Charm Person, recipient being affected after spell takes effect

[Gwiber]

Situation. Cleric mid-cast of Summon Monster gets hit with a Charm person spell.

Due to the nature of Charm Person this doesnt STOP said cleric from going through with Summon Monster, since clerics intent is to direct the summon monster on someone else other than the person using Charm monster.

Said person casting Charm monster than suddenly turns an anti-magic field on the Cleric, halting his casting and stopping the Cleric from using the Summon Monster to defend himself. (In this case the ST had modified a Beholder from Regular DnD and was using it in the fight. Thus both the use of Charm Person and then the use of Anti magic field following right after.)

Does the use of the Anti-Magic Filed ability from the Beholder’s central eye count as an “attack” on the charmed person (The Charmed Cleric)?

Charm person drops the moment the person who does the Charming or his perceived allies attacks the Charmed target.

My conjecture was that it WOULD count as an attack on the Cleric because it deprived the Cleric of a way of defending himself when it disrupted his Summon Monster Spell. Thus making the Cleric vulnerable to attack.

The ST seemed to think it wasn't offensive enough. And as a “Passive ability” it did not count as an attack. For the scene he rolled a random chance and allowed it to count as an attack, but the question is still “at odds”.

[Diego Rossi]

The charm effect don't work when the target is affected by an anti magic ray. It is supernatural effect and it is suppressed. So the charm effect is suppressed in the AM ray area.

About it being an attack, it is really a GM call. it is borderline enough that both interpretations are valid.

[Rikkan]

Don't think beholders exist in pathfinder.

If I look at the magic rules

Quote:

Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

Not 100% sure this applies to your specific situation, but I'd argue that the anti-magic hampers the cleric thus it would be an attack.

[shadowkras]

As Diego pointed out, he cleric wouldnt be charmed while inside the anti-magic zone.

But any area spells, as long as they dont do any kind of direct harm (force a will save, cause damage, cause a negative condition) are not attacks.

Also, people not that anti-magic field does not work as a counter-spell, you cant summon creatures inside the zone, but you can summon them outside the zone, any spell cast inside the field is surpressed, and they resume working when the field goes away, or the creature goes outside the field.
Summoned creatures disapear while inside the field, but will re-appear when the field moves away from them.

In this case, i do believe the cleric should have summoned his creature, but it would disapear while the field was on top of her.

Back on the logic of it being an attack or not.
Imagine this situation, you have an archer firing arrows at you, and you summon a stone wall in front of you. That did stop his attacks, but was that an attack? No.

[Captain Zoom]

shadowkras wrote:

Imagine this situation, you have an archer firing arrows at you, and you summon a stone wall in front of you. That did stop his attacks, but was that an attack? No.

Your analogy is badly inexact. Putting a wall up does not directly affect the archer's abilities, it just blocks shots against you. An anti-magic field does directly affect the wizard. A better analogy would be casting an area effect spell that prevents anyone within the area from using bows (or ranged weapons), whether against the caster or anyone else. Another analogy, using your hypothetical stone wall, is what if you summoned a stone wall that encircled the archer at 5' and enclosed him so he couldn't shoot at anyone? Is that an attack?

[Gwiber]

Not sure on that.

My thing is predicated on the Cleric was stripped of a spell he was in the middle of casting by a supposed ally. (Ally created by the Charm spell)

[LoreKeeper]

Another way of looking at it: a cleric may well feel that an anti-magic zone disrupts the connection with their deity. Especially if (s)he is not aware she's in an anti-magic zone; but even if she does know.

[shadowkras]

Quote:

Your analogy is badly inexact.

Your's isnt much better, but we can keep trying.

Quote:

An anti-magic field does directly affect the wizard.

No, it doesnt, it affects the area around him. And he can cast his spells just fine, they just wont have any effect once out of his hands, summoned creatures disapear, other spells disapear into nothingness, duration buffs are suppressed while in the area, etc.

Its an anti-magic field, not an auto-dispell magic field

Quote:

Is that an attack?

Does it have a saving throw? Then no.

Quote:

My thing is predicated on the Cleric was stripped of a spell he was in the middle of casting by a supposed ally. (Ally created by the Charm spell)

What happens when you channel negative energy and hurt allies by accident?

Accidents.
The cleric should get annoyed by it, but not treat him as an enemy because his spell was interrupted.

Full-round casting spells are prone to interruptions and concentration check failures, but a charmed creature doesnt get instant-released because of that, it must feel it is being attacked or threatened.

If anything, the cleric should be "neutral" now towards him because he managed to piss him off by interrupting his spell. Like "hey man, wtf, look where you aim your spells".

[Gwiber]

Uhm... not sure a 6 to 8 foot diameter thing, with a mouth full of nasty teeth, spitting death rays of of its very eyes all over the place at my known friends, looking at me and taking MY spell away from me that I was going to use to defend myself.. would qualify as me becoming "neutral" towards him.

A little perspective here. Remember the thing had been attacking me and mine up to the point of the Charm, then it turns my defense off? In my head, that qualifies as a sudden unwarranted attack from a "supposed friend" (which was only that way by the Charm spell in the first place)