When you are confused with a confusion spell, and you must attack the nearest creature, can you do things that could replace a normal attack such as a grapple or trip? Can you drop your weapon before making an attack?
You confuse the nearest creature for an enemy and attack that enemy the way you usually attack enemies. If you're a tripper, you might trip. If you're a grappler, you might grapple (unless, of course, there's a reason you can't such as too much of a size mismatch). If you usually hit things with a big mallet, hit things with a big mallet.
Unless you usually drop your weapon before making an attack, you wouldn't do that. Try to keep to the spirit of the spell.
I have a player asking for specific clarification on what they are allowed to do with this. Is there a specific FAQ explaining that the GM should use best judgement on what the person should do. Or is the player allowed to decide how their character attacks?
The spell actually has a chart to roll on each round in the srd. Best to refer to that.
I have a player asking for specific clarification on what they are allowed to do with this. Is there a specific FAQ explaining that the GM should use best judgement on what the person should do. Or is the player allowed to decide how their character attacks?
I don't believe there's a specific FAQ on this subject, nor do I believe it's appropriate for FAQ-ing. (Do you really need to play mother-may-I with SKR on every dispute at your game table?)
The question above is badly posed. The spell "confuses" the target into thinking that the nearest creature creature is an enemy. The player should therefore treat the nearest creature as she would an enemy. If the player for some reason doesn't do this, the GM should step in, just as the GM should step in if a charmed player refuses to go along.
My character in a previous campaign was a pacifist grappler, who tried as much as possible to avoid killing humanoids -- but wasn't quite stupid enough to try grappling things like fire elementals. So if the nearest creature was the party wizard, he would probably have grappled the wizard; if the nearest creature was a fire elemental, he would probably have attacked it with a manufactured weapon. But this is something that had been established by long play over several levels.
Conversely, if the character in question were a gunslinger, who shot everything that moved and had never tried a grapple in the entire campaign, it wouldn't make sense for him suddenly to decide to drop his musket and grapple the wizard instead of just shooting him as per normal.
The spell actually has a chart to roll on each round in the srd. Best to refer to that.
My player is claiming that "Attack nearest character" means he can drop his sword and punch "It's an attack!" or that he can instead try to disarm a wizard or NPC not holding anything "Disarming is an attack!"
The spell actually has a chart to roll on each round in the srd. Best to refer to that.My player is claiming that "Attack nearest character" means he can drop his sword and punch "It's an attack!" or that he can instead try to disarm a wizard or NPC not holding anything "Disarming is an attack!"
Well, your player is as right, or as wrong, as you allow him to be. This is the point at which I would take control of his character. Has he ever disarmed anything before in the entire campaign? If not, why is he starting now?
Disarming a wizard of his spell component pouch is a valid tactic *IF* that character does that sort of thing to wizards when he's NOT confused. However, it sounds to me that your player is not playing in the true spirit of the spell, and is trying to use rules-weaseling (a different animal from rules-lawyering) to get out of doing his best.