I am curious if the confusion spell was ever brought up during the play-tests? I am quite certain that this spell is far too powerful and needs some nerf’ing. When I played my Beguiler in 3.5e, I loved this spell. I constantly wrecked the DM’s plans with this spell, especially considering the save DC against my spells was insanely high.
Of course the tables have turned now, and now that DM has a bard player in my PFRPG campaign, and yes, the confusion spell is now constantly wrecking what should be difficult encounters.
The spell itself affects a 15’ radius burst area, so it has the potential to effect 24 targets and remove them from the battle for many rounds. That already makes it a potent spell, but so does the sole save versus a continuing mind affect against the target’s nature.
Additionally, the “any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn” clause even makes this spell more powerful. Instead of rolling confusing next turn (and possibly rolling “acts normally”, it attacks its attacker – which is probably fair if the attacker is an adjacent melee attacker. When the attacker is a ranged character (or a flying wizard) then this basically removes the target from battle. I don’t believe the confused character has the presence of mind to avoid attacks of opportunity, so they will run past the other PC’s, drawing the AoO’s while trying to get at the ranged attacker.
Here are the changes that I think need to be made to balance this spell (too late for the PFRPG) but at least it may be refined for a house rule:
#1. Whenever the affected target of a confused spell rolls a result which is against its normal behaviour, it may attempt another Will saving throw to end the confusion effect.
#2. Any confused character who is attacked in melee by an adjacent adversary, automatically attacks the adjacent attackers on its next turn.
Do these changes seem balanced for this 4th level Wizard/Sorcerer (3rd level Bard) spell?
Additionally, the “any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn” clause even makes this spell more powerful. Instead of rolling confusing next turn (and possibly rolling “acts normally”, it attacks its attacker – which is probably fair if the attacker is an adjacent melee attacker. When the attacker is a ranged character (or a flying wizard) then this basically removes the target from battle. I don’t believe the confused character has the presence of mind to avoid attacks of opportunity, so they will run past the other PC’s, drawing the AoO’s while trying to get at the ranged attacker.
This is actually overkill if you take this in consideration: you cast Confusion on the enemy party and then sit idle watching them from afar.
One of the enemies (let's call him A) rolls 'attack nearest creature' - one of his allies, of course (let's call him B).Now, it's B's turn. He has to "attack its attackers", which is A.
Now' it's A's turn. He has to "attack its attackers", which is B.
Rinse and repeat...
I think it's easy enough to handle the issue with ranged fire by a simple ruling tht confused individuals won't know where the ranged fire came from if they're surrounded by other threatening targets.
Thus, an orc, surrounded by other orcs, faced with a PC fighter and paladin, gets hit with the Confusion spell and subsequently the rogue shoots him with an arrow, he won't realize the arrow came from the distant rogue because of all the other confusing, threatening, proximate targets he's worried about.
Anyone who has ever been in a confusing firefight, with threats all around, and distant fire coming from somewhere unseen, might know what I'm talking about. Even if it wasn't you who was confused, chances are, someone you were with lost it, freaked out, and made bad choices.
So yeah, as a DM, I wouldn't rule that this orc will run past the fighter and paladin, take two AoOs, just to hit a rogue in the back. I might even rule that the orc assumes one of the enemies right next to him must have hurt him.
Further, its safe to assume that even under the influence of magical confusion (is it really any different than chemicically/alchoholically induced confusion) that the more familiar shapes/sounds/smells are less threatening than the wholly unfamilar shapes/sounds/smells.
By this I mean that, a confused human is between another human (familiar looks, familar sounds) and an orc (unfamiliar and even scary to a human). Then he gets hurt, pompting the ruling that he must retailiate against his attacker. But his attacker is far away, an orc archer behind a tree. In his confusion, this wounded human assumes one of these confusing people near him must have hurt him and he lashes out, but is far more likely to lash out against the unfamiliar and scary confusing orc than he is to lash out against the familar and less-scary confusing human.
Likewise in reverse, when your PC rogue shoots a confused orc who is surrounded by other orcs and a couple other PCs, he's much more likely to lash out against the unfamilar and scary non-orcs than he is to lash out against familiar orcs.
Maybe none of that is RAW, but IMO, it makes sense and keeps the power level of the spell better in check. Now, if this were a 7th level spell, I might rule differently, assume the confusion is more compelling and less, well, merely discombobulating.
I think the biggest issue in your proposition is whether or not a second save should be allowed for some situation.
To adjudicate, one needs to look at the area of effect, the duration, the effect and the level of the spell.
With a 15 ft burst, one round per level (for a 4th level spell, that's at least seven rounds)and effects that vary from:
-20 % doing something harmful to the group;
-50 % being out for that round;
-30 % attacking nearest, with collapsing effects if PCs aren't nearby.
For a fourth level spell, that seems pretty awesome. Other SoS of the same level are: Black Tentacle, Solid Fog, Charm Monster, Crushing Despair, Enervation, Fear.
Seems to me that Confusion is a good spell, but no more than other SoS of the same level, except perhaps Crushing Despair that doesn't seem so good for a 4th level spell.
Regards,
DW
...lots about confusion...
I think the confusion spell is as powerful or as week as the DM rules it to be, within the constraints of the spell description (or his houserules).
A confused character can be uncertain of what to do in the round, but once he is committed to a course, he pursues it competently. (He can still make AoO against people he is engaged with). Key sentence: "Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused character." Confused doesn't mean stupified. Or brain dead. It means he doesn't know what he is supposed to do at that point in time. Again, the fog of battle reference.
25% chance to act normally ("If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs...")
25% chance to do nothing (still figuring out what to do, or huddled under the nearest rock).
25% chance to injure self tripping over boots, hugging sword, or acting in some lame way that his mates will never let him live down. ("Hey Joe, remember when we were in that battle, and you p*ssed your pants and tripped on your scabbard as you were trying to draw your sword and took a hunk of meat out of your leg? That was awesome. Do it again for us!")
25% chance to attack the nearest creature, even if it's an ally ("Yeah, I remember, that same battle, you ran a sword through Larry, cause you thought he was an owlbear. Good times."
The "immediately attacks his attackers" can be taken to mean specifically the guy who attacked him, or it can be taken to mean the party that attacked him. ("Yeah, but when the sh*t hit the fan, we got our act together and showed them not to f**k with us. I remember that we took turns ramming that bard's lute up a warm dark place." "good times" "finestkind".)
It's all part of roleplaying. If the whole party gets owned by a bard with a lute, then the party wasn't ready to fight that fight. Parties make stupid choices because they think they are invincible. Smart parties find ways to prepare and minimize damage.
So far I have tried playing this with just #1. On a result of "attack an ally" or "attack yourself" the affected target gets another Will save since this is an enchantment effect that is against the creature's nature. However, since the creature is confused at the time, they suffer a -2 penalty to the roll. So far it seems fairly balanced.
Has anyone else tried altering the Confusion spell at all?
So far I have tried playing this with just #1. On a result of "attack an ally" or "attack yourself" the affected target gets another Will save since this is an enchantment effect that is against the creature's nature. However, since the creature is confused at the time, they suffer a -2 penalty to the roll. So far it seems fairly balanced.
Has anyone else tried altering the Confusion spell at all?
I have been hit by it, and it is annoying but I would not call it overpowered. Standing in a huddle is just an overall bad tactic. If it had not been a confusion spell it could have been an empowered twinned fireball. As far as the DC, most high level monsters have ridiculous saves so they don't have to worry about it. Your DM may just be having bad dice days or it could be the enemies he is using.
What is the DC for the spell, why is it that high, and what types of enemies are you currently fighting?
As a level 4 spell it's not much.
It gives a save throw and spell resistance (standard), but is a enchantment (compulsion) [mind affecting] spell -- one of the weakest types in the game (and easily counterable with various abilities, spells, etc)
It has a chance each round of doing nothing (25% chance at that),
It has a chance each round of acting as a poor hold person,
or it might cause them to attack themselves or another creature.
Actually I have one problem with that last part. IF they creature rolls that it hits itself with item in hand, then you don't need to roll on the chart anymore. Someone just attacked it, so it must continue to attack itself every round after that as per the last paragraph of the spell discription until someone else attacks it.
Given the above points, no I don't think it's overpowered, and a reading of the spell can reasonably do away with the first two abusive situations (PCs "kiting" the victim + the scenario given by The Wraith):
"Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn."
Any party casting this spell are undoubtedly the "attackers" in question. The Wraith's group of enemies would either seek out their attackers (the party) or fall to the first caveat of the spell:
"A confused character who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently."
For questions about who an attacker is in terms of an undetectable party, we can look to the invisibility spell description:
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
As a DM, I'd feel comfortable applying the spirit of the invisibility text and saying that the caster of confusion and any friend of his should be designated as "attackers."
|
Sounds like you need to put in more vermin, constructs and undead. The spell should be useful, but not all the time. That'll solve your problem without houseruling a perfectly good spell into oblivion.
If an enemy has been watching the party for some time, I'm sure they'd have some tools to counter the spell too.
Also: It worked fine when you were a player, why not now?
Thanks for the comments everyone. Although I did feel it was a bit too powerful, there were some good points made.
- In particular, this spell is a compulsion spell, and not a charm spell, so an action against the creature's nature is generally treated a bit differently. (Higher onus on a charm spell for the target to no act against it's nature).
- It is an enchantment spell and there are many things immune to it, including anyone with a Protection from Good spell up.
- Comparable spells at the same level offer about the same amount of power balance.
I will be scrapping my proposed house rule #1.
Aside from the considerations in trying to figure out any tactics that may or may not be employed with a confused creature chasing down a ranged attacker, it does seem very rational that a confused character would lack the presence of mind to determine where the ranged attacks are coming from.
I will continue to use house rule #2: "Any confused subject who is attacked in melee by an adjacent adversary, automatically attacks the adjacent melee attacker(s) on its next turn. A confused subject will not attack a ranged attacker unless they are immediately adjacent."
Thanks again all.
"Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn."
Any party casting this spell are undoubtedly the "attackers" in question. The Wraith's group of enemies would either seek out their attackers (the party) or fall to the first caveat of the spell:
"A confused character who can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently."
Personally, I don't think this is the intended idea behind the spell; otherwise, casting the spell would be a waste of time (you cast the spell, so this is an attack, so the confused enemy attacks you in retaliate - very useful...)
You have to consider this: when you are subjected to the attack (Confusion spell) you are not Confused yet. The spell 'registers' that you are attacked only AFTER it works (= failed save); from now on, every attack you are subjected, triggers the retaliation.
(the sentence "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." can be reversed as well - you are not confused yet when the spell is cast and the attack is made, only after)
Again, the spell is potentially extremely powerful - but also potentially useless (if an ally of the Wizard starts to attack the Confused enemies, they retaliate him - not very different if they were not confused in first place, except that they ignore the Wizard). If the spell doesn't work on the first round (allowing the percentile rolls immediately), it would say in the description (something like 'in the first round after casting the spell, since this was an attack, every confused enemy immediately attacks you'). Would you personally ever cast such a spell if the description said this ;) ?...
However, I agree completely on the 'babbles incoherently if the action cannot be carried out' - a Confused creature DOES NOT fall into a chasm only because on the other side there is the archer who peppered him with arrows (but remember, the description doesn't say that the retaliation MUST BE made with a melee attack - a Confused archer can fire his arrows at you, and a Confused caster might even cast his spells against you...)
- It is an enchantment spell and there are many things immune to it, including anyone with a Protection from Good spell up.
Incorrect, Protection from Good/evil/whatever would offer no protection from this spell.
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature
(by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over
the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment
[compulsion] effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the
subject, such as dominate person) ."
It doesn't grant ongoing control, it just messes with the person's brain.
Several other effects would help or offer immunity, but PFG doesn't.
- It is an enchantment spell and there are many things immune to it, including anyone with a Protection from Good spell up.
Incorrect, Protection from Good/evil/whatever would offer no protection from this spell.
"Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature
(by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over
the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment
[compulsion] effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the
subject, such as dominate person) ."It doesn't grant ongoing control, it just messes with the person's brain.
Several other effects would help or offer immunity, but PFG doesn't.
Thanks, that's a good point. My beguiler is going to have a bone to pick with the DM at our next session :)
I don't know if the discussion on the PF version or the 3.5 version, but the 3.5 version does of protection from evil does block 3.5's version of confusion. If the PF version is being discussed you may disregard this post.
I don't know if the discussion on the PF version or the 3.5 version, but the 3.5 version does of protection from evil does block 3.5's version of confusion. If the PF version is being discussed you may disregard this post.
Actually both versions of Protection from Evil won't stop confusion, as it doesn't provide the "ongoing control".
There seems to be some confusion about Protection from Evil... it does not provide protection from all Enchantment[charm] or Enchantment[compulsion] effects. It only provides limited interference with those effects that provide "ongoing control" like dominate person, magic jar, or possession.
It's the same in both 3.5 and pathfinder.
I don't know if the discussion on the PF version or the 3.5 version, but the 3.5 version does of protection from evil does block 3.5's version of confusion. If the PF version is being discussed you may disregard this post.Actually both versions of Protection from Evil won't stop confusion, as it doesn't provide the "ongoing control".
There seems to be some confusion about Protection from Evil... it does not provide protection from all Enchantment[charm] or Enchantment[compulsion] effects. It only provides limited interference with those effects that provide "ongoing control" like dominate person, magic jar, or possession.
It's the same in both 3.5 and pathfinder.
Agreed. Total protection from an entire school of spells is way out of its power range.
Truth, Confusion is powerful.
As is hold person, hold monster even, charm person, dominate person, etc etc.
All of these however are mind-effecting compulsion spells. There are several ways to be rid of them so, I find that confusion is quite on par with its peers in the school of enchantment.
Yup, they are all completely ganked by undead, constructs, vermin, oozes, and anything with mind blank or the means to have a mind blank effect.
Just like most of the illusion school is dead the second True Seeing enters the picture.
Kind of annoying actually, there should be a caster level check or something to those two spells... Killing entire schools of magic shouldn't happen before 10th level spells in my opinion.
Kind of annoying actually, there should be a caster level check or something to those two spells... Killing entire schools of magic shouldn't happen before 10th level spells in my opinion.
Luckily, Mind Blank has already been toned down a lot (it was a real spell-killer before...):
"The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisibile). This spell also grants a +8 bonus on saving throws against all mind-affecting spells and effects." (page 250)Now, if only Protection from Evil/Good/Chaos/Law could be toned down a bit, too...
(and I agree with True Seeing, too...)
The only "defensive" spell like that that got toned down that I don't like now is death ward , only getting a bonus to saves against effects that, currently don't give saves (I'm speaking of energy drains here, namely those caused by undead).
Personally, I keep the awesome power of mindblank intact.
Enchantments are win-button spells in my games, and if the players want to use up so many high-level spell slots to make themselves immune, by all means, I let them.
Illusions are ganked by true sight as well, but its also not such an easy spell to come by. With its limited range and 1min/level duration, I can see many ways of illusions still being effective.
Now yes theoretically you CAN get these spells permanent for all the group at minimal cost but that stuff is not my playstyle so I don't worry about it.
If I were to get to that stage at some time though, yeah. I would follow the mindblank nerf, as well as the 3.5 heal nerf. (i still play heal as a full hp restoration spell, dissintegrate as a death spell, etc etc.)