Confusion & what constitutes an 'attack'

[Baalzebul]

[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]

But they would have to attack, wouldn't they? If the Confusion comes into play, PC1 rolls attack nearest creature which happens to be PC2 and so PC1 attacks PC2, PC2 will then automatically return attack on PC1, who will automatically return attack on PC1, etc.

One break to the cycle would be if a new attacker attacked PC1 and he diverts his attacks to the new attacker. I'd only do this if the new attacker was closer than PC2, though. Then PC2 would determine his action randomly if PC1 attacks someone else and PC2 is not attacked by anyone else that turn.

 

[hong]

But they would have to attack, wouldn't they? If the Confusion comes into play, PC1 rolls attack nearest creature which happens to be PC2 and so PC1 attacks PC2, PC2 will then automatically return attack on PC1, who will automatically return attack on PC1, etc.

Hm, you have a point. I tend to interpret "automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn" to mean that if the creature rolls 7-9 ("attack nearest creature"), that means it must choose as its target the one who attacked it.

Which, strictly speaking, isn't what it actually says, but confusion is already a pretty deadly spell against large groups. Nothing wrong with toning it down a little.