[3.5] Confused About Confusion

[Thurbane]

So our party encountered an Umber Hulk last night. The party Wizard failed a save and ended up confused.

This lead to some lengthy debates about how to interpret some of the Confusion results.

First one was "Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible)". Simple enough - he whipped out a bow (he's an elf) and shot the Umber Hulk.

Second was "Flee away from caster at top possible speed". Again, straightforward. He did a full move away from the hulk.

At this time we killed the hulk, but the effect was set to last another 6 rounds or so, and we didn't have a Dispel handy.

So the party Ranger sends her wolf companion to attack the Wizard - triggering the "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" clause.

This is where things got a bit complicated. Unlike the first result, it doesn't specify how the confused character is to attack. Should the Wizard throw a spell at the wolf? If so, does he chose the spell, or is it determined randomly? How exactly is an attacking spell defined - would Grease count?

Anyhow, after some debate, the DM ruled that since he had his bow in his hands, he would 5 foot step and attack the wolf with the bow.

Now, previously, due to the wording we have run confusion so that when that clause is triggered, the confused character keeps attacking the last creature to attack it, unless something changes. However, it was ruled this time, after a re-reading, that that clause is only triggered for 1 round, so a new attack would need to be made by the wolf each round we wanted the Wizard to retaliate.

At one point, the wizard rolled "Attack caster" again after the hulk was downed. This lead to the question - should he be attacking the dying/dead hulk on this result?

After the fight, we also noticed that the "Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self)" lacks the "melee or ranged weapons" qualifier.

So, anyway, here's what I think is up for debate:

1.) On the "Attack nearest creature" result or under the "Any confused character who is attacked" clause, how does the character attack? If they are a caster, should they use a spell? If so, do they get to choose the spell (I can see a nasty situation where someone is throwing a Disintegrate at an ally). Would they use wands or other attacking magical items? If yes to a spell or item, does it need to be one that causes damage to count as an attack?

2.) Under the "Any confused character who is attacked" clause, does this persist for the duration of the spell, unless anything changes, or dies it reset after one round?

3.) Does the "Attack caster" result still apply if the caster is dead?

Cheers - T

[spectralphoenix]

I think the most reasonable interpretation would be -

1) Use the same definition of 'attack' that was previously spelled out, so a melee or ranged attack, or close with the creature

2) The spell definition says on the next turn. So the creature will attack back on its turn. If it gets attacked again afterwards, it will again attack back. If it is not attacked, it will roll a new action.

3) If an action is not possible, the creature babbles incoherently and wastes the turn instead. I think that is what would happen here. Same if the caster teleported away or otherwise became inaccessible.

[Fizban]

This is where things got a bit complicated. Unlike the first result, it doesn't specify how the confused character is to attack. Should the Wizard throw a spell at the wolf? If so, does he chose the spell, or is it determined randomly? How exactly is an attacking spell defined - would Grease count?

There has already been an entry regarding attacks, and the standard definition of attack would be the attack action. Casting a spell is not an attack. Attacking as part of a spell might be, but you were not induced to cast a spell, you were induced to attack. Invisibility has to include a whole bunch of specific extra text to clarify that, for the purposes of that spell, other things count as "attacks" (which all could have been phrased better). This spell has none of that, nor does it reference any of it.

At one point, the wizard rolled "Attack caster" again after the hulk was downed. This lead to the question - should he be attacking the dying/dead hulk on this result?

Oddly enough, not a single mention of the Confusion spell in the FAQ. But the spell is pretty clear: if you can't take the required action, you babble incoherently. If it's only dying, then it's not dead and the wizard must attack it. I'd say hacking at the corpse is wholly appropriate. It's one of the only ways to actually make the "keeps hacking even after they're dead" trope happen, and there's very little in the rules actually guaranteeing how much data characters/players automatically get just by looking at someone. Unless all kills at your table are described as big gory dismemberments etc (and I would say the books do not suggest that's how things work at all), it takes more than 6 seconds of visual-only data to know if something is really dead. So the Confused victim would have little reason to know whether or not the "dead" caster is no longer a "valid" target for their Confusion Table action. There's not some ongoing mystical bond guiding you to the caster, it just makes you act randomly.

Does this mean the spell could be "fooled" by disguises/illusions/transformations/etc? Sure, whatever. If you want to burn multiple spells to subvert the 10% chance that someone you've already Confused might specifically attack you, probably burning actions to do so, go ahead. Maybe some people would find it interesting to go "Aaha! you faked your death but forgot that you'd cast Confusion, and the 10% to attack the caster has triggered causing me to move toward you, revealing the ruse! Hoisted by your own petard!" I would rather have the spell work in way that makes sense, to the extend that the spell which makes you take lolrandom actions makes sense. Such an event might be funny, the one and only time it happened before being patched, but to leave it in on purpose is to deliberately keep something that doesn't make sense around just because it's funny.

1.) On the "Attack nearest creature" result or under the "Any confused character who is attacked" clause, how does the character attack? If they are a caster, should they use a spell? If so, do they get to choose the spell (I can see a nasty situation where someone is throwing a Disintegrate at an ally). Would they use wands or other attacking magical items? If yes to a spell or item, does it need to be one that causes damage to count as an attack?

As before, attack means attack and cast a spell is not attack. I think you're getting way too hung up on reading the table as if every line exists in a vacuum which must reiterate every possible piece of information, while also stretching for extra meanings that are not in any way hinted at whatsoever: just read it naturally. Attack means attack and attacks can be melee or ranged.

2.) Under the "Any confused character who is attacked" clause, does this persist for the duration of the spell, unless anything changes, or dies it reset after one round?

It clearly says on their next turn. . . when it comes. Turn singular, not plural.

3.) Does the "Attack caster" result still apply if the caster is dead?

It's certainly the more interesting option and the one which sticks closest to the given action, but if you'd rather avoid corpse-maiming or read the spell as less lol-random and more "warped perceptions" or whatever then you could say if the victim thinks the caster is dead, they can't perform the action and babble.

[Khedrac]

To give a different viewpoint, we have always interpreted the "if attacked attack back" clause to mean until the spell ends or the one who attacked them 'dies' and no-one has even suggested that it should be just for one round!

As for rolling "attack caster" after they have died then I agree with the "if unable babble incoherently for one round" answer.

[Thurbane]

I think some of our reading of the "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" may have been coloured by the party Beguiler spamming it in RHoD, which was our first regular exposure to the spell in 3.5.

When thrown against group of beatsticks, like giants or ogres, if one of the rolled the "Attack nearest creature" result and bopped a confused ally, then the clause would trigger meaning they just kept beating on each other until one was down, so long as no one else interfered...