledge though, so a GM would most likely tell you to play the game instead of being a smartass.

[Unoriginal]

Has anyone had a problem with how enemies abound is worded?

You force one creature you can see to make an Intelligence save. It automatically succeeds if it is immune to being frightened. On a failure, the target regards all creatures it can see as enemies, allies included. Each time the target takes damage, it can repeat the save, ending the effect on a success.

Whenever the creature chooses a target, it must choose at random from among the creatures it can see within range. If an enemy provokes an opportunity attack, the creature must make that attack if it's able to.


As it triggers when the creature chooses a target it was so easy for the target to manipulate it so that there was no effect from the spell. For example using a melee weapon and ensuring that only an actual enemy is in range, so they are the only enemy to be randomly selected. Or using AOE spells and continuing to place it selectively to hit only the actual enemies. Or the worst case where the character simply put away their weapons and didn't attack so as not to risk hitting an ally.

None of this seems to fit the idea behind the spell that the character sees everyone around them as an enemy.

What.

If the creatures see every other creatures as enemies, they see every creatures as enemies. They can't just select their actual enemies, or stop attacking.

They're hostile to *everyone*, and attack at random.

Are you talking about players or DMs not respecting the rules and going "hey, the affected creature actually can bypass that because... they can control circumstances."

You can't get hit by the spell, and then decide to move so you're only near your actual enemies. Nor can you decide to specifically target a group of actual enemies with your AOEs.

[Darkstar952]

Thank you all, you have ratified my position on it, if everything is your enemy then everything is your enemy and you should act accordingly.

This problem actually came up in the game I DM, it was cast on one of the players and it was a constant barrage of trying to meta their way out of the spells effects.

I think we may just need to have a out of game discussion about it and meta gaming in general, I just wanted to get the opinions of the board before doing so.

[DMThac0]

That's not even meta, that's just blatant cheating.

Easy solution, find every enemy within movement range and/or combat range, have the player roll a die, that is their target. If, for some reason they still try to cheat their way out of it, you now control the die roll and choose for the player. They may complain but, they are effectively not in control of their attack action any how.

I'm not one to advocate removing agency from a player, it's probably the worst thing a DM can do in game. However, given a player is trying to cheat their way out of a spells effect, sometimes the DM has to step in and make sure the mechanics of the game are being upheld properly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yea I would say that the player would be stuck treating everything in the area as a hostile creature and at the very least act in self defense.

I suppose you could technically roleplay the creature as suddenly being terrified at the number of enemies surrounding them and have them attempt to flee but even that seems to be unintended thanks to the line about AoO being mandatory.

[Armored Walrus]

That's a player/DM problem, not a spell wording problem. You've got someone that doesn't want to go along with the intent of the spell. That's unusual, in my experience, most folks I play with would relish the excuse to stab their team mates once in awhile, but it's not necessarily wrong, either. This is a talk to the player issue. You'll have to find a solution that works for your table. The fact that five random people on the internet agree with the opinion you already had before you came here has no weight whatsoever. Go talk to your player and iron it out - whether that answer for you is "listen, knock it off or leave my table" or is "OK, i get it, I won't use that spell any more" or something in between.

[guachi]

I close my eyes! I can't see any enemies! HAHAHAHAHA!! Spell doesn't work. Neener neener!

I'd boot that guy.

[smcmike]

Yeah, the real problem here is the player’s approach to the game. While it isn’t fun to have your character hijacked for a long term (for me at least), this sort of spell should be a perfect opportunity for some fun role-play and smashing your friends.

Ironically, it might work better if you remove the mechanical section about randomized targets. You’re 100% right that the current language is very abusable, but it also gets in the way of a player who wants to get into it and role-play the madness.

[Emay Ecks]

If I was an adventurer, and all of a sudden I found myself surrounded by enemies and my allies disappeared, I'd know there's only a few ways that could happen.

1. I got teleported into a terrible place.
2. I'm currently under the effects of an illusion or mind altering ability.

So an adventurer acting semi-rationally ("Hmmm.... I was allied with several people 6 seconds ago. Now I am surrounded by hostiles...") could probably rationalize hitting the things that were hostile before everyone started looking like an enemy are probably the legit hostile entities. It may seem like metagaming, but I think adventurers would be able to get around a spell like that rationally.

[DMThac0]

Under that logic a suggestion spell would never work.

Hrm, that guy was my enemy, I now feel compelled to do something other than attack him. No, I don't think I will because he was just the enemy, I'll just attack him instead.

[Asmotherion]

...what?

If you trust your DM not to make your fireball feezee out into a puff of smoke as you cast it, you can trust them with this as well. If it occasionally happens, accept it, and find a diferent way to approach the situation.

In case this is written as a "counter measure when you're targeted by the spell":
If you're trying for a cheezy way to meta your way against a spell that you'll probably face like what? Once? Twice per Campain? Then don't. See what you'll improvise at the time. If you try to be a smart-@ass, guess who's going to be targeted by a Dominate Person next round, just to mention an example.

PS: I've never actually used it as a DM. But it seems like a Spell I'd roll percentage for "who you actually hit".

Even if you play on a grid, it makes no big diferance. You can make a trustworthy explaination on why they hit an ally and not an enemy instead.

[Armored Walrus]

If I was an adventurer, and all of a sudden I found myself surrounded by enemies and my allies disappeared, I'd know there's only a few ways that could happen.

1. I got teleported into a terrible place.
2. I'm currently under the effects of an illusion or mind altering ability.

So an adventurer acting semi-rationally ("Hmmm.... I was allied with several people 6 seconds ago. Now I am surrounded by hostiles...") could probably rationalize hitting the things that were hostile before everyone started looking like an enemy are probably the legit hostile entities. It may seem like metagaming, but I think adventurers would be able to get around a spell like that rationally.

The whole point of the spell is that once it affects you, you're no longer rational. I could see fleeing as a valid option, but manipulating your moves in order to create situations in which the mechanics of the spell force you to do exactly what you wanted to do in the first place is just metagaming (the bad kind). In my opinion it's no less of a jerk move than a DM that doesn't allow a player idea to work simply because it wasn't the idea s/he came up with. Everyone is supposed to be playing along in order for this game to work at its highest potential.

[Unoriginal]

If I was an adventurer, and all of a sudden I found myself surrounded by enemies and my allies disappeared, I'd know there's only a few ways that could happen.

1. I got teleported into a terrible place.
2. I'm currently under the effects of an illusion or mind altering ability.

So an adventurer acting semi-rationally ("Hmmm.... I was allied with several people 6 seconds ago. Now I am surrounded by hostiles...") could probably rationalize hitting the things that were hostile before everyone started looking like an enemy are probably the legit hostile entities. It may seem like metagaming, but I think adventurers would be able to get around a spell like that rationally.

No, because that kind of spell SPECIFICALLY make you think the situation is perfectly logical.

That's why the save is for: determine if you're affected or not.

Same reason that if you're affected by Phantasmal Killer, you're not going to think "wait a minute, that thing I'm afraid off cannot be there, silly me" if you failed the save.

If a spell could be "gotten around" like that, no one would learn it.

[Ganymede]

Even if you try to game the spell, Enemies Abound still seems like a good way to shut down the auras of all those paladins out there that dump their intelligence.


If I was an adventurer, and all of a sudden I found myself surrounded by enemies and my allies disappeared, I'd know there's only a few ways that could happen.

1. I got teleported into a terrible place.
2. I'm currently under the effects of an illusion or mind altering ability.

So an adventurer acting semi-rationally ("Hmmm.... I was allied with several people 6 seconds ago. Now I am surrounded by hostiles...") could probably rationalize hitting the things that were hostile before everyone started looking like an enemy are probably the legit hostile entities. It may seem like metagaming, but I think adventurers would be able to get around a spell like that rationally.

What you just described is called passing the spell's Intelligence save. PCs can't rely on meta-knowledge, and they definitely didn't figure out what you describe if they failed their intelligence save.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Even if you try to game the spell, Enemies Abound still seems like a good way to shut down the auras of all those paladins out there that dump their intelligence.

I suddenly really liked the idea of giving this spell to Strahd to try and make their encounter with him a bit more difficult but 10th level paladins make themselves and anyone within 10 feet immune to being frightened.

This spell does not affect creatures immune to being frightened.

[AvvyR]

What you just described is called passing the spell's Intelligence save. PCs can't rely on meta-knowledge, and they definitely didn't figure out what you describe if they failed their intelligence save.

Precisely. And it's magic. We have no way to know to what extent it affects the target's mind. There's no reason to believe that you can still remember singing bawdy tavern songs with your friends last night. It's entirely concievable that the spell warps your sense of reality to believe you've always been enemies with everyone present, just like how we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[Rickety Stick]

If the person hit by the spell specifically wants to run up to and attack the caster of the spell then? I can certainly see someone wanting to attack the enemy who just cast a spell on them in an attempt to break their concentration, or just out of spite even if the battlefield is full of other enemies.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If the person hit by the spell specifically wants to run up to and attack the caster of the spell then? I can certainly see someone wanting to attack the enemy who just cast a spell on them in an attempt to break their concentration, or just out of spite even if the battlefield is full of other enemies.

Or, conversely, they would think it's foolish to try and attack the caster in the back when they're suddenly completely surrounded by enemies. Their own allies around them are suddenly a wall of enemies who would absolutely rip them to shreds if they tried to attack a spellcaster all the way in the back instead of fighting to survive.

There's also no clear indication that the character would even know who or what cast the spell on them, if they even know that a spell was cast on them at all. The effect isn't tangible, it's all in their head.

[Rickety Stick]

Or, conversely, they would think it's foolish to try and attack the caster in the back when they're suddenly completely surrounded by enemies. Their own allies around them are suddenly a wall of enemies who would absolutely rip them to shreds if they tried to attack a spellcaster all the way in the back instead of fighting to survive.

There's also no clear indication that the character would even know who or what cast the spell on them, if they even know that a spell was cast on them at all. The effect isn't tangible, it's all in their head.

That does open the question whether the spell makes one think they are the only target for all the enemies or not. Besides what if a character has an easy time disengaging like a rogue or eagle barbarian? I agree that a player or DM should take into consideration the targets state of mind while affected by this spell, but making them completely delirious and uncontrollable seems like too much.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That does open the question whether the spell makes one think they are the only target for all the enemies or not. Besides what if a character has an easy time disengaging like a rogue or eagle barbarian? I agree that a player or DM should take into consideration the targets state of mind while affected by this spell, but making them completely delirious and uncontrollable seems like too much.

It's literally in the spell that they MUST take attacks of opportunity and that if they choose a target (Attack, Spellcast or even Class Feature) the targets are chosen at random within the range of the ability. They are in fact completely delirious and, to a certain degree, uncontrollable. It's very well implied that the intent is for them to think everyone is a target to kill.

It's comparable to a situation where you are charmed by a vampire and their order is "kill your friends". A clever player would notice that the vampires charm makes you think that the creature who charmed you is a close friend so they would go "well I'm going to kill the vampire since he's my friend".

While the player isn't technically wrong to think that, it's obviously not the intent of the mechanic for it to work that way. Just like it's not intended for you to look for any opportunity to not be treating this spell like you're suddenly in a room full of people you're trying to kill/ are trying to kill you.

[Rickety Stick]

It's literally in the spell that they MUST take attacks of opportunity and that if they attack targets are chosen at random within the range. They are in fact completely delirious and, to a certain degree, uncontrollable. It's very well implied that the intent is for them to think everyone is a target to kill.

It's comparable to a situation where you are charmed by a vampire and their order is "kill your friends". A clever player would notice that the vampires charm makes you think that the creature who charmed you is a close friend so they would go "well I'm going to kill the vampire since he's my friend".

While the player isn't technically wrong to think that, it's obviously not the intent of the mechanic for it to work that way. Just like it's not intended for you to look for any opportunity to not be treating this spell like you're suddenly in a room full of people you're trying to kill/ are trying to kill you.

Well i see that you are very adamant about the way you think this spell works, and i am about the way i think this spell works, i don't think we will change each others mind on it. Let's not try to label our way of thinking as the only correct one. Anyone can say that their way of thinking is how the spell is truly intended to work. Let's just leave it as us having different opinions on it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Well i see that you are very adamant about the way you think this spell works, and i am about the way i think this spell works, i don't think we will change each others mind on it. Let's not try to label our way of thinking as the only correct one. Anyone can say that their way of thinking is how the spell is truly intended to work. Let's just leave it as us having different opinions on it.

I'm just reading off the spell as it's written, you're the one taking it into a "cleverly abusable" interpretation of that.

It is written to alter the target creatures mind in such a way that they will target everything within sight at as hostile and attack those who would flee from them given the opportunity.

Everything is your enemy, the entire WORLD is your enemy. You can't run somewhere safe, you don't know who would stab you in the back if you tried. You're going to spend the rest of your life killing or hiding from every single creature you come across just to survive.

Until the spell ends and you realize you were taken for a ride by magic, then your character can decide to go specifically after the now clearly evil enemy spellcaster who caused him to shank his friends while he was charmed.

But sure. Agree to disagree.

[Rickety Stick]

I'm just reading off the spell as it's written, you're the one taking it into a "cleverly abusable" interpretation of that.

It is written to alter the target creatures mind in such a way that they will target everything within sight at as hostile and attack those who would flee from them given the opportunity.

Everything is your enemy, the entire WORLD is your enemy. You can't run somewhere safe, you don't know who would stab you in the back if you tried. You're going to spend the rest of your life killing or hiding from every single creature you come across just to survive.

Until the spell ends and you realize you were taken for a ride by magic, then your character can decide to go specifically after the now clearly evil enemy spellcaster who caused him to shank his friends while he was charmed.

But sure. Agree to disagree.
Yes your interpretation is completely the designers intent without any doubt and without any personal opinion present, you are the one and only person allowed to decide how a spell works. Please lets just leave this.

[Unoriginal]

You're the one trying to argue that a spell designed to make people delirious and dangerous for everyone doesn't actually make you delirious and uncontrolable, Rickety Stick.

There is is different interpretations possible, but interpretations cannot go against the text they interprete (unless we're taking about an "unreliable narrator" situation, but that's not the case with spell descriptions).

If you're under Enemies Abound, you don't know a spell was cast on you, you just freak out due to the effects.

[Rickety Stick]

The spell doesn't actually say anything about preventing the target from moving, or taking away their ability to decide where to move if we're going to be like that. Removing their ability to move where they want too or wrestling all control from them is a houserule. One can rabble about how their way is the correct way and how other ways are metagaming all one wants but it doesn't change the fact that the spell doesn't mention any loss in how one can move at all.

[smcmike]

The spell doesn't actually say anything about preventing the target from moving, or taking away their ability to decide where to move if we're going to be like that. Removing their ability to move where they want too or wrestling all control from them is a houserule. One can rabble about how their way is the correct way and how other ways are metagaming all one wants but it doesn't change the fact that the spell doesn't mention any loss in how one can move at all.

This interpretation isn’t wrong. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it’s incredibly lame.

[Rickety Stick]

This interpretation isn’t wrong. That’s not the problem. The problem is that it’s incredibly lame.

Okay, Lets leave it at that then. I don't agree that it is lame (we might think differently about how much the spell confuses its target) but thats alright. We just have different opinions about it, and thats okay.

[Unoriginal]

The spell doesn't actually say anything about preventing the target from moving, or taking away their ability to decide where to move if we're going to be like that. Removing their ability to move where they want too or wrestling all control from them is a houserule. One can rabble about how their way is the correct way and how other ways are metagaming all one wants but it doesn't change the fact that the spell doesn't mention any loss in how one can move at all.

I'm not saying the character cannot choose where they move. I'm saying that a) the character does not know they're under a spell b) the character sees everyone as an enemy, so they'll probably think they're going to be attacked, so if they want to flee they'll use Disengage c)the character must attack anyone who trigger an AoO.

The character has no reason to think that this caster-looking enemy far away is more dangerous than the caster-looking enemy who's close (aka the group's sorcerer).

Point is, play your character. Jim the Reckless Rogue isn't going to act like Jim the Nervous Barbarian when suddenly confronted by an abundance of enemies.

[smcmike]

Okay, Lets leave it at that then. I don't agree that it is lame (we might think differently about how much the spell confuses its target) but thats alright. We just have different opinions about it, and thats okay.

Imagine a PC using this spell, casting it on an enemy archer in a group of other enemy archers. On the archer’s turn, she drops her bow, pulls out a sword, charges the mage, and attacks him, since he’s now the only enemy within range.

This is pretty lame, right? Would you ever use this spell? You wouldn’t.

[KillingTime]

Let's look at it from a distant perspective, Rickety Stick.

Let's say your character is a Wizard with three adventuring friends, about to be set upon by a dozen very angry looking orcs and a couple of pet trolls.
The bad guys are clustered in a clearing about 30 feet ahead of you, and the DM has called for initiative.
You're up next.

With a flourish, you cast Enemies abound on the closest Troll. He's in the middle of a pack of his allies, and while he could probably rush through them to get at the spell caster, it's far more likely that he picks one of the dozen new enemies that he suddenly finds himself surround by.

What would your reaction be as a player in the following scenarios?

1. The DM designates a random number from 1-20 to every individual in the coming combat and decides by a throw of the dice which one is going to be the target for the troll this turn (and each successive one assuming it stays affected).

2. The DM arbitrarily decides that the Troll will just attack the nearest "enemy" and rolls to hit the nearest orc.

3. The DM narates that the Troll was specifically told by the orc boss to be on the lookout for enemy spellcasters, and even though now in the grip of a magic enchantment, he makes a full move out of the pack and attacks your wizard.

Option 1 is absolutely to the letter of the spell. It randomises the nature of the effect and gives every potential target an equal chance of being clobbered.

Option 2 goes by the spirit of the rules, and no-one would feel offended. The DM is being a good sport and has roleplayed that the Troll is likely to lash out at the closest object of his fear.

Option 3, however, would have you, the player, spitting his coffee across the play area in absolute disgust.
The DM has metagamed his way around the intent of the spell so that his Troll minions can bash you with impunity.

There is no way you'd be happy with option 3 if you were the caster, but you're trying to suggest that it would be ok to play it this way if you're the target.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Once you've failed the saving throw, you no longer have the ability to avoid the consequences of the spell. Whether it's a fireball, a dominate person, or an enemies abound.

Trying to meta your way out of it (by classifying those enemies as "real enemies" and the others as "not real enemies") is cheating. Full stop.

I'd probably run the spell (if I were affected) as

1) pick target (triggering the randomization using any available method)
2) pick the method
3) perform the attack, using motion as needed.

At very most, I could substitute "run away!" (disengage if needed, dash otherwise + move) instead of attacking. But picking and choosing who gets attacked by manipulating the circumstances is not on the table.

Same goes for crown of madness, by the way. As a DM, I'm going to let it actually work. Especially against stupider enemies. Because making spells of null effect through creative interpretation is boring and against the whole point of the game.

[Beelzebubba]

Yes your interpretation is completely the designers intent without any doubt and without any personal opinion present

Nah, nobody's saying that but you, let's rewrite it to what is being said


Yes your interpretation is ... the designers intent

Agreed


you are the one and only person allowed to decide how a spell works.

Temper, temper now


Please lets just leave this.

Why, they're making good points and calling out weaselly thinking like they should

[Gibby]

Geez the mobbing mentality in this thread is unreal. Looks to me like the guy didnt wanna argue anymore and yall are still trying to chase him down. I dont think hes who should feel ashamed here.

[Unoriginal]

Geez the mobbing mentality in this thread is unreal. Looks to me like the guy didnt wanna argue anymore and yall are still trying to chase him down. I dont think hes who should feel ashamed here.

Not wishing to argue anymore is fine, but if you wrote something people disagree with, they're free to do so.

It's not a "mobbing mentality" if several people think that you're not correct.

"Here's my claim, but I wont discuss it anymore" doesn't include "and neither should you".

[Arcangel4774]

I think what rickety sees differently from everyone else (and correct me if im wrong) is what the phrase "within range" means. The general consensus seems to be that within range for melee characters means where they can move to attack. The other reading would be who they can attack within range based on where they are when they decide to attack.

[KillingTime]

Geez the mobbing mentality in this thread is unreal. Looks to me like the guy didnt wanna argue anymore and yall are still trying to chase him down. I dont think hes who should feel ashamed here.

1. No-one is asking anyone to feel ashamed.

2. That's not the way a discussion works.
If you sign out of a thread with a parting shot that continues your previous argument, then you can expect to have that argument rebuffed by anyone who disagrees with it. Running away from your own daft logic is not the way to escape from being called out on it.

[Beelzebubba]

Geez the mobbing mentality in this thread is unreal. Looks to me like the guy didnt wanna argue anymore and yall are still trying to chase him down. I dont think hes who should feel ashamed here.

If he didn't want to be mobbed, he shouldn't resort to that kind of sarcasm and then 'I'm done, nobody else talk now'.

It's a spell that can be highly argued by rules-lawyer types who play to 'win' at the expense of everyone else. That's how he's rolling. It's highly dishonest thinking, followed by temper tantrums when it's being called out.

[Rickety Stick]

I think what rickety sees differently from everyone else (and correct me if im wrong) is what the phrase "within range" means. The general consensus seems to be that within range for melee characters means where they can move to attack. The other reading would be who they can attack within range based on where they are when they decide to attack.
Mmm that's how i was thinking. I apologize for coming across as rude.

[Keravath]

If the person hit by the spell specifically wants to run up to and attack the caster of the spell then? I can certainly see someone wanting to attack the enemy who just cast a spell on them in an attempt to break their concentration, or just out of spite even if the battlefield is full of other enemies.

Ummm ... no.

The spell states:

"On a failed save, the target loses the ability to distinguish friend from foe, regarding all creatures it can see as enemies until the spell ends."

"Whenever the affected creature chooses another creature as a target, it must choose the target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using."

First - everyone is an enemy.
Second - the character can NOT choose their target. It is randomly selected.

However, one caveat. The spell specifically states "Whenever the affected creature chooses ANOTHER creature as a target".

This could be interpreted to mean that the character can continue to engage their current target with the target selection rule only applying when they choose ANOTHER creature to target.

Second, as noted above the spell states "that it can see" for both enemies and target selection. If the character is blinded or unable to see then based on the way the spell is worded it wouldn't seem to have any effect since only creatures that they can see are considered enemies or are eligible for random target selection. As a DM, I would not allow the character to close their eyes to blind themselves since it would make no sense for a character to close their eyes when surrounded by enemies.

Finally, the spell states .. "within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using."

The problem with this is that most creatures can CHOOSE what attack they are going to make. The character can also use their move to get in to range for the attack (e.g. melee). In addition, the spell does not state anything about harming themselves, having to suffer opportunity attacks (i.e. what happens if the selected target creature is 15' away and moving to attack this creature requires giving an opportunity attack to an opponent) or making the most effective choice from a defensive point of view.

For example an evoker who can shield themselves from a spell's effects could choose to drop a fireball on themselves to most effectively defend themselves from all these enemies (it is what the character would likely do if they found themselves in that actual position). On the other hand, the character could also ineffectively choose to use their weakest ranged cantrip against an adjacent target if that target happened to be an ally that was selected by the effect of the enemies abound spell. This is meta-gaming and not role-playing but the spell seems to specifically allow the character to choose the effect they are going to use - attack, spell or other - and then randomly select a target that is within range for that attack. Even if the choice of attack is made before the target is selected ... the character could potentially make choices of attack to minimize the likelihood of damage to allies.

From a role playing or DM perspective, I think I would ask the player to take their actions based on the belief that they are now surrounded by enemies.

The problem with this is that, again from a role playing perspective, some characters might very justifiably choose to fight (likely perhaps for a barbarian) while others might decide to escape seeing that they were outnumbered and others might choose to snipe at their enemies from range and cover.

I think the spirit of the spell is that the character is surrounded by enemies and needs to use their actions to deal with, mitigate or escape the threat depending on what is in character for that particular character. As a DM, I would tend to rule that a player intentionally making sub-optimal meta game choices for a character in that position might lose the ability to run the character until the spell ends (they may not have to choose the most devastatingly effective actions but the PC can't choose actions that avoid the intent of the spell). Perhaps, in some cases, a character under this spell should be treated as an NPC?

[LordCyler]

If the person hit by the spell specifically wants to run up to and attack the caster of the spell then? I can certainly see someone wanting to attack the enemy who just cast a spell on them in an attempt to break their concentration, or just out of spite even if the battlefield is full of other enemies.

Have you even read the spell?

"Whenever the creature chooses a target, it must choose at random from among the creatures it can see within range."

So say you did want to run up to the Spellcaster and stab them with your dagger. After you move past the other enemies and choose your target, the spellcaster, you would then have to count up every enemy target you "can see in range", then "choose at random", meaning a die roll, from those targets.

So it would still be a 1 in... What? 2? 4? chance that you can even choose the spellcaster for your attack, depending on who is standing next to him. Not to mention that a dagger can be thrown up to 60 ft, so you may have increased your potential targets to what? 6? 10? It could be the guy 30 ft away that you ran past on your way to the spellcaster.

So you can't just attack whoever you like. And if you think about the fact that the spell says you might attack a guy behind you, after you already ran past him to try and attack someone else... It's clear that your character does not have a handle on rational thought as a result of this spell. That's how it works cause that's what the spell says. And if you try to maneuver yourself in a way that makes only the spellcaster a Target, you are using the rules of the spell to your advantage, which your character would not know, and that's the worst sort of metagaming you could accomplish.

[Telok]

My instinct, as a player or DM, would be to consider what the affected character would do when everyone who was previously an ally turned into an enemy. Keeping in mind that the affected character is otherwise in full control and possession of their faculties.

Some characters do not default to violence and killing. Some could choose to flee or retreat, many tactically minded warriors would not want to be surrounded. Some could surrender. Non-combatants may be paralyzed by fear. Some could use area effects or spells that don't target individuals.

[Chronos]

Think about how you act when you're not under the spell. Do you just randomly decide to run up to a goblin, and then, hey, since you're there anyway, you might as well attack? No, of course not. You ran up to the goblin because you'd already decided you wanted to attack it. You chose your target, then you moved to attack that target. So with the spell, the randomization would apply before your move.

And if you're aware that you were the target of a spell, then sure, it makes sense to attack the spellcaster who targeted you. Look! He's <roll> right next to you, where your buddy the rogue was a moment before! That spellcaster must have magically changed places with him somehow!

[JayroBNeto]

And if you're aware that you were the target of a spell, then sure, it makes sense to attack the spellcaster who targeted you. Look! He's <roll> right next to you, where your buddy the rogue was a moment before! That spellcaster must have magically changed places with him somehow!

This right here is how the spell should be handled IMO.

[DarkKnightJin]

That's not even meta, that's just blatant cheating.

Easy solution, find every enemy within movement range and/or combat range, have the player roll a die, that is their target. If, for some reason they still try to cheat their way out of it, you now control the die roll and choose for the player. They may complain but, they are effectively not in control of their attack action any how.

I'm not one to advocate removing agency from a player, it's probably the worst thing a DM can do in game. However, given a player is trying to cheat their way out of a spells effect, sometimes the DM has to step in and make sure the mechanics of the game are being upheld properly.

My Cleric was hit by an Umberhulk's confusion effect. I got the d8 roll for 'attack a random target' twice. First time it was the Monk with 1hp left, second time was the Bard with like 6hp left.
My guy went and attacked them both, and dropped them both.
He helped them back up after he got free of the effect, but I didn't hesitate. That's what happens because of the dice, that's what I do.

If anything, it gave me something to add to the character: Guilt over striking down his allies.

[NaughtyTiger]

This right here is how the spell should be handled IMO.

Except that is violation of the text of the spell.
Spell says randomly chosen target.

Choosing to attack the caster is not a randomly chosen target.


Nevermind, i totally misinterpreted that. Thanks for clearing it up DanielQueue1.



*NOTE* same race, but different tribe from RicketySticks...

[Danielqueue1]

Except that is violation of the text of the spell.
Spell says randomly chosen target.

Choosing to attack the caster is not a randomly chosen target.


the <roll> in the quoted text indicates that he rolled randomly. then through context we can determine that the rest is flavoring why the affected character believes he is justified in targeting his former ally.

[Chronos]

It differs only in the fluff. In my interpretation, the victim might think he's attacking the caster, but then his real target is chosen randomly. You could also play it as the victim not having control of his actions, and feeling himself compelled to attack someone other than the caster he wanted to attack, but the effect is the same.

[Prince Vine]

I would argue (based on observations of most players, rogues and monks excluded) that a typical character is too afraid of opportunity attacks to attempt to move past any enemies, let alone a pack of them.

[Aett_Thorn]

The rare and impressive double thread necro. Very nice!