Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bob_the_Theurge 04-05-06, 04:01 PM	Confusion, the Spell, states as one of its consequences that the character affected "attacks" either the closest target, or the last thing that attacked it. One DM (a Triad member actually) recently ruled at table that this means that a Confused spellcaster uses the "attack" action (PHB, page 139) instead of "attacking" as defined on page 305 of the PHB , which reads "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent." I sent the question off to WotC support, as mentioned on page 63 of the new LGCS ("Use the Knowledge Base customer service resource (found at www.wizards.com) to ask your D&D-related questions. The interpretation of a rule given through the Knowledge Base is considered a guideline for play."). Their response is that the DM was mistaken. The result of the DM's decision contributed in no small part to a TPK. What do we, as players, do when situations like this occur? Is there anything that we can do, at all?
gomeztoo 04-05-06, 04:14 PM	The idea of the Confusion spell is to prevent rational thought, so with the ambiguity of the spell (I looked it up and rolling 71-00 can go either way, but 01-10 is clear) the ruling of your DM may be a valid one, even if Customer Support says otherwise. I expect this may differ from table to table. At a Home Game, you are then out of luck (all you can do is quit the game), since deaths have to be dealt with at the table. At a Con, you can go to the Senior GM. I would not expect though that he will overrule your DM that quickly, unless you can make a convincing case what the DM is wrong. Gomez
redgamer 04-05-06, 04:28 PM	Once the table is over you can't over turn a death. In the future either use the knowledge base to justify your argument and/or don't cast confusion with a judge who doesn't agree with you.
Bob_the_Theurge 04-05-06, 05:22 PM	Once the table is over you can't over turn a death. In the future either use the knowledge base to justify your argument and/or don't cast confusion with a judge who doesn't agree with you. The confusion was an NPC ability in the module, designed specifically to affect the players (and with its save DC jacked to APL + 14, too). The problem as I see it is that even when confronted with customer service response to the contrary, the DM continually insists that they are right on the matter and has promised to run the spell the same way every time it comes up at their table. As they are Triad, this is scary, as they become de facto "appeals DM's" at Interactives and cons.
Arvagor 04-05-06, 05:42 PM	One DM (a Triad member actually) recently ruled at table that this means that a Confused spellcaster uses the "attack" action (PHB, page 139) instead of "attacking" as defined on page 305 of the PHB , which reads "Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent.":thinks: Strictly speaking, I don't think the DM was necessarily wrong. Maybe this is a case of the WotC Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) differing from what's in the PHB but the full definition of "attack" is:Attack: Any of numerous actions intended to harm, disable, or neutralize an opponent. The outcome of an attack is determined by an attack roll.So if the DM had the spellcaster physically attacking somebody else, that's not a "wrong" action for the confused being to take....
Sieylianna 04-06-06, 07:34 AM	:thinks: Strictly speaking, I don't think the DM was necessarily wrong. Maybe this is a case of the WotC Glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary) differing from what's in the PHB but the full definition of "attack" is:So if the DM had the spellcaster physically attacking somebody else, that's not a "wrong" action for the confused being to take.... Unless the caster is being mauled by some monster and isn't fighting back with his most effective weapon (his spells). I suppose that's where the TPK comes from. Ed
Samwise 04-06-06, 12:51 PM	And I'd say the DM is right. And I've never had a player argue that they shouldn't use a weapon attack in such a case. While the result for 71-00 doesn't mention using a weapon, the entry for 01-10 does, and that would be the intent. I think a question to consider is, would you want to have to use a disintegrate on a party member if confused? In the long run, it does balance out.
Karlindel 04-20-06, 07:23 PM	Actually, the fact that the 71-00 roll does not mention a weapon works against the GMs ruling, not for it. If they intended for it to be an attack with a melee weapon, they would have specified it, as they did with 01-10. Unfortunately, it is ambiguous, and thus it is a GM's call. After the table is over, it is too late to overturn a character death.
King Kashue 04-21-06, 04:04 AM	Honestly, when spells like dominate or confusion are used, DMs generally soft play them. A PC turned on his comrades and using the full extend of his abilities (easily possible with confusion, and can be assured with Dominate) can drop someone easily...The average LG tank (and his min/maxed wis score & will save) turned on his party can be a disaster... As for "appealing" to WotC customer service, you're misconstruing the LGCS... First, no decision can be overruled once the table has disbanded...The only person who can overrule a judge's decision is the Senior DM, during the event, before the table is disbanded. Second, WotC customer service is not a court of appeals, as the very section you quoted states "The interpretation of a rule given through the Knowledge Base is considered a guideline for play"...Not, "the interpretation is considered binding and authoritative". Which is actually good in my view...Considering the FAQ is authoritative, and it contradicts itself and has several outright illogical interpretations, I'm glad that random calls to WotC aren't binding on the game...