On reading the description for Enemies Abound, I have some a number of questions/reservations. The spell's description states that the affected target "must choose [its] target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using." How do others interpret this in their games? If the target is a melee combatant, then it is unclear to me what happens if Enemies Abound takes effect when no "enemies" are within 5' of the target (i.e., the range of most melee attacks). Does the target move to a randomly selected "enemy," or does the target get to act normally since no "enemies" are in range? Additionally, this interpretation would suggest that initiative becomes critical when casting the spell. The caster would want the target to be affected when within 5' of one of its allies and preferably not within 5' of any party member (i.e., at the very beginning of combat). Once a melee combatant moves to attack a party member, the probability of it selecting one of its allies for attack after being affected by Enemies Abound would be much lower. In my experience, unless the number of mobs greatly outnumbers the number of party members, mobs that are melee combatants tend to spread out rather than gang up on a single party member.
The target makes no stipulation about controlling/affecting movement:
Whenever the affected creature chooses another creature as a target, it must choose the target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using. If an enemy provokes an opportunity attack from the affected creature, the creature must make that attack if it is able to.
If the affected creature moves so it's adjacent to a single creature, and chooses to attack with an attack of reach 5 feet, then there is no random target selection.
So as long as the affected creature is choosing melee attacks with a limited reach, they have some degree of control over who they attack still.
It's not coded like a piece of software. It requires interpretation by humans.
My interpretation is that if they're trying to attack, then they have to choose randomly. Priority goes to targets they can already reach without moving.
But I also think that some enemies probably wouldn't choose to attack, if they suddenly found themselves wildly outnumbered. Food for thought.
Yeah, it is a bit of an awkward spell that is too easy to meta. Remember that the target sees all other creatures as enemies, so it should pick targets the same way it usually does except now include previous allies. If the target usually attacks weaker enemies first, it might turn on the unarmored goblin before moving up to the fighter PC. If it usually targets casters, it might default to attacking the caster that put it under the spell in the first place.
"On a failed save, the target loses the ability to distinguish friend from foe, regarding all creatures it can see as enemies until the spell ends. Each time the target takes damage, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success.
Whenever the affected creature chooses another creature as a target, it must choose the target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using."
The affected creature treats everyone as an enemy.
The part that can be interpreted in multiple ways is the condition for choosing the next target.
One suggestion was that if there is no creature that is immediately within range of an attack then since the spell doesn't mention movement the character can do whatever they like. Run away or move so that an actual enemy is within range of their attack. My personal opinion is that since the creature considers all creatures as enemies then it would be metagaming and avoiding the intent of the spell to move so that the affected creature only attacks actual enemies.
However, the awkwardly worded sentence could also be read as -
It must choose the next target at random that is within range of the attack (which INCLUDES movement if necessary). A creature with a 5' reach and 30' of movement means that any creature within 35' is potentially within range of the attack.
However, the key is that the affected creature treats everyone else as an enemy and as DM, I use that as the basis for making NPC decisions in addition to the random targeting rule. For an intelligent opponent that might mean moving back and using ranged attacks (target selected at random) because it would be safer. A caster might drop a fireball wherever it would get the most creatures or more likely selecting the center target randomly as stated. A melee character would select randomly from all creatures that could be within range of their attack. They wouldn't run farther if someone is within range and often I would have the NPC choose the closest target (randomly if there are multiple possible choices).
Anyway, I can see the alternate reading in the rules but given the other aspects of the spell allowing the affected creature to avoid attacking allies by moving however they like if there is no creature within melee range, I don't think it is the way it is intended to function and I wouldn't run it that way personally.
On reading the description for Enemies Abound, I have some a number of questions/reservations. The spell's description states that the affected target "must choose [its] target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using." How do others interpret this in their games? If the target is a melee combatant, then it is unclear to me what happens if Enemies Abound takes effect when no "enemies" are within 5' of the target (i.e., the range of most melee attacks). Does the target move to a randomly selected "enemy," or does the target get to act normally since no "enemies" are in range? Additionally, this interpretation would suggest that initiative becomes critical when casting the spell. The caster would want the target to be affected when within 5' of one of its allies and preferably not within 5' of any party member (i.e., at the very beginning of combat). Once a melee combatant moves to attack a party member, the probability of it selecting one of its allies for attack after being affected by Enemies Abound would be much lower. In my experience, unless the number of mobs greatly outnumbers the number of party members, mobs that are melee combatants tend to spread out rather than gang up on a single party member.
The target makes no stipulation about controlling/affecting movement:
If the affected creature moves so it's adjacent to a single creature, and chooses to attack with an attack of reach 5 feet, then there is no random target selection.
So as long as the affected creature is choosing melee attacks with a limited reach, they have some degree of control over who they attack still.
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
It's not coded like a piece of software. It requires interpretation by humans.
My interpretation is that if they're trying to attack, then they have to choose randomly. Priority goes to targets they can already reach without moving.
But I also think that some enemies probably wouldn't choose to attack, if they suddenly found themselves wildly outnumbered. Food for thought.
Yeah, it is a bit of an awkward spell that is too easy to meta. Remember that the target sees all other creatures as enemies, so it should pick targets the same way it usually does except now include previous allies. If the target usually attacks weaker enemies first, it might turn on the unarmored goblin before moving up to the fighter PC. If it usually targets casters, it might default to attacking the caster that put it under the spell in the first place.
The text of the spell says:
"On a failed save, the target loses the ability to distinguish friend from foe, regarding all creatures it can see as enemies until the spell ends. Each time the target takes damage, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on itself on a success.
Whenever the affected creature chooses another creature as a target, it must choose the target at random from among the creatures it can see within range of the attack, spell, or other ability it’s using."
The affected creature treats everyone as an enemy.
The part that can be interpreted in multiple ways is the condition for choosing the next target.
One suggestion was that if there is no creature that is immediately within range of an attack then since the spell doesn't mention movement the character can do whatever they like. Run away or move so that an actual enemy is within range of their attack. My personal opinion is that since the creature considers all creatures as enemies then it would be metagaming and avoiding the intent of the spell to move so that the affected creature only attacks actual enemies.
However, the awkwardly worded sentence could also be read as -
It must choose the next target at random that is within range of the attack (which INCLUDES movement if necessary). A creature with a 5' reach and 30' of movement means that any creature within 35' is potentially within range of the attack.
However, the key is that the affected creature treats everyone else as an enemy and as DM, I use that as the basis for making NPC decisions in addition to the random targeting rule. For an intelligent opponent that might mean moving back and using ranged attacks (target selected at random) because it would be safer. A caster might drop a fireball wherever it would get the most creatures or more likely selecting the center target randomly as stated. A melee character would select randomly from all creatures that could be within range of their attack. They wouldn't run farther if someone is within range and often I would have the NPC choose the closest target (randomly if there are multiple possible choices).
Anyway, I can see the alternate reading in the rules but given the other aspects of the spell allowing the affected creature to avoid attacking allies by moving however they like if there is no creature within melee range, I don't think it is the way it is intended to function and I wouldn't run it that way personally.