Clarifying Confusion

[Aotrs Commander]

Every time I think I'm one step closer to completion, I find another proud nail that needs addressing to remove ambiguity...! Today, Confusion!

Confusion is another one of those abilities that seems to stem abck at least as far as 3.5 or 3.0 and has never been especially clear. I am attempting to make sense of it.

Modification #1. As of Pathfinder, there is absolutely no reason to use a D100 I can see with four 25% chances (heck, there wasn't a reason to not use a D10 in 3.5) and rolling two dice where on would do is just silly; I have thus changed it to D4 (which also makes rolling for multiple creatures a lot easier!)

(This is case-in-point for port from AD&D number 1...! Case in point 2 is the bizarre decision PF seems to have upheld and continued to use "as the spell" for various descriptions (sf Confusion Bomb) which itself leads to confusing people (ironically); I've noticed both 3.5 and PF also have a tendancy to do this with Fear as well at odds for PF particularly, when otherwise is does such a great job of moving stuff like that to universal rules.)

It has also never been clear (or there would not be lots of threads on it) on what, exactly "attacks nearest creature" entails. Weapon attacks? Spells? A dragon's breath weapon? (My - current - intepretation is that it ought to be the former only.)

So, how does this sound for a revisied (more wordy, but hopefully much clearer) definition of Confused:

A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A Confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.

Roll on the following table at the beginning of each confused subject’s turn each round to see what the subject does in that round.

D4 Behavior
1 Act normally.
2 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
3 Deal 1D8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand.
4 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).

A Confused creature who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a Confused creature.

A Confused creature attempts to attack the last creature that attacked it that it can see on its next turn, as long as it is still Confused at the start of its turn. If it has been attacked in melee, it ignores later ranged attacks (attributing the attack to the creature that struck it last melee instead, continuting to attack that creature if it remains in reach on subsequent ranged attacks1). Otherwise, it will attempt to close to melee range if it does not have a ranged weapon to hand, including attempting to charge. (This effect is triggered by offensive actions and spells in addition to weapon attacks.)

Note that a Confused creature will not make attacks of opportunity against anything that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).

A Confused creature required to make an attack (either as a result of 4 from the table or from being attacked) uses whatever item it has in hand (treated as improvised weapon if it is not a weapon). A creature that has nothing in hand and no natural wapons makes an unarmed strike instead. A Confused creature called to make and attack cannot not cast spells or spell-like abilities, manifest powers or psi-like abilities or use maneuvers or use any other abilites that are not triggered by a weapon attack or are themselves a weapon attack nor activate (or de-activate) any feats or abilities which require a decision to use (such as electing to Power Attack or a barbarian starting to rage or chosing to end a rage).



1It was either this (possibly abusable) or tacitly allow you to pinball a confused creature automatically between two ranged or a ranged and melee character, which I feet is even more abuseable.

[Powerdork]

"As the spell" is a good way to save on wordcount, indicate to a reader that they should look for a spell with a name matching the italic text, and establish a standard for hundreds of effects rather than printing five different wordings for the same broad effect; it especially matters when trying to explain how a particular effect differs from others. For instance, the absorbing shield's ability to disintegrate something, as the spell except with a melee touch attack (so a touch that deals 34d6 magical damage that can reduce something to fine dust, or that can take out a 10-foot cube of nonliving material, but without needing everything that protects from disintegrate also needing to spell out that it protects from from the absorbing shield, or causing ambiguity about which effects disintegrate creatures and objects).

[NotASpiderSwarm]

A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A Confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.

Roll on the following table at the beginning of each confused subject’s turn each round to see what the subject does in that round.

D4 Behavior
1 Act normally.
2 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
3 Deal 1D8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand.
4 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).

A Confused creature who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a Confused creature.

A Confused creature attempts to attack the last creature that attacked it that it can see on its next turn, as long as it is still Confused at the start of its turn. If it has been attacked in melee, it ignores later ranged attacks (attributing the attack to the creature that struck it last melee instead, continuting to attack that creature if it remains in reach on subsequent ranged attacks1). Otherwise, it will attempt to close to melee range if it does not have a ranged weapon to hand, including attempting to charge. (This effect is triggered by offensive actions and spells in addition to weapon attacks.)

Note that a Confused creature will not make attacks of opportunity against anything that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).

A Confused creature required to make an attack (either as a result of 4 from the table or from being attacked) uses whatever item it has in hand (treated as improvised weapon if it is not a weapon). A creature that has nothing in hand and no natural wapons makes an unarmed strike instead. A Confused creature called to make and attack cannot not cast spells or spell-like abilities, manifest powers or psi-like abilities or use maneuvers or use any other abilites that are not triggered by a weapon attack or are themselves a weapon attack nor activate (or de-activate) any feats or abilities which require a decision to use (such as electing to Power Attack or a barbarian starting to rage or choosing to end a rage).I don't think this reduces the confusion, sadly. There's a lot going on, and the way this is written I can't tell which part is supposed to take precedence. Looking at it, I think that you need to define 2 different states:
What the Confused Creature does on it's own turn.
What the Confused Creature does on other's turns.
A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. Roll on the following table at the beginning of each confused subject’s turn each round to see what the subject does in that round.

D4 Behavior
1 Act normally until the start of the subject's next turn.
2 Do nothing but babble incoherently until the start of the subject's next turn, taking no attacks of opportunity, immediate actions, or actions granted by ally abilities.
3 Subject deals 1D8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand.
4 Subject attacks nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).

Additionally, a subject who rolls 2, 3, or 4 is incapable of discerning friend from foe and will treat all spellcasting or movement nearby as being done by an enemy, defending themselves from beneficial spells as they would for harmful ones. Subjects who roll a 3 or 4 will additionally take attacks of opportunity against anyone who provokes near them, treating all creatures as enemies.

A Confused creature required to make an attack (either as a result of 4 from the table or taking an Attack of Opportunity) uses whatever means are most effective, including manufactured, natural, or improvised weapons or an unarmed strike. A Confused creature called to make an attack cannot not cast spells or spell-like abilities, manifest powers or psi-like abilities or use maneuvers or use any other abilities that are not triggered by a weapon attack or are themselves a weapon attack nor activate (or de-activate) any feats or abilities which require a decision to use (such as electing to Power Attack or a barbarian starting to rage or choosing to end a rage).

A Confused creature who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a Confused creature.
I mostly think the whole "here's what happens when you're attacked" text adds significant work to track, but clearer lines as to what is and is not allowed are never bad things.

[Fizban]

Attacks nearest creature- it attacks with attacks. Spells are not attacks. If it doesn't have a weapon in hand, it's supposed to attack, so it attacks. If it has a choice of attacks, it uses the better or most appropriate one, as you would expect of any creature. I suppose there's room to clarify ranged weapons. I'd say if it has a ranged weapon equipped, it attacks with that, and maybe if it's hit with a ranged attack it's allowed to draw a ranged weapon to fight back- but if it has a melee weapon in hand it should really just charge, by the lack of allowance.

What does it do on other creatures' turns. Nothing. You only take to take the actions confusion says you can, it doesn't say you act outside your turn, so you don't.

Forcing a confused creature to run back and forth chasing ranged attacks, abusable? The spell already includes do nothing (and in this version, hit self). Aggro control is a less noticed but still functional part of the spell. Confusion is a save or lose which, if you're lucky, might let you still fight back for a bit. Aggro lock confusion isn't any worse than other tactical uses of less than perfect save or "lose" spells.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's fine for a confused creature to use spells to attack. Numerous spells count as attack for the purpose of breaking invisibility, so why not for this one? After all, confusion isn't feeblemind.

The creature shouldn't be using complicated combos and tactics; but throwing a fireball at its perceived enemies? Sure, why not?

[Fizban]

I've always read the spell as reducing you to crazed flailing (minus a lucky normal turn), hence lashing out at anyone in reach, or anything that hits you. A mindset that doesn't allow spellcasting, or indeed anything other than moving, gibbering, or flailing. Now that I've thought about it, I would take back my allowance of ranged weapons- I'd been thinking on the OP's terms, rather than the original spell. Indeed, the 3.5 Confusion spell has always been less confusion, more "compelled to act in a terrified and irrational manner," and is most commonly used by monsters that are meant to reduce you to babbling with their mind-shatteringness etc. But the original table does allow ranged on the attack caster line, and if you've got one in hand then you could use that to attack nearest creature, sure.

If one is taking a stance where ranged attacks are possible, then you have to get real specific to still disallow spells. Either takes the effect further away from the point.

[Aotrs Commander]

Thanks for the input everyone.


"As the spell" is a good way to save on wordcount, indicate to a reader that they should look for a spell with a name matching the italic text, and establish a standard for hundreds of effects rather than printing five different wordings for the same broad effect; it especially matters when trying to explain how a particular effect differs from others. For instance, the absorbing shield's ability to disintegrate something, as the spell except with a melee touch attack (so a touch that deals 34d6 magical damage that can reduce something to fine dust, or that can take out a 10-foot cube of nonliving material, but without needing everything that protects from disintegrate also needing to spell out that it protects from from the absorbing shield, or causing ambiguity about which effects disintegrate creatures and objects).

Brevty of wording is only nay use if it doesn't come at the expense of clarity. Pathfinder and later-end 3.5 generally moved away from 3.0/early 3.5's (admittedly useful) penchant for re-stating every status effect on every spell. (Confusion (the spell) could afford to be less wordy itself come to that, since literally all it does is inflict the Confused status.)

For stuff like confiusion bomb specically, which I encountered as something unclear as I searched to see if there was anything that actually modified the percentage chances of the Confused condition (there isn't anything, which is what makes usinga D100 completely redudant), the brevity did not help, because it committed what I learned to be the cardnial sin of rules-writing while I was preparing my own rules for publisheing: Implied, But Not Stated. Confusion Bomb is SUPPOSED to allow a saving throw, but "as the spell" doesn't make that clear ENOUGH; because it doesn't unambigously say so, people were unsure. It doesn't NEED to refer to the spell, it's not like there's a massive long descriptor for Confusion that's really complicated; Conffusion ITSELF basically only inflicts the Confused condition, which is now a universal condition. A slight change to wording is all that's neccasary, you don't need to write the whole condition down, that's the point of having them as discrete rules; "[a creature hit by the bomb] becomes Confused, for 1 round per alchemist caster level (Will DC 14 + alchemist's intelligence modifier negates). This is a Mind-affecting effect." (If you wanted to be really, concise, "becomes confused for 1 round/alchemist caster level (Will DC 14+ Int mod, Mind-Affecting).

It's just odd for instances like that PF, which generally moved to the poition of having a global rules, rather than writing everything out every time (see also all the monster abilities that were compacted to sumamrie because the write-up existed in the universal monster rules), they didn't do that.

(It's also notable in quite a few cases, the worst-written bits of Pathfinder are the ones where they copy-pasted bits of 3.5 (often from 3.0) without thoroughly checking whether it still was right.




I've always read the spell as reducing you to crazed flailing (minus a lucky normal turn), hence lashing out at anyone in reach, or anything that hits you. A mindset that doesn't allow spellcasting, or indeed anything other than moving, gibbering, or flailing. Now that I've thought about it, I would take back my allowance of ranged weapons- I'd been thinking on the OP's terms, rather than the original spell. Indeed, the 3.5 Confusion spell has always been less confusion, more "compelled to act in a terrified and irrational manner," and is most commonly used by monsters that are meant to reduce you to babbling with their mind-shatteringness etc. But the original table does allow ranged on the attack caster line, and if you've got one in hand then you could use that to attack nearest creature, sure.

If one is taking a stance where ranged attacks are possible, then you have to get real specific to still disallow spells. Either takes the effect further away from the point.

Y'know, it might not be abad idea to grab both versions of Confused for comparison (PF changes in bold), while we're at it.


Confused

Confused

Roll on the following table at the beginning of each subject’s turn each round to see what the subject does in that round.
d% Behavior
01-10 Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible).
11-20 Act normally.
21-50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51-70 Flee away from caster at top possible speed.
71-100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self).

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


Confused

A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack. If a confused creature is attacked, it attacks the creature that last attacked it until that creature is dead or out of sight.

Roll on the following table at the beginning of each confused subject’s turn each round to see what the subject does in that round.
d% Behavior
01-25 Act normally.
26-50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51-75 Deal 1d8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand.
76-100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).

A confused creature who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused creature. Any confused creature who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes. Note that a confused creature will not make attacks of opportunity against anything that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).

Pathfinder has expanded a little, but it still not 100% clear, since ast the top it says "if attacked, attack creature until dead" and then says later "automatically attacks attackers (plural)." Was this intended to mean that it single-mindedly attacks to the exclusion of all else the last creature that attacked it the first round of Confusion, or that if, for example, it takes a full attack as a retaliation and drops the target n the first hit, it loses the rest of it's attacks? Again, there is room for interpretation, so it's not explict enough.



So, yeah, 3.5 confusion allows the option for ranged attacks; PF omitted it at made it more like (to be honest) Confusion in something Pokémon ("it hurt itself in its Confusion") - not that I object to that! It does seem to be more "frothing insane berserk," so while I could make an arguement that maybe ranged attacks with weapons work sort of on muscle memory rather than the concentration effort required to cast a spell (nothing prevents a raging barbarian from using a bow, after all, so same principle), that sounds a little bit weak, even to me.




I don't think this reduces the confusion, sadly. There's a lot going on, and the way this is written I can't tell which part is supposed to take precedence. Looking at it, I think that you need to define 2 different states:

You're absolutely right, I can do better with some re-arrangement. Part of the problem is the conditions call for "attacked/attacker" which are too similar and not helpful in this instance. (This is another thing I learned with my rules; in this sort of situation, change wording. I had the same sort of situation in my starship boarding rules, where you had the side of the boarding party and the side of the target ship, but in each combat phase, both got to make an action, which could include moving to engage the enemy, so you had the attacker attacking and the defender defending and the defender attacking and the attacker defending (iyt was never that quite that bad, but you get the idea). "Attacked" in this context is also not helpful as it Attacks (i.e. thing what make attack rolls) are a defined game term, whereas "attacked" is not). Invisibilty and Sanctuaty have this same sort of problem where "make an attack" covers more than just making an attack roll. This is really not helped by 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder's refusal to captialise game terms (or bold or SOMETHING), which (damn the grammar nazi for once, says typcially one of them) game terms to highlight their specific used as a Defined Thing.

The fact even in this thread, we have some contention (Kurald Galain) on whether "attack" should consitute more than a berserk whomping, indicates that the wording is not unambiguous enough; it needs to be explict either way (again, an instance where clarity trumps brevity). (Though on consideration, I think I'm in the camp that it's bad enough as it is for a PC with forcing wapon attacks, and if monsters can use spells/abilities as "attacks" it then it's almost not worth casting on an enemy; if a confused enemy dragon is just going to breath on you ANYWAY if you confuse it, what is even the point?)

For starters, the entry is written the wrong way around; the counter-attack takes priority over the table, so that bit needs to be first, which will help a bit.



Confused:
A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A Confused creature cannot tell the difference between ally and foe, treating all creatures as enemies. Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.

As the start of it's turn, a confused creature will automatically retaliate against the last creature that it can see that subjected it to an offensive action (an attack or a spell or effect which required it to make a saving throw; note this includes those made by allies to deliver touch spells)1 in the previous round.

A retaliating Confused creature makes a melee Attack action (or Full-Attack if it is able) against the target creature with whatever item it has in hand (treated as improvised weapon if it is not a weapon). A creature that has nothing in hand and no natural wapons makes an unarmed strike instead. It cannot use any special attacks or abilities that are not triggered by a weapon attack or are themselves a weapon attack nor activate (or de-activate) any abilities which require a decision to use (such as spells or powers, electing to Power Attack or a barbarian starting to rage or chosing to end a rage). If it kills its target creature or the creature otherwise leaves its sight before the end of the confused creature's turn, it forfeits any remaining attacks and takes no further actions.

If it has been assaulted from within its reach, it ignores later ranged offensive actions, attributing the action to the creature that struck it last withing reach instead, continuting to attack that creature if it remains in reach if subject to any subsequent ranged offensive actions. Otherwise, it will attempt to close to melee range, including attempting to charge.

If the confused creature is not retaliating to an offensive action, at the start of the creature's turn, roll a D4 on the following table to see what it does in that round.

D4 Behavior
1 Act normally.
2 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
3 Deal 1D8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand.
4 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self), using the same criterion as for retaliation.

A Confused creature who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a Confused creature.

Note that a Confused creature will not make attacks of opportunity against anything that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked).



(Italiced portion to be obviated if bouncing a confused creature between melee and ranged (or two ranged) is generally considered to be acceptable.)



Better, I think, but to quote a famous robot dinosaur scholar, it is more better enough?



1Here's a pretty question that just occurred to me, because it's seperated by the random table and stuff - to land a touch spell, an ally has to make an attack roll. Does that count as an attack? It rathet think it does. This is another case where Implied, But Not Stated needs to be dealt with; it needs to say explictly one way or the other. What migth be obvious to you or me now, in careful consideration of the rules, it not in the heat of an actual section, with a harrassed player/DM tired from a week's worth of work or something.

[Psyren]

5e Confusion (https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/confusion.htm) might help too if clarity is your aim; there they specify melee attacks only.

Personally I think it should be melee or ranged weapon attacks, but nothing as complicated as spellcasting. Spellcasting requires concentration, which I don't think is something you can reasonably do while confused, or at the very least there would need to be a check using the nondamaging effect rules - but in my opinion success would be impossible. For this reason SLAs would be out too, but I'd allow something like a confused alchemist chucking a(n unmodified) bomb.

I'm in favor of reconfiguring it to 1d4 instead of percentile dice. If you do that though, consider rearranging the numbers: 4 should be "act normally" because rolling the highest number on a die should always feel "good." 3 should then be "attack nearest creature" because for melee (the most likely to get confused, and the most likely to be close to enemies), that result might also be "good." 2 would then be "do nothing" while 1 is "hurt yourself."

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Personally I think it should be melee or ranged weapon attacks, but nothing as complicated as spellcasting. Spellcasting requires concentration, which I don't think is something you can reasonably do while confused, or at the very least there would need to be a check using the nondamaging effect rules - but in my opinion success would be impossible. For this reason SLAs would be out too, but I'd allow something like a confused alchemist chucking a(n unmodified) bomb.
Also, from a balance perspective, it's always good to keep an eye on effects that operate very differently for PCs than they do for NPCs. Confusion forcing a player to Fireball their party is not only a bunch of damage, but it also uses up a limited resource(spell slots) that the players may regret later in the session. Confusion allowing NPCs to cast spells is a net good for the NPCs, since they were likely going nova anyway, and this way they can do more damage to the party than they would smacking someone with a wand. Limiting it to melee/ranged attacks only eliminates that imbalance.

[Fizban]

I'm in favor of reconfiguring it to 1d4 instead of percentile dice.
I find d4's to be the worst of dice- harder to pick up, harder to get shifting around in the hand for a proper roll, then landing dead on the table, reading at a different angle, and even the base color of black in the generic dice sets they used to (still do?) sell makes them harder to see if one falls under the table.

Use d10's for 10%s, and for 25%s you use a d20- d4's are only for if you need to roll spell damage, and glare at anyone who needs to roll more than a handful.


If you do that though, consider rearranging the numbers: 4 should be "act normally" because rolling the highest number on a die should always feel "good." 3 should then be "attack nearest creature" because for melee (the most likely to get confused, and the most likely to be close to enemies), that result might also be "good." 2 would then be "do nothing" while 1 is "hurt yourself."
The results of random spell effects are actually hidden from the player (or at least durations are, or were in 3.5 anyway), and as a more monster oriented ability I'd bet that table was written for the DM to roll. So the low roll is acting normally, bad for the DM, while the high roll is attack nearest creature (possibly ally), good for the DM.

[Psyren]

The results of random spell effects are actually hidden from the player (or at least durations are, or were in 3.5 anyway), and as a more monster oriented ability I'd bet that table was written for the DM to roll. So the low roll is acting normally, bad for the DM, while the high roll is attack nearest creature (possibly ally), good for the DM.

The GM should definitely do that for the monsters, but if the players are the ones confused I'd let them roll for their own character. Less rolling for me, and causes a nailbiter moment when the player is praying they get to act or not hit on ally.


Also, from a balance perspective, it's always good to keep an eye on effects that operate very differently for PCs than they do for NPCs. Confusion forcing a player to Fireball their party is not only a bunch of damage, but it also uses up a limited resource(spell slots) that the players may regret later in the session. Confusion allowing NPCs to cast spells is a net good for the NPCs, since they were likely going nova anyway, and this way they can do more damage to the party than they would smacking someone with a wand. Limiting it to melee/ranged attacks only eliminates that imbalance.

Well, I'm not against compulsions wasting party resources in principle - If one of your magic-users gets dominated by an enemy caster for example (including a monster like a vampire), having them force you to use magic on their behalf is expected I'd say, even part of their challenge rating. My issue with it for compulsion is more of an ease of play thing - if you allow spells to count as attacks, then you have to adjudicate which ones fit, which are too much etc.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Well, I'm not against compulsions wasting party resources in principle - If one of your magic-users gets dominated by an enemy caster for example (including a monster like a vampire), having them force you to use magic on their behalf is expected I'd say, even part of their challenge rating. My issue with it for compulsion is more of an ease of play thing - if you allow spells to count as attacks, then you have to adjudicate which ones fit, which are too much etc.I’m not saying it’s completely wrong, for sure, just that it’s something to keep in mind. (see the poison rules for an example of WOTC not doing that)

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally I think it should be melee or ranged weapon attacks, but nothing as complicated as spellcasting. Spellcasting requires concentration, which I don't think is something you can reasonably do while confused, or at the very least there would need to be a check using the nondamaging effect rules - but in my opinion success would be impossible. For this reason SLAs would be out too, but I'd allow something like a confused alchemist chucking a(n unmodified) bomb.


Also, from a balance perspective, it's always good to keep an eye on effects that operate very differently for PCs than they do for NPCs. Confusion forcing a player to Fireball their party is not only a bunch of damage, but it also uses up a limited resource(spell slots) that the players may regret later in the session. Confusion allowing NPCs to cast spells is a net good for the NPCs, since they were likely going nova anyway, and this way they can do more damage to the party than they would smacking someone with a wand. Limiting it to melee/ranged attacks only eliminates that imbalance.

And in the worst case, a caster dropping a spell on the party could be a campaign-ending TPK, whereas it's just a shorter encounter if it's the NPCs; definitely against spells being an option, myself.

After some thought and rumination (and thinking about my own admission that barbarians can make ranged attacks in rage), I'll go back to allowing it weapon attacks (after all, that's just removing one word!)



I suppose I could change the order, but there's a big arguement on "good for WHOM," as "act normally" is good only for the PCs when they are confused; it's the last thing they want for the NPCs to roll. And I think it's probably more likely Confused is going to be inflicted by the PCs, rather than against them, so I think it can be left as it is.



Also, leery of putting too much stock into what numbers are "good; "following that thinking to the end-point gives you the absolutely idiotic, arse-backwards idiocy that is the AD&D psionics rules, which were explictly they way they are SOLELY so they could have "high numbers are better" on a system that was designed for rolling UNDER a score. The height of bad game design that only would look out of place in FATAL because it isn't full of everything else FATAL commits (like crime).





I find d4's to be the worst of dice- harder to pick up, harder to get shifting around in the hand for a proper roll, then landing dead on the table, reading at a different angle, and even the base color of black in the generic dice sets they used to (still do?) sell makes them harder to see if one falls under the table.

Use d10's for 10%s, and for 25%s you use a d20- d4's are only for if you need to roll spell damage, and glare at anyone who needs to roll more than a handful.

Can't say any of my group have ever had a problem with D4s, so that's not a problem for us. I'd have to look to see if I even HAVE a black D4 (I think there's one in my pencilcase where all my primary dice are), the ones I use most commely and yellow and orange. (Mind you, I've never actually bought dice as a set; there might be some in the load of dice I bought for my starfighter combat game, I suppose, one the basis I wanted as many different colours as possible (though D8 is the default there).)

(And, come to that, in actual play, rolling a D4 for confusion is going to come up WAAAAAY less than Magic Missile or dagger or small claws attacks, etc...)




As a side note, as I went through all the confused-cuaisng stuff, literally only Confusion and Id Insinuation I have found in my stuff actually describe Confused in detail (which they now won't in 3.A, since as they have to be copied across ANYWAY as what they do has slightly changed because of this Confused tweak, they may as well take up lass space to do the job) - everything ELSE just says "confused;" and oddly Confusion Bomb was also the only thing that said "as the spell," which suggests that that was just a bit of an oversight.

[Fizban]

(And, come to that, in actual play, rolling a D4 for confusion is going to come up WAAAAAY less than Magic Missile or dagger or small claws attacks, etc...)
Confusion hits multiple targets, and must be rolled every round for every target- when it happens, it happens big. Meanwhile daggers, small claws, and magic missiles only come up if a player has specifically decided to use those- if you have no small claw build, your arcanist doesn't cast magic missile every round, and your rogue or whatever is using short swords/rapier/etc, then d4s won't come up much and when they do it's only for the one roll.