Casting when confused?

[Erick Jenkins]

We had a game session a week ago that broke down into an hour long discussion of what it means to 'attack' when under the effect of a confusion spell. This is a relatively simple issue for fighter types, but it was confusing (no pun intended) for casters.

One side said that there is an 'Attack' action defined in the core rulebook that is a standard action separate from a spell. This side said that when the spell indicates you should 'attack' the nearest target or attack the last target that attacked you, that the attack would be a physical attack. The confused status in the core rulebook indicates that the target is 'mentally befuddled' and since this is a compulsion effect, they considered that they were forced to specifically attack the nearest target, but that spellcasting required too great a presence of mind, coordination, targetting, components, etc. This would also leave the door open to using limited use magic items or harming other targets with area effect spells. How far does 'attack' imply that you will go? This side assumed the attack was similar to a barbarian rage (in particular since you can't take attacks of op against any other targets while focused on the attacker). 3.5 also had the possibility of attacking the caster and indicated that this was a melee or ranged attack, but that has been removed in Pathfinder.

The other side indicated that the spell just changes your perceptions of who is an enemy. The condition also indicates that everyone is treated as an enemy and a touch attack is necessary to receive beneficial touch spells whily you're confused. This side felt that 'attack' meant generally to try to harm the target, not the specific definition in the rulebook, and that you would use any means necessary to do so. The implication is that you are 'confused' as to targets, but not necessarily mentally confused, since part of the spell allows you to act normally.

If this is the case, we would have a similar issue with spells as we do with invisibility, what is an attack spell and should the character cast the most devastating spell? Can they intentionally avoid collateral damage? What is an 'attack' spell, would charm person be considered an attack spell in this context, for example?

I couldn't find any guidance on this in pathfinder or 3.5, please let me know how this is supposed to work.

Thanks

[Lathiira]

Broadly speaking, an 'attack' spell causes damage to a target, hits it with penalties, inflicts status ailments, or otherwise eliminates it from the fight (power word-kill). If the spell allows a save and that save isn't listed as 'harmless', that's a passable (but not perfect) clue that you're dealing with an attack spell.

As for attacking: an attack action isn't the same as making an attack. You don't use attack actions to make attacks of opportunity, after all. It may not be RAW but I'd allow the confused caster to use spells on his newfound 'enemies'. Since the description of confusion doesn't say 'uses most powerful attack' I'd probably have the caster randomly determine what level of spell effect he uses from among his available spells via die roll (it's in the spirit of confusion) and then let him choose from available options of that spell level.

[Githzilla]

Erick Jenkins wrote:

We had a game session a week ago that broke down into an hour long discussion...

I hope the hour-long discussion didn't derail the session. My first thought is - use whatever the GM ruled at the table and move on and save the discussion for a later time... like now :)

I've always ruled a caster attacks with spells if that's what s/he usually does.

[James Jacobs]

My preference: When a confused character loses control of his/her actions, the GM gets to make the decisions what they do. Sometimes that might mean the wizard attacks the barbarian with his dagger. Sometimes that means the wizard uses disintegrate on the barbarian. The choice shouldn't be one that's reduced to a set of rules; it should be left to the GM to make as he/she wants.

[Erick Jenkins]

Actually, it paused the game a bit, but didn't derail it since the character in question (my character) was both an archer and a caster and was better with the bow. But effectively had to shoot an ogre 5 feet away and take attacks of opportunity given the interpretation of the wording.

My take was that the ideal situation would be that I draw my sword and fight defensively in melee. However, since I was confused, I used my most common and deadly attack without concern about the consequences (like a raging barbarian, essentially). We talked as the game went on about what alternatives I had.

We assumed that I did not know that I was confused (even if I had identified the spell) so that I wouldn't pull punches in case I were attacking an ally or play defensively (which would mean, I assume, that I wouldn't necessarily cast defensively either).

I like the idea of letting the GM decide, do you mean as in making a house rule for how to adjudicate it, or on a case by case basis?

[Carpjay]

I have been in this situation a few times...it can be pretty rugged if the PCs start really wailing away at each other, but usually people at the same table are friends and don't really want to whack each other's PCs. We have always allowed PCs to control their action, but with the leeway that they generally propose it to the DM, who helps them find a way forward.

I think the spell just makes a confused PC (potentially) focus on someone else as the only enemy who matters, but the act of Attacking is general enough that they are trying to do their best. The sentence in the Confused condition description, "If a confused creature is attacked, it attacks the creature that last attacked it until that creature is dead or out of sight," applies specifically to those who are attacked while confused (not necessarily those who roll 76-100 and initiate an attack), but it gives a clue as to the severity of the attacker's state of mind.

[Freddy Honeycutt]

It is a good thing the taunt spell was removed and that the 3.0 Kender was given a bluff check to pull off a taunt.

I miss that spell...

If sucessful it made anyone attack by melee, so technically it was very powerful. I think it just needed a level adjustment, rather than deletion...

Did I say
I miss that spell