Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2192604" data-attributes="member: 707">The first diagram.&nbsp; The wizard can define the length and orientation of the Wall, and need only have line of effect to a particular part of it.&nbsp; Of course, if there are pillars to either side of the &quot;starting point&quot; then he's screwed, but those are the risks you take when you start firing off spells in areas you can't see.I've always ruled that a confused character needed to attack in the most advantageous (to kill his target) way he could.&nbsp; 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 &quot;enemy&quot; down.&nbsp; Basically, the confused character has to attack as ferociously versus an &quot;enemy&quot; as he would against a real enemy.Although I can respect that argument since the word &quot;turn&quot; was used, I don't think the writer of the spell intended to make that differentiation.&nbsp; I think the intent is that if the confused character is attacked, he starts attacking the attacker immediately.&nbsp; 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 &quot;next turn.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Pendragon, post: 2192604, member: 707"] 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.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.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." [/QUOTE]

Verification