If the party members makes his Will save does he now have to attack me?
Or am I even considered an enemy when the Confusion spell is cast? I'm in need of clarification, please.
I'm not exactly sure what you want to know, but i don't think that your party member has to make a Will Save to have his confusion removed.
It's a condition he wants to get rid of, not like raging barbarian.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A confused creature will automatically attack a creature that attacks them, so it depends on whether or not casting a targeted spell like confusion is Calm Emotions an attack. There is no strict definition of attack on this context in the RAW, so it really comes down to DM discretion.
Also, I would not allow a confused character to auto-fail his will save as the confused condition states that he would consider all creatures (including you) an enemy.
A confused creature will automatically attack a creature that attacks them, so it depends on whether or not casting a targeted spell like confusion is Calm Emotions an attack. There is no strict definition of attack on this context in the RAW, so it really comes down to DM discretion.
Also, I would not allow a confused character to auto-fail his will save as the confused condition states that he would consider all creatures (including you) an enemy.
I agree with QS above.
I would think that it depends on whether or not the person having a spell cast upon them knows what spell is being cast. If they have no ranks in spellcraft, and then something is cast on them that requires a save to be made...that is an attack. If the person has ranks in spellcraft, it is possible to justify it either way in my opinion.
Yeah, there`s a specific part of Confused that says you treat everybody as opponents (though in a confused way, e.g. the part abou not taking AoO`s unless they are an `active` enemy, as determined after the Confusion sets in). The wording is actually slightly unclear, since technically it would still seem to be in play even if you happen to roll `act normally`.
Anyways, I think it would count as a hostile act, because either they don`t know what it is, thus somebody who is assumed to be hostile is casting a spell on them, or they make the spellcraft check and know it is calm emotions. How do you think a PC Barbarian would react if the Evil NPC Spellcaster tries to cast Calm Emotions on them mid-battle? It`s essentially a hostile act, reducing one`s capacity to fight if one is Raging. If somebody wasn`t Raging, or didn`t need to, and the only effect of Calm Emotions could be beneficial, then in that case it wouldn`t be a hostile act, but I don`t think it applies here... Though I`m not sure, as the OP didn`t spell out every detail exactly.
I would think that it depends on whether or not the person having a spell cast upon them knows what spell is being cast. If they have no ranks in spellcraft, and then something is cast on them that requires a save to be made...that is an attack. If the person has ranks in spellcraft, it is possible to justify it either way in my opinion.
But if the person has no ranks in spellcraft, he may not know who or what cast the spell on him.
|
I agree with Quantum Steve. From Confused:
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.
So, if it is a character with out spellcraft, they have no idea other than the fact that an enemy (in their eyes) just started casting a spell at them!
If the character has spellcraft, than someone is casting at them, if they are in the "act normally" mode for that round, I would allow them to "auto fail" their save (once they have identified the spell), but any other mode, and they would have to make a saving throw as normal, and consider that caster as a target (since from their point of view, they where just attacked).
I would think that it depends on whether or not the person having a spell cast upon them knows what spell is being cast. If they have no ranks in spellcraft, and then something is cast on them that requires a save to be made...that is an attack. If the person has ranks in spellcraft, it is possible to justify it either way in my opinion.But if the person has no ranks in spellcraft, he may not know who or what cast the spell on him.
You don't need spellcraft to know someone is casting a spell. You need it to know what spell they are crafting.
If you needed spellcraft to know someone was casting then readying an action to "attack person X if they cast a spell" would not be possible since there are few noncasters they take ranks in spellcraft.
.
..
...
....
.....
So, the target must save vs Calm Emotions - if they pass they will attempt to attack - else they chill out/Calm Emotions takes effect?
|
|
.
..
...
....
.....So, the target must save vs Calm Emotions - if they pass they will attempt to attack - else they chill out/Calm Emotions takes effect?
** spoiler omitted **
If they pass then the confuse is gone for the duration of the calm emotions spell. Once that spell wears off there is a good chance that the caster of calm emos is (to use an MMO term) at the top of the agro list! At lest if no one else casts on them before then.
(Note, this is how I would view it)
But if the person has no ranks in spellcraft, he may not know who or what cast the spell on him.You don't need spellcraft to know someone is casting a spell. You need it to know what spell they are crafting.
If you needed spellcraft to know someone was casting then readying an action to "attack person X if they cast a spell" would not be possible since there are few noncasters they take ranks in spellcraft.
But knowing that someone cast a spell is not the same as knowing someone cast a spell on you. The causal relationship is not as apparent as getting hit with an axe or shot by a bow.
More generally, would any spell that allows a save be considered an attack. What if your cleric targeted you with a mass cure?
|
|
But if the person has no ranks in spellcraft, he may not know who or what cast the spell on him.You don't need spellcraft to know someone is casting a spell. You need it to know what spell they are crafting.
If you needed spellcraft to know someone was casting then readying an action to "attack person X if they cast a spell" would not be possible since there are few noncasters they take ranks in spellcraft.But knowing that someone cast a spell is not the same as knowing someone cast a spell on you. The causal relationship is not as apparent as getting hit with an axe or shot by a bow.
More generally, would any spell that allows a save be considered an attack. What if your cleric targeted you with a mass cure?
Well, considering that the PRD says this under "confused":
Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.
and that cure spells have a range of touch, yes, the confused character would view it as a hostile action and defend themselves as they would if someone tried to swing an axe at them.
What about Channeling Positive energy to heal?
Well, considering that the PRD says this under "confused":
Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.and that cure spells have a range of touch, yes, the confused character would view it as a hostile action and defend themselves as they would if someone tried to swing an axe at them.
I specifically mentioned [i]mass[i] cure because it doesn't require a touch.
|
|
I specifically mentioned mass cure because it doesn't require a touch.Well, considering that the PRD says this under "confused":
Allies wishing to cast a beneficial spell that requires a touch on a confused creature must succeed on a melee touch attack.and that cure spells have a range of touch, yes, the confused character would view it as a hostile action and defend themselves as they would if someone tried to swing an axe at them.
I just figured that since the character was moving to defend himself vs someone casting and then trying to touch him, that any casting at them would be considered hostile. Although it is too bad that they did not just state it like in the Barbarian superstition rage power, which states
While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
They do, at least to me, seem to be aiming at the same goal.
Developer
|
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.
(Bold mine)
Calm emotions will make him save. This means that for purposes of the RAW, it's an attack. Once the calm wears off, if he's still confused he'll act as such.
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone.
(Bold mine)
Calm emotions will make him save. This means that for purposes of the RAW, it's an attack. Once the calm wears off, if he's still confused he'll act as such.
So, if a cleric cast mass CLW on a confused person, from across the room, he would resist the spell, then regardless of whether he made the save or not, rush to attack the cleric, innately knowing that it was, in fact, the cleric who cast the spell at him and not either of the wizards nor the other cleric also casting spells?
I'd think of it the same as if the spell would end Invisibility if cast on an enemy. If it was an invisible caster who botched an attempt to calm an orc in combat, for example.
Even though it's not a damage spell, I'd say a botched clam emotions was an attack, just like a sleep or hold person or any other spell who's purpose is to neutralise an opponent (cf. heals and such which only assist their ability to remain opponents).
If the party members makes his Will save does he now have to attack me?
Or am I even considered an enemy when the Confusion spell is cast? I'm in need of clarification, please.
For purposes of the confusion spell, or even invisibility i would say no. You are not casting a spell on a foe, you are casting a spell on an ally to remove a status condition. Also, the confused person probably has no idea what you're doing when you make funny gestures and point at them.
Whether or not someone is an ally is subjective to both sides though. If a party member goes evil and attacks, the others can cast spells on him that normally exclude allies, they both now block each other's movement through their squares, etc. Party member dominated, same thing. Party member becomes a threat from confusion, same thing.
Makes sense confused guy would attack if they made their save too, since the opposite of passify is to provoke, and often happens you try to talk down a crazy person you risk pissing them off instead.
|
For purposes of the confusion spell, or even invisibility i would say no. You are not casting a spell on a foe, you are casting a spell on an ally to remove a status condition. Also, the confused person probably has no idea what you're doing when you make funny gestures and point at them.If the party members makes his Will save does he now have to attack me?
Or am I even considered an enemy when the Confusion spell is cast? I'm in need of clarification, please.
Some where in the magic section of the rules it says that when a spell is cast on you, you know (especially if there is a save involved.) You might not who cast it (although if there is a hand waving guy in front of you you might guess) but you know that you've been effected or attempted to be effected (you may not know what the intended effect was.)
Some where in the magic section of the rules it says that when a spell is cast on you, you know (especially if there is a save involved.) You might not who cast it (although if there is a hand waving guy in front of you you might guess) but you know that you've been effected or attempted to be effected (you may not know what the intended effect was.)
P216 at the bottom right
Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
|
|
Also, even spells like cures have the saving throw of:
Saving Throw Will half (harmless)
and under saving throws:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.
So, a confused PC no longer knows who is friend of foe, and thus considers all as a possible foe. This means that if they do nothing, there is a good chance that the PC would do nothing to them, but if something happens to him (gets hit with a spell), he will resists it if possible, and look for the source. So, unless the caster did a still/silent spell, or there are more then one caster casting in the area, the confused PC has a target.
Some where in the magic section of the rules it says that when a spell is cast on you, you know (especially if there is a save involved.) You might not who cast it (although if there is a hand waving guy in front of you you might guess) but you know that you've been effected or attempted to be effected (you may not know what the intended effect was.)
Right, but that assumes a normal, thinking rational person who's brains haven't been reduced to the consistency of chopped watermelon by the confusion spell.
Also, even spells like cures have the saving throw of:
Saving Throw Will half (harmless)and under saving throws:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.So, a confused PC no longer knows who is friend of foe, and thus considers all as a possible foe. This means that if they do nothing, there is a good chance that the PC would do nothing to them, but if something happens to him (gets hit with a spell), he will resists it if possible, and look for the source. So, unless the caster did a still/silent spell, or there are more then one caster casting in the area, the confused PC has a target.
That's a great point:
"Whaaa?... you cast a spell on me!?! I kill you!!"
"No no! It was a heal! ...a heeeaaaallll!!!
That's just what being confused is all about. I've seen NPCs played that way even when they weren't magiclly confused, just overly suspicious.
Also, even spells like cures have the saving throw of:
Saving Throw Will half (harmless)and under saving throws:
(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.So, a confused PC no longer knows who is friend of foe, and thus considers all as a possible foe. This means that if they do nothing, there is a good chance that the PC would do nothing to them, but if something happens to him (gets hit with a spell), he will resists it if possible, and look for the source. So, unless the caster did a still/silent spell, or there are more then one caster casting in the area, the confused PC has a target.
"Arrrg! What's going on? Oh! Something hit me... no wait, it cured me! Arrg! Feels good. What? Wait! It must have been that Cleric all the way over there making subtle gestures! Huh? Arrg! Out of my way axe-wielding man! Must kill Cleric!"
But even a non confused person doesn't neccesarilly know the SOURCE of the attack. They just know that they had a funny feeling. A rational thinking person in a D&D world can say that
Strange gestures from cleric+ funny words from cleric+ funny feeling= he just cast a spell at me! I would say that a confused person cannot.
I think the presumption is they haven't gotten so blithering that they can no longer determine cause and effect, they just can't tell friend from foe. There's nothing in the game that says casting a spell on someone is any less obvious as to source than any other sort of attack, including things like sneak attacks from invisible opponents. I'd factor in the situation though. Just like someone stabbing you in the face is different from getting hit in the head from behind, someone casting a spell at you in plain view could be different than casting discreetly from hiding.
Wait so does that mean I turn visible when casting a beneficial spell or using a channel on a Confused party member?
A rational thinking person in a D&D world can say that :
Strange gestures from cleric+ funny words from cleric+ funny feeling= he just cast a spell at me!
I would say that a confused person cannot.
A confused person can still CAST a spell (at least if you count this as a valid means to fulfill attacking an opponent).
Likewise, there is no limit on making Knowledge checks, Spellcraft checks, etc.The effect just doesn?t say you lose all rational thought (that might specifically be the babbling option), it lays out specific limitations, which don?t preclude making logical connections it just places some limitations (i.e. discerning allies vs. opponents, and selecting actions to take).
|
Developer
|
Wait so does that mean I turn visible when casting a beneficial spell or using a channel on a Confused party member?
Channel is only an attack when it damages something. If you channel to heal, you're golden.
Beneficial spell, not usually, unless it requires a save (and not save (harmless)). Cure spells are fine, unless you're dealing with undead.
Keep in mind, a beneficial spell that gives a save has to be among the (harmless) category. Just because it's in your barbarian's best interest that you calm emotions does not make it a beneficial spell. Casting fireball, even though the creature is immune to fire, still an attack.
The rules don't care about intent, there are distinct things that are and are not harmless, and those remain no matter the situation.
Positive energy is the only line straddler, and it only crosses when used to attack (and by then it's not save (harmless) anymore).
|
|
A rational thinking person in a D&D world can say that :
Strange gestures from cleric+ funny words from cleric+ funny feeling= he just cast a spell at me!
I would say that a confused person cannot.A confused person can still CAST a spell (at least if you count this as a valid means to fulfill attacking an opponent).
Likewise, there is no limit on making Knowledge checks, Spellcraft checks, etc.
The effect just doesn?t say you lose all rational thought (that might specifically be the babbling option), it lays out specific limitations, which don?t preclude making logical connections it just places some limitations (i.e. discerning allies vs. opponents, and selecting actions to take).
I view the "babbling" option of them talking under their breath trying to sort out their head to figure out who is an ally and who is not.
So, my chart is like this:
- Act normally: They have managed to straighten their head out, for now, and can act as normal.
- Do nothing but babble incoherently: They shake their head and mumble to them selves while they try to clear their head again.
- deal 1d8+str damage to self: they go to grab their head (more than likely while shaking it like above), forgetting that they have something in their hand (thus it is 1d8 and not sword or what ever damage).
- Attack nearest creature: Decision made, that (what ever that is) is a bad guy!
This helps me work out how they would react to other things when in each mode. So, you may heal them while they are in the "act normal" mode, but they may forget that once they are in the "attack nearest" mode.
|
|
As you can see, the spell does not state the confused character cannot tell friend from foe, it says the effected characters cannot determine their actions. Per RAW, this does not mean they will automatically save against every spell that comes their way and start swinging because of it, it means that even though the effected character has a chance of acting erratically, one can assume that helpful spells cast by helpful party members will not try to be avoided.
From the PRD on confused (check the glossary):
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.
This section pretty much states that a confused creature has the following issues:
a) Cannot tell friend from foe, treats all a enemies.
b) Will defend against any spell cast against them (even beneficial ones)
c) Will attack the last thing that attacked it.
I read it as area of affect spells will not set off the confused person. The babble incoherently thing means they are truly confused and can't clearly think things through. The touch attack needed to cast a touch spell is what sets off the attacks against a caster, not the tingle of a spell.
As far as the person "ACCIDENTALLY" hurting themselves with whatever is in their hand being an "oh I forgot it was there" thing, no way. You add strength damage as well, that means stabbing your dagger as hard as you can into your stomach, not pricking your finger with it.That to me means that you are totally impaired, no rational thoughts allowed. So sure you feel the tingle of a spell or the effects of a spell but no way are you putting two and two together.
|
|
As far as the person "ACCIDENTALLY" hurting themselves with whatever is in their hand being an "oh I forgot it was there" thing, no way. You add strength damage as well, that means stabbing your dagger as hard as you can into your stomach, not pricking your finger with it.That to me means that you are totally impaired, no rational thoughts allowed. So sure you feel the tingle of a spell or the effects of a spell but no way are you putting two and two together.
Then how come the damage is a flat 1d8+str and not:
1d4 for a dagger, 1d6 for a shortsword, no damage for a feather etc... You are not stabbing yourself with the blade, you are basically clubbing yourself with the item or just punching yourself.
Then how come the damage is a flat 1d8+str and not:1d4 for a dagger, 1d6 for a shortsword, no damage for a feather etc... You are not stabbing yourself with the blade, you are basically clubbing yourself with the item or just punching yourself.
Really? Your argument against mine is that the confused person is not purposely hurting themselves and your proof is they do MORE damage than most could ever do with a club or fist? My take is your trying to hurt yourself and don't defend yourself AT ALL, thus the average of 1d8+str.
What dex penalty do they suffer that makes them so clumsy they accidentally punch themselves at full force and do the extra damage? Can I club someone with my dagger for 1d8 then? The only way it can work in my mind is it's precision damage and the designers chose a flat amount of damage to represent what the befuddled person is capable of dealing to themselves each round. If I, in my confused state, punch you do you take 1d8+str? If not, why? Why does an accidental punch do SO MUCH more damage?
A rational thinking person in a D&D world can say that :
Strange gestures from cleric+ funny words from cleric+ funny feeling= he just cast a spell at me!
I would say that a confused person cannot.A confused person can still CAST a spell (at least if you count this as a valid means to fulfill attacking an opponent).
Likewise, there is no limit on making Knowledge checks, Spellcraft checks, etc.
The effect just doesn?t say you lose all rational thought (that might specifically be the babbling option), it lays out specific limitations, which don?t preclude making logical connections it just places some limitations (i.e. discerning allies vs. opponents, and selecting actions to take).
The effect just doesn?t say you lose all rational thought
-A confused creature is mentally befuddled
It doesn't say all, but a spell is less obvious source of attack than being stabbed. It says that when you make a save you are unaware of the exact source of the attack. Even when an invisible creature strikes you you're aware of what square they attacked from.
Someone that is whacking themselves in the head hard enough to kill a peasant has lost more than the ability to tell friend from foe. They've gone bonkers. I don't see any rational for being able to make an abstract connection between funny gestures from the guy in the back with a funny feeling in their head when their brain is so messed up that they think stabbing their own temple with a dagger is a good idea.
|
|
Then how come the damage is a flat 1d8+str and not:1d4 for a dagger, 1d6 for a shortsword, no damage for a feather etc... You are not stabbing yourself with the blade, you are basically clubbing yourself with the item or just punching yourself.
Really? Your argument against mine is that the confused person is not purposely hurting themselves and your proof is they do MORE damage than most could ever do with a club or fist? My take is your trying to hurt yourself and don't defend yourself AT ALL, thus the average of 1d8+str.
What dex penalty do they suffer that makes them so clumsy they accidentally punch themselves at full force and do the extra damage? Can I club someone with my dagger for 1d8 then? The only way it can work in my mind is it's precision damage and the designers chose a flat amount of damage to represent what the befuddled person is capable of dealing to themselves each round. If I, in my confused state, punch you do you take 1d8+str? If not, why? Why does an accidental punch do SO MUCH more damage?
Still have to fear those 1d8+str feathers, wands, etc, I would love to be able to stab someone with a gold coin for 1d8+str... Also, if you have a magic dagger, do you add that damage too? or how about vorpal, can you crit with your attack?
It does not state that you damage yourself with the weapon in hand, just any item in hand. Personally, I think that the 1d8+str was just a flat damage put in there for ease of play and high enough to encourage the effect to be dealt with or removed quickly (since most classes get d8+ for hit die). The GM can describe it how they want, you could just be punching yourself in the jimmy. I would rather not get into an argument on how a GM should describe how an action in game looks, that is the GM's job and not the books.
The book does not state enough in RAW to exactly describe what the confused character is thinking/seeing. This is a good thing, it allows for much more colorful descriptions and a more enjoyable gaming. After all, a bard's confuse may work in very different ways from a wizard or from any of the sorcerer types. As long as the rules and effects are followed, you can describe it however it moves the story forward. Since the rules do not state how you damage yourself, feel free to work it out.