I was reading this spell and I’m not sure how to interpret a very important aspect of it. When a creature affected by the spell is attacked, it attacks the attacker back; or if it rolls on the table and gets the 76-100 result, on its next turn it “attacks nearest creature”.
The problem is, the spell doesn’t explain what “attack” means in this context.
I have looked through the forums and only found some answers regarding the PF1 spell (wich is nearly identical), and there is a lot of table variation.
How do you apply the effects of this spell in your games? To provide some examples:
1- You use everything to attack the creature. If you are a spellcaster, you use the spells in your repertoire in the best way possible to damage or disable your “enemy”. If you don’t have spells, you make one or more attacks or use special attacks (like trick attack), depending on the circumstances. In both cases, you use daily resources, items and resolve points if it makes sense, in a tactical way, to give you a better chance to kill your enemy.
2- You attack using your best weapons and may use multiple attacks/special attacks if it makes sense given the circumstances, but you don’t have to use daily resources, items or resolve points. Casters don’t have to use spells.
3- You only make one attack using whatever weapon you have in your hands at that moment.
In these three examples I assume the confused character/creature can move to attack if that is beneficial (to avoid cover, or to strike with a melee weapon) and the action economy allows it.
Also, it is questionable if the confused creature can use abilities that not only attacks/damages the intended target, but also other creatures. For example, a confused dragon using its breath weapon/a character throwing a grenade to damage not only the nearest creature, but also other creatures nearby (be they allies or enemies).
As a sidenote, it is weird that the spell doesn’t use the confused condition, that has mostly the same text with some extra lines that clarify that the creature treats everyone as its enemies.
Thoughts?
Confusion
Source Starfinder Core Rulebook pg. 344
Classes Mystic 4
School enchantment (compulsion, mind-affecting)
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area 15-ft.-radius burst
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
Description
This spell causes confusion in all creatures in the area, making them unable to determine their actions. Any confused creature that is attacked automatically attacks or attempts to attack its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused at the start of its next turn. Note that a confused creature will not make attacks of opportunity against any foe that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked). For confused creatures that have not been attacked, roll on the following table at the start of each affected creature’s turn each round to see what it does in that round.
D% Behavior
1–25 Act normally.
26–50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51–75 Deal 1d8 + Str modifier damage to self with item in hand.
76–100 Attack nearest creature.
A confused creature that can’t carry out the indicated action does nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking a confused target.
Confused
You are mentally befuddled and can’t act normally. You can’t tell the difference between ally and foe, and thus you treat all creatures as enemies, even your closest friends and family, if applicable. An ally who wishes to cast a beneficial Spell on you with a range of touch must succeed at an attack roll against your Energy Armor Class, since you cannot be considered a willing target. If you are attacked while you’re confused, you always attack the creature that last attacked you until that creature is dead or out of sight, unless it is otherwise impossible for you to attack it that round. While confused, you can’t make attacks of opportunity against any creature or thing that you aren’t already committed to attacking.
If you are not devoted to attacking a target, roll on the following table at the beginning of your turn each round to see what you do in that round.
d% Behavior
1–25 Act normally.
26–50 Do nothing but babble incoherently.
51–75 Deal 1d8 + Str modifier damage to self with item in hand.
76–100 Attack nearest creature.
If you can’t carry out the indicated action, you do nothing but babble incoherently. Attackers are not at any special advantage when attacking you.
I have ruled this as the NPC / PC attacks the nearest creature to the best of their ability. The NPC will attack the nearest creature no differently than if attacking PCs and the PC will attack no differently than they were the NPCs.
Just to clarify, I'm the GM in my group.
I wanted to know how other GMs use this spell in their games.
Thank you for your imput. Much appreciated.
I don't think it is explicitly spelled out in the rules, but I have seen places where an 'attack' is described as any action that uses an attack roll and does damage on success, or forces a saving throw. I would go with that.
Good thinking,breithauptclan. I have taken a look in the rulebook, and found this definitions of Attack:
- From the invisibility spell:
"For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell or harmful effect targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe."
- From Attack in the Glossary at the end of the book:
"Attack: This is any action you take that could potentially damage a target. Attacks in combat are either ranged, such as shooting a laser rifle or throwing a grenade, or melee, such as stabbing with a survival knife. Monsters often can make attacks with their natural weapons, such as claws, or they might have access to other special attacks. See page 240."
So it seems the first definition would be closer to my option 1, and the second to my option 2.
The thing you have to guard against here is allowing the PC or NPC from using a suboptimal attack choice verses an ally.
Under most circumstances a unaffected PC or NPC uses their best attack to damage the enemy. That should not change under the effects of confusion.
Any confused creature that is attacked automatically attacks or attempts to attack its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused at the start of its next turn.
So any attacker that attacks the effected PC / NPC will be attacked back. No confusion roll needed. Assuming for the moment we have only one effected PC / NPC they were 99.99% sure to have been attacked by an enemy. So naturally they will do their best to kill that attacker.
Now in the case of the effected NPC / PC being attacked then they roll on the confusion table. So they roll 76-100 and attack nearest creature. If it is an enemy creature, then naturally a PC / NPC will attack to the best of his ability. There is no reason not too.
The same logic has to be applied if the nearest is friendly to the effected NPC / PC. They are confused and see the friendly creature as an enemy, no different than the actual enemies.
If you allow a effected PC to change from their best weapon or spell to their weakest weapon or spell then it is gaming the system.
I don't allow it.
For maximum excitement and chaos have multiple PC / NPC on both sides be effected by the confusion spell.
Good times there.
I would be leery about "best of its ability". While it is true that a Confused character should not deliberately whiff its attack against an ally, "to the best of its ability" has a *lot* of ceiling for being equally absurd. Should a character have to use its most damaging attack, a one-shot missile, at melee range? Or expend a sixth level spell slot nuking a low level mook?
Basically, I see two possible interpretations to use here. First option, is that the Confused character simply attacks with its "standard" attack. If they have a gun in hand, they shoot it, if they have a sword, they stab, etc. They don't typically/ever use limited resource attacks, anymore than they would unthinkingly use such at random normally. Second option, they practice their normal tactical sensibilities, just with a particular chosen target. So, melee range targets get melee attacks preferentially and not area attacks; limited use attacks are only used against powerful foes; etc. The character fights as intelligently as they normally would, just against a designated "foe".
There's a lot of judgment needing to be exercised here.
A level 20 mindbreaker mystic who doesn't bother carrying a pistol, should probably use mind thrust or similar when confused instead of a cantrip, but they aren't necessarily locking into their sixth level version if they as a character would be saving such a spell for later anyway.
Second option, they practice their normal tactical sensibilities, just with a particular chosen target. So, melee range targets get melee attacks preferentially and not area attacks; limited use attacks are only used against powerful foes; etc. The character fights as intelligently as they normally would, just against a designated "foe".
This is what I meant about to the "best of their ability".