A couple of spell questions

[CM]

Here's a couple of unusual situations that came up tonight between Wall of Fire and Confusion.

First, suppose a wizard is in a 5' wide hallway. Twenty feet ahead of him, a room opens up. If he were to cast Wall of Fire five feet into the room, running perpendicular to the hallway he is in, would the wall extend all the way to the limits of the room (as in the first diagram), or is the wall limited in width to what he could see by the line of effect rule (as in the second diagram)?

The second question is pretty easy but I wanted to be sure.

Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes.

Is a confused character free to take whatever sort of attack action it wants? Can it charge or take a full attack, or does it only make a single attack action? If someone makes an attack of opportunity on a confused creature, the SRD seems to indicate the confused creature completes its actions normally, and then begins attacking its assailant on its next turn, correct?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Keith Robinson]

Here's a couple of unusual situations that came up tonight between Wall of Fire and Confusion.

First, suppose a wizard is in a 5' wide hallway. Twenty feet ahead of him, a room opens up. If he were to cast Wall of Fire five feet into the room, running perpendicular to the hallway he is in, would the wall extend all the way to the limits of the room (as in the first diagram), or is the wall limited in width to what he could see by the line of effect rule (as in the second diagram)?

A similar thing occured in a group I play in. The DM called (rightly, IMO) that the wall only extended as far as the wizard could see. If you let the wall spread as far as it is able, some players will abuse it to flush out corridors and rooms.

If someone makes an attack of opportunity on a confused creature, the SRD seems to indicate the confused creature completes its actions normally, and then begins attacking its assailant on its next turn, correct?

The PHB says:

"Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked)."

So, a confused character will continue to do whatever the confusion indicated he was doing and he only gets an AoO on a creature he is already fighting (so, if he's not fighting anyone and nobody attacks him, no AoOs). If something runs up and hits him, he can also take AoOs against that creature as well, should it do something that provokes.

 

[Scharlata]

Hi!

[...] would the wall extend all the way to the limits of the room (as in the first diagram),[...]

IMHO, the spell's area should only be limited by its range, not by what the a caster may see or not. Imagine a fireball that "behaves" strangely just because the caster could not see the entire room.

Is a confused character free to take whatever sort of attack action it wants? [...]

That's a good question that different campaigns resolve in different manners. Some like to nerf the spell's effect down, just in case an enemy spellcaster hits a party member with a confusion. Sometimes, a single PC is just enough for a TPK, especiallyin the case of a fighter tank with a spiked chain who turns confused against his comrades low on hit points. Other campaigns force the confused character to all-out her fighting/casting prowess.

Kind regards

 

[Kae'Yoss]

IMHO, the spell's area should only be limited by its range, not by what the a caster may see or not. Imagine a fireball that "behaves" strangely just because the caster could not see the entire room.

Fireball isn't really comparable, as you only have to see the center of the ball. Then, it will spread. Wall of fire is neither burst nor spread.

 

[moritheil]

Some spells specify. For example, a Charmed person will use the least lethal attacks at his or her disposal. A dominated one will do exactly what is ordered. I would say that the default is to lethal; a confused person essentially treats the person he attacks as an enemy. YMMV.

Hi!


IMHO, the spell's area should only be limited by its range, not by what the a caster may see or not. Imagine a fireball that "behaves" strangely just because the caster could not see the entire room.


That's a good question that different campaigns resolve in different manners. Some like to nerf the spell's effect down, just in case an enemy spellcaster hits a party member with a confusion. Sometimes, a single PC is just enough for a TPK, especiallyin the case of a fighter tank with a spiked chain who turns confused against his comrades low on hit points. Other campaigns force the confused character to all-out her fighting/casting prowess.

Kind regards

 

[Psimancer]

IMHO, the spell's area should only be limited by its range, not by what the a caster may see or not. Imagine a fireball that "behaves" strangely just because the caster could not see the entire room.

I would have to agree here. A Wall of Fire has an 'effect', which (from the SRD) contains the following line in its description, "...You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it..." (Emphasis mine.)

Given a caster could define the area as ‘from point A outwards’, I find it to be a legal use, and would go with the first diagram (out to the walls).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

First, suppose a wizard is in a 5' wide hallway. Twenty feet ahead of him, a room opens up. If he were to cast Wall of Fire five feet into the room, running perpendicular to the hallway he is in, would the wall extend all the way to the limits of the room (as in the first diagram), or is the wall limited in width to what he could see by the line of effect rule (as in the second diagram)?

The first diagram. The wizard can define the length and orientation of the Wall, and need only have line of effect to a particular part of it. Of course, if there are pillars to either side of the "starting point" then he's screwed, but those are the risks you take when you start firing off spells in areas you can't see.

Is a confused character free to take whatever sort of attack action it wants? Can it charge or take a full attack, or does it only make a single attack action?

I've always ruled that a confused character needed to attack in the most advantageous (to kill his target) way he could. If the character is a spellcaster who usually conserves his spells, I won't make him fire off every high-level spell he has, but a fighter is definitely going to use all his feats and attacks to take his "enemy" down. Basically, the confused character has to attack as ferociously versus an "enemy" as he would against a real enemy.

If someone makes an attack of opportunity on a confused creature, the SRD seems to indicate the confused creature completes its actions normally, and then begins attacking its assailant on its next turn, correct?

Although I can respect that argument since the word "turn" was used, I don't think the writer of the spell intended to make that differentiation. I think the intent is that if the confused character is attacked, he starts attacking the attacker immediately. So in the case of the AoO, if the attacker were to provoke one, and then get hit, and then still have actions remaining, I'd rule that he immediately turned toward his attacker.

But I can see the other side of it, because the spell text does specifically mention the confused character's "next turn."

 

[Shellman]

A similar thing occured in a group I play in. The DM called (rightly, IMO) that the wall only extended as far as the wizard could see. If you let the wall spread as far as it is able, some players will abuse it to flush out corridors and rooms.

IMO, thats not an abuse of the spell. If a spellcaster wants to burn a spell that way, it is his choice. He could even be wasting the spell if he doesn't know what is beyong his field of vision/ line of sight.

Per the PHB (3.5) pg 298, there is absolutley nothing in the spell description that states the spells range or effect is limited to what the caster can see.

 

[Shellman]

A similar thing occured in a group I play in. The DM called (rightly, IMO) that the wall only extended as far as the wizard could see. If you let the wall spread as far as it is able, some players will abuse it to flush out corridors and rooms.

IMO, thats not an abuse of the spell. If a spellcaster wants to burn a spell that way, it is his choice. He could even be wasting the spell if he doesn't know what is beyong his field of vision/ line of sight.

Per the PHB (3.5) pg 298, there is absolutley nothing in the spell description that states the spells range or effect is limited to what the caster can see.

 

[Starglim]

1. For area-effect spells, you must have line of effect to the point of origin of the spell, but not to every square that it affects. I'd allow a wizard to extend a wall spell in a straight line either side of a point that he could see, simply reducing the spell's area when it came to a solid object. No shaping of the spell outside the area that he can see, though.

2. The confused creature is more or less lashing out at anything, and will attack its target in the most direct and destructive way that it has. I'd certainly allow a full attack or move and attack. I'm not sure about a charge or using feats that require decision-making, but if the confused creature can cast spells, it can probably use smart tactics provided they are apparent to a moment's thought.

I'd agree with your interpretation for an attack of opportunity on the confused creature.