Need clarification about confusion spell!

[Vaahama]

During today's game when the caster tried for the first time his new toy (confusion spell) something weird and let say ridiculous happend.

2 roc trolls came out from hiding in the surrounding rocky cliffs charging at them ( players).
they were quite close from one another so at the caster turn he got them both confused.

On the trolls next turn one hit himself and the other hit the other troll!
Trying to rule it out the best way i could (as RAW) we ended up with 2 trolls bashing at each other for 8 rounds in a never ending wheel. Wait for the spell to end to get thing as normal?... the caster can use it 3 more times per day!
We all realised that the way it is written it could easely lead pretty much all the time to a never ending wheel of "you hit me i hit you... you hit me i hit you.. rince and repeat!

The big problem come from the wording "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"
So for the rest of the game i ruled that confusion would allow a new %roll for each affected monster at the begining of his turn as long as the spell last. Everybody were more at ease that way i would add.

So is there any errata or FAQ adressing this cituation or it is really the way the game designers wanted it to be?

P.S. I'm not ranting or trolling! It is really a wording question about a spell that might (and actualy did) lead to ridiculous cituation.

[wraithstrike]

I noticed that a while back. I think the wording takes precedent over the chart. I do think this needs to be FAQ'd though. Yeah I know this makes confusion really powerful also.

[Quandary]

Yeah, this is a problem, so don`t worry... it`s not just you :-)

For one, there is a very wierd discrepancy between the spells Confusion and Confusion, Lesser. Confusion lays out the chart with text, etc, while Confusion Lesser doesn`t even reference the Confusion spell at all, but rather references the Confused CONDITION, which the Confusion spell never actually does.

The Confusion Condition is pretty much identical to the Confusion spell description EXCEPT it also says this:
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.

Personally, I don`t think there`s supposed to be any difference here, and Confusion spell could really just direct one to the Confused Condition, but that is a matter for the developers to weigh in on / clarify.

In any case, by RAW, you roll on the chart for each round, but the text about `automatically attack[ing] its attackers` (spell) or `it attacks the creature that last attacked it` (condition, again another minor difference: the spell doesn`t explicitly force priority to last attacker) basically TAKES PRIORITY over whatever you rolled, in other words, it CAN lead to non-stop counter-attacks as you surmised.

What is also confusing to me (ahem) is that the Confusing Condition`s wording about `cannot tell the difference between ally and foe` would ALSO seem to take priority over whatever you roll... Including the `act normally` option. So if you go by RAW, `act normally` isn`t really acting normally... OR, if you bypass RAW a bit, you can allow `act normally` to over-ride the `can`t tell ally and foe apart` rule. I think on that basis, it`s also reasonable to say that IF they roll `act normally`, they also don`t need to attack the last person who attacked them (as in your scenario). That would mean that it`s POSSIBLE for two affected creatures to counter-attack each other non-stop until dead, but each of them has a 25% chance each round to `act normally` and NOT persist in fighting their own ally (and discern who their true foes are). (This is the intended function AFAIK, though the actual RAW doesn`t express it well)

Alternatively, you can see the chart as taking priority, meaning you roll to see if you babble or hurt yourself, or attack the nearest person, or `act normally`, which would actually be the only case where `not discerning friends from foe` and `attacking last attacker(s)` would come into play, i.e. not really `acting normally` again. (I don`t think this reading is Rules As Intended, but I just mentioned it to be thorough)

Anyhow... I hope this is Errata`d.

(You can hit the FAQ button to bring this problem to the developer`s attention, and they may Errata it)

[leo1925]

To the OP:
Yes that's how confusion works.
It's a good spell.