We had a game session a week ago that broke down into an hour long discussion of what it means to 'attack' when under the effect of a confusion spell. This is a relatively simple issue for fighter types, but it was confusing (no pun intended) for casters.
One side said that there is an 'Attack' action defined in the core rulebook that is a standard action separate from a spell. This side said that when the spell indicates you should 'attack' the nearest target or attack the last target that attacked you, that the attack would be a physical attack. The confused status in the core rulebook indicates that the target is 'mentally befuddled' and since this is a compulsion effect, they considered that they were forced to specifically attack the nearest target, but that spellcasting required too great a presence of mind, coordination, targetting, components, etc. This would also leave the door open to using limited use magic items or harming other targets with area effect spells. How far does 'attack' imply that you will go? This side assumed the attack was similar to a barbarian rage (in particular since you can't take attacks of op against any other targets while focused on the attacker). 3.5 also had the possibility of attacking the caster and indicated that this was a melee or ranged attack, but that has been removed in Pathfinder.
The other side indicated that the spell just changes your perceptions of who is an enemy. The condition also indicates that everyone is treated as an enemy and a touch attack is necessary to receive beneficial touch spells whily you're confused. This side felt that 'attack' meant generally to try to harm the target, not the specific definition in the rulebook, and that you would use any means necessary to do so. The implication is that you are 'confused' as to targets, but not necessarily mentally confused, since part of the spell allows you to act normally.
If this is the case, we would have a similar issue with spells as we do with invisibility, what is an attack spell and should the character cast the most devastating spell? Can they intentionally avoid collateral damage? What is an 'attack' spell, would charm person be considered an attack spell in this context, for example?
I couldn't find any guidance on this in pathfinder or 3.5, please let me know how this is supposed to work.
Thanks
Posts