So my question is what happens to a player when they are confused and attacking per rolling 76 - 100 or having been hit?
1. Do the players control their character or does the DM?
2. Do the players determine how to "attack" like using spells or other abilities or do they always just do a basic melee attack?
3. Can they flank?
4. Do they provide flanking?
5. Can I control how I move to attack my target?
6. Also, if I were moving to attack someone and they used an AoO to hit me, would I stop and attack them? Or am I forced to keep moving where my move was going, and would my target switch thus wasting a turn.
I know it's a lot of random questions but my players will ask these and I can't find any answers.
Confusion Effects
d% Behavior
01-25 Acts normally
26-50 Does nothing but babble incoherently
51-75 Deals 1d8 points of damage + Str modifier to self with item in hand
76-100 Attacks 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. 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).
One more question, is there any way to tell that a person is confused, Outside of them hurting themselves or an ally or babbling?
Anyone have any ideas?
Once you are attacked(not even hit) you automatically attack whoever attacked you.
As for how competent the character is at attacking, the rules are silent. I just assume they have full use of their senses, but they are confused about who to attack, so if they can use power attack they might do so.
|
Anyone have any ideas?
I think this falls firmly into the "varies by GM" category.
The most common interpretation I've seen in PFS is that the character attacks competently but does NOT have to burn scarce resources. They basically act as if they're facing a "normal" opponent but not the BBEG.
The "no attack of opportunity" clause is generally interpreted as neither allowing flanks nor benefiting from them.
But I've seen fairly major variations from that
Okay, this goes with some of my thoughts. The questions came up because if "I'm confused but still attacking enemies", could my friends tell there was potential danger or not. (enemy being killed and friend rolling 76-100)
Also with the flanking, wouldn't that mean more that they only provide it on they guy they were last attacking.
Still does anyone have any advice or insight on question 6? Thanks for the responses so far
It is definitely subject to table variation, same with things like Charm Person, Dominate Monster, you get the drill.
That being said, how our group runs it:
If you're confused and attacked, you make all attempts to try and attack the creature that attacked you. You don't have full control over your mental faculties, so you can't use things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Fighting Defensively, etc. as that's something you should be able to trigger; but since you don't have total control, and there is no other "control" telling you, verbally or otherwise, to do those activities, it's assumed you can't. The same can be said for reactive actions, such as Attacks of Opportunity; an argument can be made for them to be able to take them against the one they're attacking, but again, the argument against is cited above.
If you roll the proper percentile, obviously you attack the creature closest to you, and if there are creatures of equal distance, you simply roll a second set of percentile dice to determine which one is attacked.
I'm sure other people run it differently, but this makes the most sense to our group.
At least no one has started to babble incoherently. Yet.
So darksol, with that idea, would a wizard try to run up and punch the archer who attacked him, assuming he had no weapons on him. Or would he use his magic, maybe his acid splash cantrip? If the cantrip then they should be able to use power attack and the like.
And confusion says it only doesn't take AoO against non-targets. Meaning they would take them against their current target.
I do thank you guys for responding, but if the consensus is that there is no consensus then I guess I'll have to just figure it out with my players and have us all agree on something.
At our table, we play by the rule that you attack "normally," with the GM ruling what normal is. This prevents some sort of cheese like "oh, I attack the wizard but I'm going to use an unarmed strike on him." If you are basically always using your Greatsword and always using Power Attack, then that's what you do to the wizard as well.
So darksol, with that idea, would a wizard try to run up and punch the archer who attacked him, assuming he had no weapons on him. Or would he use his magic, maybe his acid splash cantrip? If the cantrip then they should be able to use power attack and the like.
And confusion says it only doesn't take AoO against non-targets. Meaning they would take them against their current target.I do thank you guys for responding, but if the consensus is that there is no consensus then I guess I'll have to just figure it out with my players and have us all agree on something.
At our table, he would simply use regular attacks, so yes, he would punch him. If it was the inverse, the archer would shoot at him, since the mental activity needed to be proficient with a bow, by the book, is equivalent to swinging a sword or other such weapon.
The Wizard shouldn't be able to cast Touch spells or the like when going to attack, since it defeats the entire purpose of the literal definition of being mentally disabled. However, if he already had a spell held in his hand when punching, it would discharge if he hit.
But ultimately, yes, the consensus of how the confused condition works is that there is none, and quite frankly there are no blanket statements in both the book or in a FAQ that would cover every corner case or even the general cases.
The only consensus is this: You're the GM, you run it how you see fit. The players can argue all they like, and they may not be wrong, but if you don't agree with them, they're just going to have to find a new table that runs it their way.
Sense Motive can used to detect an enchantment on a creature, so that could work depending on the source of the confusion and how lenient your GM is.
I would think the Sense Motive skill would let you identify confusion.
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
I would set the DC to identify confusion as pretty low, probably DC 15 as well. I wouldn't think it was a subtle effect like charm person.
The biggest question I have about the identifying is if they are still just attacking their enemies, would you be able to tell that something was off?
Look at Joe over there killing all the bad guys around him.
Joe get's confused.
Man Joe is really killing all them. He's almost done, I'll go give him a high five.
or would it be
Look at Joe over there killing all the bad guys around him.
Joe get's confused.
Man Joe is really killing all them. But something seems off, I should check for something out of the ordinary.
I'm really thinking now though is it comes down to what it means for them to attack. If it's more normal then you wouldn't notice a difference. If it was only a basic attack then you'd be able to tell something was up.
It's also important to consider the source and one's abilities to detect that source.
For example, casting the Confusion spell on a target would warrant any spellcaster with Spellcraft able to identify that a Confusion spell was cast, so when they notice little things coming off, such as not swinging the right way, they would have probable cause to believe so-and-so is confused. As GM, I'd probably let them make a Perception check with a +5 Circumstance Bonus to the Perception check from identifying a Confusion spell being cast, though I'd still keep the DC 25, since it's not a more obvious effect such as Dominate X, where the target is drooling like a bag of pus.
If it's also designated that the player says he will Power Attack every attack unless otherwise stated, and the PC isn't following his standard routine, I'd also let PCs make Perception checks to see if the PCs know so-and-so is confused or not, and if they aren't in the PC's line of sight, I'd require a Move Action be spent to understand it.
The problem with the whole detection thing is that it will bog down the game and combat. Besides, since the rolls are (I assume) out in the open, and the PC himself must know that he's confused, the players may try to metagame out of it anyway, and it will lead to you arguing against the players for X amount of time until they either follow with your ruling or ragequit.