[OOC] The Pathfinder Lodge

[GeoAvanti]

...It's Sanctuary, isn't it? Which would mean... about a 15 or so on a will save. Damn. this isn't going to end well.

Right. Critically Failed that one.

Baaaaaaaaalls.

I think Orrik deserves a good old-fashioned Frenzy test right about now...

[Tanuki]

Wow, a 1. After a nat 20 on your attack roll, and confirming the crit.

I am so, so sorry.

[ElCee]

At least you can meet the guy's AC. I have the crappiest attack bonus of the whole group and I've rolled two 4s in a row...

[Tanuki]

ElCee, I think you have the worst luck out of everyone in every group...

[ElCee]

I did give the disclaimer that I'm the poster child for bad rolls. Oh well, I probably would have needed to roll fairly high to hit them with my miserable attack bonus anyway, so I'm not fretting it.

[Embrodak]

Call me Crazy, but something tells me there is a trap around that bar...

[GeoAvanti]

Erm, "Command" ought to have just killed the Sanctuary spell, yes?

"The subject cannot attack without breaking the spell but may use nonattack spells or otherwise act"

I'm pretty certain any spell that directly targets an enemy is considered an attack... yes? So anyone attacking after he cast shouldn't need to make any will saves. Or does Paizo literally mean only spells that deal direct HP damage?

Also, your latest map doesn't work for me... is #3 still standing?

[OwenQuillion]

#3 is still up, though hit by Ali'quar, and (obvious bias aside), I'd say just about anything that forces a save is an attack spell.

Also I loved basically kneecapping that guy.

[ElCee]

So uh, do I win a prize for rolling three 4's in a row? >_____>'

This would be less frustrating if it weren't for the fact that in the post before it, I accidentally rolled a d10 and rolled higher on it than the d20.

[Naresh]

Ouch...

methinks my time is over for pathfinder for the moment...

It's been great guys, but... yeah

[Elucidus]

Yeah I would think anythign that requires a save or an attack roll would count as an attack spell.

[Tanuki]

...really? Paizo's tactics for this dude are weird, then.

I don't know about the consensus though. For example, Charm Person requires a save, but I would definitely say it wouldn't break the Sanctuary effect. Command isn't really an attack, either, in my opinion.

... I'll think about it at least, and ask some people.

[GeoAvanti]

Usually, an 'attack' is any hostile action, such as that would end Invisibility. Looking at the PRD only makes me more confused.

"The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe"

This is from invisibility, which is, from my experience, what is often used as a basis for what defines an 'attack'. However, what throws me is the "For the purposes of this spell" phrase. That implies that such a definition does not always entail an attack. However, I can't seem to find anywhere else precisely what an 'attack' is defined as, especially in regard to ending a spell's effects. Aside from Invisibility, anyway...

Now, if we had some grenade weapons, this would all be a moot point... ^^

[OwenQuillion]

Or our Sorcerer with Color Spray hadn't dropped out...

I dunno, I'd consider Charm Person to be an action that's usually not in the best interests of the target (or at least one that hampers their free will). It's essentially a 'debuffing' action (on the off chance it was used in combat), as if you had stunned or dazed them. Confused might be a better example, actually. It might be usable with hostile intent, but you're still hampering the victim. Same with Command. (The Approach option in particular seems like it could be riotous fun with proper positioning and minions with reach)

Either way, I bow to your decision; Maybe the folks at the Paizo PFS forums could provide a timely answer. I doubt they'd accept an encounter apparently based around the idea if they didn't interpret the rules that way.

[GeoAvanti]

Oh, naturally, I plan to abide by the DM's decisions on the matter. I just like to know the 'why' part of rulings, so that the problem (or other similar matters) can be addressed in the future.

It's not always that fine details require rulings like this, but it is good to know the result, and the logic used to solve it, so that you can address future issues via the same logic.

I mean, I haven't even tried to break the game yet... (as it is, just wait until I have a caster with At-Will cantrips, mwahahahaha!)