Can you attack an ally who is Confused to "snap them out of it"?


Rules Questions


It seems like you can, which seems counter-intuitive. They are attacking creatures at random, and when a party member slaps him, he now will not attack the party anymore?

Here is the relevant language from the Confused condition (page 618):
"Each time you take damage from an attack or spell, you can attempt a DC 11 flat check to recover from your confusion and end the condition."

I see the logic of it and will run it as written. But I wonder if the designers were aware that it could be used as a way for the party to "snap" the person out of it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not quite how it works, and you quoted the rule that explains how it works.

Each time you take damage, you get another check to not be confused, that's true. But taking damage is much more than a smack. You have to take actual hp damage. And it's a flat check, so no bonuses. You have a 50% chance of success.

Yes, your friends could attack you hoping you make the save and that they deal you minimal damage in the process. But then the party has wasted their action economy to do so.

Seems like a win for no matter for the thing that caused the confusion.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

Yep there will be a lot of gauntleted slaps across the face for confused pcs going forward, and I for one look forward to it!


Woah, I hadn't realized up until now how drastically the confused condition has changed. That is a serious nice boost to the Confusion spell to make up for it being single target.


Claxon wrote:

That's not quite how it works, and you quoted the rule that explains how it works.

Each time you take damage, you get another check to not be confused, that's true. But taking damage is much more than a smack. You have to take actual hp damage. And it's a flat check, so no bonuses. You have a 50% chance of success.

Yes, your friends could attack you hoping you make the save and that they deal you minimal damage in the process. But then the party has wasted their action economy to do so.

Seems like a win for no matter for the thing that caused the confusion.

Seems also worth pointing out that your allies have to actually land a hit on you, and if they are avoiding using their most damaging weapons there's a good chance they have lower to hit.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Claxon wrote:

That's not quite how it works, and you quoted the rule that explains how it works.

Each time you take damage, you get another check to not be confused, that's true. But taking damage is much more than a smack. You have to take actual hp damage. And it's a flat check, so no bonuses. You have a 50% chance of success.

Yes, your friends could attack you hoping you make the save and that they deal you minimal damage in the process. But then the party has wasted their action economy to do so.

Seems like a win for no matter for the thing that caused the confusion.

Seems also worth pointing out that your allies have to actually land a hit on you, and if they are avoiding using their most damaging weapons there's a good chance they have lower to hit.

Splash damage from a low level bomb would do the trick.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Claxon wrote:

That's not quite how it works, and you quoted the rule that explains how it works.

Each time you take damage, you get another check to not be confused, that's true. But taking damage is much more than a smack. You have to take actual hp damage. And it's a flat check, so no bonuses. You have a 50% chance of success.

Yes, your friends could attack you hoping you make the save and that they deal you minimal damage in the process. But then the party has wasted their action economy to do so.

Seems like a win for no matter for the thing that caused the confusion.

Seems also worth pointing out that your allies have to actually land a hit on you, and if they are avoiding using their most damaging weapons there's a good chance they have lower to hit.

Monks would be useful for this can choose to do non-lethal dmg when slapping somebody so they don't have to worry about killing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Claxon wrote:

That's not quite how it works, and you quoted the rule that explains how it works.

Each time you take damage, you get another check to not be confused, that's true. But taking damage is much more than a smack. You have to take actual hp damage. And it's a flat check, so no bonuses. You have a 50% chance of success.

Yes, your friends could attack you hoping you make the save and that they deal you minimal damage in the process. But then the party has wasted their action economy to do so.

Seems like a win for no matter for the thing that caused the confusion.

Seems also worth pointing out that your allies have to actually land a hit on you, and if they are avoiding using their most damaging weapons there's a good chance they have lower to hit.
Monks would be useful for this can choose to do non-lethal dmg when slapping somebody so they don't have to worry about killing them.

But a monk is also gonna hit harder. It actually seems worse to be hit by a monk most of the time, because nonlethal damage only matters if it is the hit that takes you to zero. So any other time you're just losing more health than you otherwise would. A monk is better off stabbing you with a dagger.


The RPG confusion concern of yore, figuring out how to deliver that sobering shock of pain as reliably as possible with as little harm as possible. XD

It's like trying to wake someone up in a way that doesn't have them wishing bodily harm upon you but you really need them to wake up NOW.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Woah, I hadn't realized up until now how drastically the confused condition has changed. That is a serious nice boost to the Confusion spell to make up for it being single target.

What's the boost? With PF1 Confusion, there was practically nothing you could do to snap them out of it. If you slapped them, all they'd do is focus their attacks on you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Woah, I hadn't realized up until now how drastically the confused condition has changed. That is a serious nice boost to the Confusion spell to make up for it being single target.
What's the boost? With PF1 Confusion, there was practically nothing you could do to snap them out of it. If you slapped them, all they'd do is focus their attacks on you.

My party often took great advantage of that by having whoever had the highest AC attack them. Hit or miss they now focused on them (unless someone else attacked the confused person). It was a great way to prevent the confused character from attack the casters they might be near.

Now you can stab them (just a little) and try to snap them out of it.

I recommend (most) everyone get a sai or shuriken to make sure they're going to get minimal damage bonuses (due to not being proficient) so they can stab their friends. For friendship.


Not being proficient means you won’t hit them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unarmed strikes are supposed to scale with your simple weapon proficiency; that was an oversight. So generally you'll have a weak, accurate slap available to you unless you're a Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Unarmed strikes are supposed to scale with your simple weapon proficiency

Has this been confirmed by the devs? If so could you link it, because that'd be very good to know. Or is this just your assumption/opinion worded as fact?


*mumble* 19 fricking points...

Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to topic.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Iff wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Unarmed strikes are supposed to scale with your simple weapon proficiency
Has this been confirmed by the devs? If so could you link it, because that'd be very good to know. Or is this just your assumption/opinion worded as fact?

Somebody on Discord quoting Arcane Mark. That’s enough of a “heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy” chain that I wouldn’t treat it as anything official yet.


Indeed, but that makes me hopeful that this (or something like it) makes it to the first round of FAQ/errata. Apologies for derailing the thread.


QuidEst wrote:
Iff wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Unarmed strikes are supposed to scale with your simple weapon proficiency
Has this been confirmed by the devs? If so could you link it, because that'd be very good to know. Or is this just your assumption/opinion worded as fact?
Somebody on Discord quoting Arcane Mark. That’s enough of a “heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy” chain that I wouldn’t treat it as anything official yet.

This makes the mutagen alchemist even more screwed up. If true, I expect they’ll get master in unarmed (mutagen only) in the first errata.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I might be missing some key information, like if the response was for a class. I should probably have held off until checking the source myself.


It was toward the end of last night's stream, if you want to check the video


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Woah, I hadn't realized up until now how drastically the confused condition has changed. That is a serious nice boost to the Confusion spell to make up for it being single target.
What's the boost? With PF1 Confusion, there was practically nothing you could do to snap them out of it. If you slapped them, all they'd do is focus their attacks on you.

The big thing is that the old confusion had a that whole 25% chance thing going on. A chance to act normally makes the condition unreliable, as it might not impair them at all. Or they might just waste their turn instead of inflicting damage on themselves or an ally. Heck, they might just attack you anyway.

The only way to reliably benefit from the old Confusion was to confuse a group of enemies and hope one would roll to hit their buddy, thus triggering a chain of them all trying to murder each other. That made confusion becoming single target in the playtest much less desirable.

Now it is guaranteed they are going to start attacking indiscriminately. The wording of the condition is a little vague, but I'd certainly rule that an enemy using melee attacks is going to go after only people inside their reach. That makes it much easier to know when to drop the spell and be confident they will hit who you want them to hit.

Also, making the enemy flat-footed and incapable of reactions is nice too. I'll gladly take all those boons in exchange for a flat check to snap out of it when you take damage. That still feels better than the old version to me, at least as far as single target goes. Now if I strike an enemy that is confused they simply have a chance to snap out of it, which is better than a certainty of trying to kill me exclusively.


I for one am excited to be able to slap the barbarian out of it.

Vigilant Seal

During a game at GenCon, Seelah the iconic paladin failed a Will save versus a demonic confusion effect. The GM had her say something ominous so my ranger slapped her out of it before she could act.

(He'll keep a close eye on paladins from now on)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Questions / Can you attack an ally who is Confused to "snap them out of it"? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.