Confusion & what constitutes an 'attack'

[scadgrad]

Hey Gang,

Just thought I'd get some of your opinions on this one. The problem I'm having with the spell Confusion is what exactly constitutes an attack.

Now here's the scenario:

Fighter gets hit with Confusion spell fails save & results in a "do nothing for 1 round."

So then the enemy spellcaster smacks him (and several other PCs for that matter) with say a Fireball. The dilemma here lies within the spell description which states "Any confused creature who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn."

Does that mean the Fighter charges (or moves and attacks)the enemy spellcaster? I interpretted the phrase "attacked" as being targeted by an Attack Action and NOT spellcasting. My player argued that having a spell cast at you was nothing if not an attack. We went with my definition (under protest of course) for the time being.

So what does everyone think? Any official clarification on this one?

Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

 

[kreynolds]

I interpretted the phrase "attacked" as being targeted by an Attack Action and NOT spellcasting. My player argued that having a spell cast at you was nothing if not an attack.

Correct. The invisibility spell defines any damage causing action taken against another creature as an attack, so casting a fireball and having part of it hit a bad guy is an attack and you become visible.

We went with my definition (under protest of course) for the time being.

Yeah. I don't doubt your player protested at all.

So what does everyone think? Any official clarification on this one?

Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Like I said, the Invisibility spell is a really good referrence. Hope that helps.

 

[shurai]

I have this same problem with my wizard who loves Unseen Servant too much. Is it an attack if the Servant just casually dumps a bucket of dishwater all over the half-orc in our party?

-S

 

[Henrix]

Yes, I concur with kreynolds.
Note that the spell description says "attacks his attackers", which means that he would not necessarily attack just the spellcaster, but also the spellcasters allies, in particular if they were blocking the Confused's line of attack to the spellcaster.

 

[Henrix]

I have this same problem with my wizard who loves Unseen Servant too much. Is it an attack if the Servant just casually dumps a bucket of dishwater all over the half-orc in our party?

No, that's an impromptu, and possibly much needed, shower. ;-)

 

[scadgrad]

bump

bump...

Thanks for the opinions so far guys. Anyone else with a thought on this one?

 

[Petrosian]

i have an opinion but its the same...

invisibility defines attack pretty well.

however i would probably have him ignore the fighter screen and run for the wiz and only stop to fight the fighter screen if they in turn attack him (an aoo if fine)

i ran a session where all but one party memebr failed a confusion save, at which point the smart npcs waited but a stupid (fanatical npc ) an AOE spell and promplty had the entire party wailing on her alone. as soon as she was down the others concentrated on the unconfused one while the rest of the party was standing around. When on of the PCs rolled attack nearest it started a pc-on-pc chain attack set which resulted in one dead pc.

 

[Dinkeldog]

As an interesting corollary.

A confused creature attacks the creature that attacked it.

So if PC1 gets the confusion result of attack nearest creature, and attacks PC2, does that mean that PC2 will retaliate on his action against PC1, who then retaliates on his action against PC2, who then...until Confusion ends, or one of them is a bloody pulp on the floor?

 

[Baalzebul]

Anything the subject can perceive as an attack against him is something he can retaliate against. So, a fireball hitting a target affected by Confusion would be something he could retaliate against. He spends his next turn trying to attack someone that attacked him, probably in order of closest to farthest if he was attacked by more than one source, and then the turn after that goes back to randomly determining his actions unless he was attacked again during the turn he was retaliating.

I wouldn't take the wording of "attacks his attackers" to mean that the Confused creature can distinguish who is allied with who in the scene around him. Being attacked does not dispel the Confusion, so the subject would still have difficulty making sense of what is happening around him. I'd say that the subject would try to attack anyone who attacks him directly, including his allies if they damage him by accident. If other combatants are blocking the subject from attacking his attacker, it would be reasonable for the subject to attack the one most directly blocking his path in frustration regardless of whether they are in reality one of his enemies or allies. For the purposes of deciding who blocks the path to his attacker I'd trace the most direct route possible between the subject and his attacker, if the subject can't detour around anyone blocking the path he attacks them.

As for Dinkeldog's corollary, that's exactly how I'd play it taking into consideration any other attackers on either PC1 or PC2 and how far away they are, etc.

 

[hong]

As an interesting corollary.

A confused creature attacks the creature that attacked it.

So if PC1 gets the confusion result of attack nearest creature, and attacks PC2, does that mean that PC2 will retaliate on his action against PC1, who then retaliates on his action against PC2, who then...until Confusion ends, or one of them is a bloody pulp on the floor?

[edit]If they have to attack, yes. They might still do nothing, wander away, or act normally (in which case, they might be well advised to run away).[/edit]