This has been nagging me for a while, and I can't believe that such an obvious contradiction made it as far as the 5th printing of the Core Rules without a correction/clarification.
under the description for Confused condition on pg 566 it states:
"A confused creature is mentally befuddled and cannot act normally. A confused creature cannot tell the difference between..."
So it says specifically, and the first thing to boot : CANNOT ACT NORMALLY
...and then the first entry in the Behavior table states that on a roll of 01-25 result is:
(drum roll, please)...... "Act Normally"!
*Smacks forehead*
It really makes me wonder just wtf they do at Paizo all day in regards to solid game rule content. Pretty pictures and better fonts are fine fluff and sells to the noob, but what we really need is a better system that works, period.
Anyway, (no thanks to the rules book I bought that was supposed to fix 3e issues and not create more of them) my houserule fix is thus:
a roll of 01-25 results in the character wandering 10' in a random direction, the direction being determined by a d8 roll.
... *That* is your issue with confusion?
No, it is not my issue.
The syntax it is clearly contradictory, don't you see?
At the last session we stopped everything for ten minutes to discuss this, and no satisfactory fix was made. Hence the reason for this post. It's a waste of time if it doesn't get fixed, see?
Why would Paizo write the first sentence of the description at all, then?
Also, result of 51-75 says "Deal d8+STR damage to yourself with item in hand".
This also has real inconsistencies.
1st where do they get d8 from? What about tiny or Huge creatures?
2nd, what moron is ever going to attack themselves?? Perhaps a suicidal, desperately moronic PC, but NOT one that is merely confused.
If you like to use/pay for badly written fluff text then fine, have fun with that.
Judging by the replys here, I guess this is not the game for me RAW, and that's too bad. Bummer.
|
For you "it has to roll to see what he do" is Act normally? Yes, it has a chance to do what he want to do, but he is not acting normally.
Note that there are several caveat too:
- if the confused creature his attacked he will attack the last creature that attacked him, not check what he do on that table;
- even if he "act normally" he can't take attacks of opportunity against targets that he hasn't attacked in the last round;
- and he is still treating everyone as an enemy, even his friends, so even if "acting normally", unless is action is to accept a specific spell during his turn, he will still resist any attempt from friend to cast spells/SLA on him, touch him or use any ability on him.
Ok...
So what's the rules question?
And by the way, if you want to go by as-anal-as-possible RAW, there is no problem with the way the condition is written. In the glossary, the first sentence directly following the table reads: "A confused creature who can't carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently." If you insist that confused creatures can't act normally even when the table says they can, there's your RAW. Babble incoherently. It's a popular thing nowadays, I see people do it all the time.
The rule is written quite clearly, there is no problem with the actual rule, the only problem is with the fluff and as its only fluff its not a problem so unless you're a troll and your goal is to anger peole you should really just move on.
One of the designers' oft-stated 'metarules' is that the rules should always be read with common sense engaged.
That said, I can see where the text is contradictory but I do not see any real problem with determining the intent of the condition when read with common sense: The Confused condition's mechanic is that you roll on the percentile table and abide by the results of the roll.
As to dealing damage to one's self, it's common medical practice for a patient who appears to be suffering from extreme mental confusion to be restrained - to avoid self-harm. So that's not unusual even in reality.
It's also not an uncommon game mechanic either: I've recently been playing through XCom Enemy Unknown, and one of the (admittedly rare) effects of the Panicked condition is that your soldier shoots himself.
There is no contradiction unless the victim of the spell would "normally" roll percentile dice every time he thinks of an action and can only normally attempt the action he wants if he rolls a 01-25 on the dice. If THAT is his NORMAL behavior, well, then I suppose the Confusion condition is contradictory.
But not really, since NOBODY "normally" does that, ever. Certainly, nobody "normally" does that for any mechanical reason in the core rules.
Since EVERY creature in the game "normally" thinks of an action then does it without rolling percentile and without a random chance of being unable to attempt his desired action, then EVERY creature subject to this condition is very much "unable to act normally".
Now, sometimes such a creature can luckily manage to act normally for a brief time (one round each time he gets lucky). But even that is not his "normal" behavior because "normally" he doesn't need luck to decide whether he can act and "normally" he doesn't make percentile rolls to act.
Therefore, no contradiction. Once you have the confused condition, you are no longer allowed to act "normally" (e.g. do what you want when you want). Instead, you must define your action and then roll percentile dice and you can only carry out your action on a 1-25; other results force you to do something else. Again, since doing this is very ABNORMAL behavior for every creature in the game, there is no contradiction in the condition description.
Also, result of 51-75 says "Deal d8+STR damage to yourself with item in hand".
This also has real inconsistencies.
1st where do they get d8 from? What about tiny or Huge creatures?
2nd, what moron is ever going to attack themselves?? Perhaps a suicidal, desperately moronic PC, but NOT one that is merely confused.
I agree, this is a little odd. The same guy confused on two different occasions, once while holding a +5 greataxe and once while holding a feather, in each case he will do 1d8+STR damage if he rolls this effect.
I call poppycock.
If I had written this spell, this result would say something like "Deal damage to yourself equal to your best single attack with whatever weapon you're holding, or do d8+STR damage to yourself with your bare hands".
To your points:
1st - I agree, the d8 was arbitrary.
2nd - In the real world, there are plenty of morons (and not-so-morons) who get drunk, get high, or sadly have some serious mental disorder, who actually do significant damage to themselves at times. Scratching and tearing at their flesh, ramming their head into the wall, "cutting", and even acts of self-mutilation. I'm talking about self-inflicted injuries which are entirely different from doing something stupid or unsafe in an altered mental state (like drunk driving or running with the bulls in Pamplona or whatever).
Self-inflicted injury while in an altered mental state happens. For real. Not usually to the tune of a 1d8 which is typically fatal to a Pathfinder commoner, but then, Pathfinder is a magical world. But, to this point, since real-life extreme confusion that results in self-inflicted injury is almost never fatal, I'd maybe agree that Confusion should stipulate non-lethal damage instead of lethal. I could justify that much of a change, but don't really think it's necessary - the extreme state of confusion described in this condition is clearly beyond merely being drunk or dizzy; it's obviously the result of magic or, at best, some seriously powerful narcotic effect, so anything's possible.
For you "it has to roll to see what he do" is Act normally? Yes, it has a chance to do what he want to do, but he is not acting normally.
Note that there are several caveat too:
- if the confused creature his attacked he will attack the last creature that attacked him, not check what he do on that table;
- even if he "act normally" he can't take attacks of opportunity against targets that he hasn't attacked in the last round;
- and he is still treating everyone as an enemy, even his friends, so even if "acting normally", unless is action is to accept a specific spell during his turn, he will still resist any attempt from friend to cast spells/SLA on him, touch him or use any ability on him.
Hmmm...I'm trying to decipher what you wrote but the grammar is jumbling terms. Thanks for the effort, Diego, as I am guessing English is not your primary. I can't even attempt that. Thanks anyway!
Let me translate.
He is not acting normally overall, as he had to roll to see what he does. That is not normally something you need to do, even if the result was to do what you wanted.
Note, there are several caveat's to this "act normally" action as well:
- If the confused creature has been attacked, he must attack them; there is no check involved.
- Even during the "act normally" option, he is restricted from taking attacks of opportunity against targets that he hasn't attacked in the last round
- Lastly, he must still treat everyone as an enemy, even his friends. This means that even though he rolled to "act normally" that round, he will still resist any attempts from his friends to cast beneficial touch spells/spell-like abilities on him
End translation.
Summation: Despite having a 25% chance to do what you wanted that round, you are still restricted in actions by the confusion effect, and the fact that you had to roll at all is not a normal situation. Thus, you are not "acting normally" overall.
Different words could have been used to prevent any misinterpretation, however knowing the intent behind the rules here, any change in verbiage would work best with the 25% chance to "act normally".
Perhaps simply a change to "creature's choice of action" or something to that effect. It would indicate better that you can decide what to do, but it's still limited by the previously listed restrictions of the spell.
.
I came to offer a fix for a badly written rule
Then perhaps next time make that the main point of your opening post.
Constructive criticism is explaining why you feel there's a problem and then offering suggestions on how to fix it. It doesn't imply being mean.*Edit: removed text as most of the offending posts were removed*
Specific trumps general.
The GENERAL rule is 'target cannot act normally'.
The SPECIFIC rule is 'on a roll of 1-25, the target can act normally'.
Ta-da.
Also, result of 51-75 says "Deal d8+STR damage to yourself with item in hand".
This also has real inconsistencies.
1st where do they get d8 from? What about tiny or Huge creatures?
2nd, what moron is ever going to attack themselves?? Perhaps a suicidal, desperately moronic PC, but NOT one that is merely confused.I agree, this is a little odd. The same guy confused on two different occasions, once while holding a +5 greataxe and once while holding a feather, in each case he will do 1d8+STR damage if he rolls this effect.
Ehhh... you could say that he tried to eat the greataxe, or stick the feather in his eyeball.
It's not necessarily an attack like swinging a sword, but just dangerous behavior inflicted upon himself because he's confused.
Also remember that Hit Points are not necessarily physical damage.
thanks for the replies, guys.
sorry for the tone of a few posts; i was getting a little discouraged by the first few replies. i also should have opened with my proposed houserule instead of a semi-rant!
DM Blake wrote: ----Once you have the confused condition, you are no longer allowed to act "normally" (e.g. do what you want when you want).----
thank you. this puts it pretty succinctly, with little room for misinterpretation.
I do still like the earlier versions of the spell/effect better.
While I understand the desire to define Confusion as a condition, I don't get the changes as being any improvement, other than to keep GMs from keeping track of so many wandering confused monsters. And it only needs a d4, really.
It just struck me as bizarre how Confusion was changed from what was mostly the same for 30+ years.
so...I'm using this table instead, if anyone's curious:
roll d4
- 1 wander 10' in a direction determined by d8 (and in precisely the opposite direction if movement is inhibited by anything more than a standard Difficult Terrain)
- 2 Babble incoherently in place/stare off into space
- 3 Attack nearest ally/friend/familiar.
- 4 Attack nearest opponent/enemy/stranger. (Any allies that have attacked you during the spell's/condition's duration are now considered enemies)
cheers, guys
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Blake wrote: ----Once you have the confused condition, you are no longer allowed to act "normally" (e.g. do what you want when you want).----
thank you. this puts it pretty succinctly, with little room for misinterpretation.
You're welcome. I'm always happy to, er, uh, clear up Confusion...
The "wander in a direction" is a nice one, and absent from the current list of options. It's how I picture a person he's mentally confused too, chasing/avoiding things that potentially only he can see, lol.
Confusion is at a level just below the first insta-death spells (slay living is 5th), and at the same level as the multi-save insta-death spell phantasmal killer.
Currently confusion allowing a person to attack someone who attacked him (making it useless to cast on someone who's being attacked by your allies, for either side of the DM screen), and allowing a chance to do what you wanted anyways, is kind of weaksauce.
I wouldn't mind seeing a list of effects that were all random and primarily non-beneficial. Confusion lasts rounds already, just make the spell have a save every round (or perhaps a second save attempt to end it early on the next round, matching the two-save process for phantasmal killer).
Lesser confusion lasts 1 round, so no biggie. Insanity is a 7th level spell, which warrants this level of nastiness.
.
I still like the idea of harming oneself (something we have to worry about with actual people in real life). Perhaps something like "Cause unmodified unarmed strike damage to oneself. Medium creature 1d3 + str damage."
This emulates scratching at ones eyes, or slamming your head against a wall or floor, trying to get the voices out, etc..
so...I'm using this table instead, if anyone's curious:
roll d4
- 1 wander 10' in a direction determined by d8 (and in precisely the opposite direction if movement is inhibited by anything more than a standard Difficult Terrain)
Hmmm. What happen if both directions are blocked? Does the subject stay in place?
I see no contradiction,
Cannot act normally is fully correct, you only act normally 25% of the time.... This is in no way normal.
The 25% chance is also there so the spell isn't a complete and total hoser. You at least have a CHANCE to be useful from round to round.
|
|
thanks for the replies, guys.
sorry for the tone of a few posts; i was getting a little discouraged by the first few replies. i also should have opened with my proposed houserule instead of a semi-rant!DM Blake wrote: ----Once you have the confused condition, you are no longer allowed to act "normally" (e.g. do what you want when you want).----
thank you. this puts it pretty succinctly, with little room for misinterpretation.
I do still like the earlier versions of the spell/effect better.
While I understand the desire to define Confusion as a condition, I don't get the changes as being any improvement, other than to keep GMs from keeping track of so many wandering confused monsters. And it only needs a d4, really.
It just struck me as bizarre how Confusion was changed from what was mostly the same for 30+ years.
so...I'm using this table instead, if anyone's curious:
roll d4
- 1 wander 10' in a direction determined by d8 (and in precisely the opposite direction if movement is inhibited by anything more than a standard Difficult Terrain)
- 2 Babble incoherently in place/stare off into space
- 3 Attack nearest ally/friend/familiar.
- 4 Attack nearest opponent/enemy/stranger. (Any allies that have attacked you during the spell's/condition's duration are now considered enemies)cheers, guys
Second edition table:
1 Wander away2-6 Stand confused one round
7-9 Attack nearest creature
10 act normally for one round
The first edition books are in the cellar, but, from what I remember there was a 10% chance that the affected creature would act normally even in that version of the spell.
SRD version:
01–10 Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible).
11–20 Act normally.
21–50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51–70 Flee away from caster at top possible speed.
71–100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject’s self).
3.5 (from a web search, that book too is in the cellar)
d% Behavior
01—10 Attack caster with melee or ranged weapons (or close with caster if attack is not possible).
11—20 Act normally.
21—50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51—70 Flee away from caster at top possible speed.
71—100 Attack nearest creature (for this purpose, a familiar counts as part of the subject's self).
From what I see and what I remember, there has always been a chance of acting normally or attacking the caster, both useful options.
Your version remove completely the chance of acting normally, something that has been in the spell from the start.
The 25% chance is also there so the spell isn't a complete and total hoser. You at least have a CHANCE to be useful from round to round.
Only if you haven't been attacked or if your previous attackers are all dead. The chain reaction of "He attacked me, I will attack him" make sure that as soon as one person under the effect of confusion attack another the two swill stay locked in a battle to the death.