This thread is discussing the relation between the toppling spell feat and the improved trip feat. As part of that discussion other questions have come up about the interactions of other effects on the Toppling Spell feat.
For memory refreshment:
Your spells with the force descriptor knock the affected creatures prone.
Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.
A toppling spell only affects spells with the force descriptor. A toppling spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.
So the feat calls for the spells caster to make a "trip check." Does (1) that check count as a regular Combat Maneuver (which would then make it an attack, and qualify for the bonuses provided by haste or bless) or is it (2) a special trip check which has its parameters defined by the feat or (3) something else?
|
Possibly related: would Spell Specialization (magic missile) add +2 to your "trip check", or is only your base caster level counted?
The other thread is specifically about how toppling and improved trip interact. This is a broader question and is off-topic in that thread. Plus, I didn't start that thread so I don't want to take it off course.
I don't see how they aren't the same thing. A Trip check is a roll made to Trip an opponent. A Trip Combat Maneuver is a roll made to Trip an opponent. They function as the same thing, and just because they're defined differently doesn't mean they're not synonymous.
This falls into SKR's category of the GM "growing half a brain and using common sense" to fall into it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Improved Trip feat was supposed to work only for maneuvers, it'd specifically state that it doesn't work with other abilities that provide the same effect. After all, if the Devs had the energy to specify whether or not a maneuver would provoke AoO's for the person performing the maneuver or not (which does make the difference), then I'm sure this sort of thing was already discussed and they were all like "Yeah, it's cool, whatever, I doubt a Caster would waste feats on this, but if they do it's fine."
Even so, the extra +2 in this game, where CMB and CMD scale to a ridiculously uneven level, is hardly gamebreaking (if even really that beneficial), so even if by RAW you do allow it, what difference is it going to make? 2 difference to be exact, when the difference needed to actually do something is 10 or higher. (Plus, you'll be fighting big fat monsters who are immune to your Trip attempts.)
A better question would be if the metamagic feat requires you to be at least one size smaller than the target in order to trip them.
I don't see how they aren't the same thing. A Trip check is a roll made to Trip an opponent. A Trip Combat Maneuver is a roll made to Trip an opponent. They function as the same thing, and just because they're defined differently doesn't mean they're not synonymous.
This falls into SKR's category of the GM "growing half a brain and using common sense" to fall into it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Improved Trip feat was supposed to work only for maneuvers, it'd specifically state that it doesn't work with other abilities that provide the same effect. After all, if the Devs had the energy to specify whether or not a maneuver would provoke AoO's for the person performing the maneuver or not (which does make the difference), then I'm sure this sort of thing was already discussed and they were all like "Yeah, it's cool, whatever, I doubt a Caster would waste feats on this, but if they do it's fine."
Even so, the extra +2 in this game, where CMB and CMD scale to a ridiculously uneven level, is hardly gamebreaking (if even really that beneficial), so even if by RAW you do allow it, what difference is it going to make? 2 difference to be exact, when the difference needed to actually do something is 10 or higher. (Plus, you'll be fighting big fat monsters who are immune to your Trip attempts.)
A better question would be if the metamagic feat requires you to be at least one size smaller than the target in order to trip them.
So, do you think that the trip allowed by toppling spell should gain benefit from spells, such as the +1 to attack granted by haste?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
discussing the relation between the toppling spell feat and the improved trip feat.
Why create a new thread when the old thread and this thread has the same issues to discuss?
Again we are back to how is this different than Black Tentacles and Spiritual Weapon and why would feats on you help this spell's Trip when you don't use your normal BAB with this spell's Trip?
discussing the relation between the toppling spell feat and the improved trip feat.Why create a new thread when the old thread and this thread has the same issues to discuss?
Again we are back to how is this different than Black Tentacles and Spiritual Weapon and why would feats on you help this spell's Trip when you don't use your normal BAB with this spell's Trip?
The other thread is specifically about how toppling and improved trip interact. This is a broader question and is off-topic in that thread. Plus, I didn't start that thread so I don't want to take it off course.
Black Tentacles and Spiritual Weapon each specifically call out in the spell that they get their own CMB or attack rolls so they would not benefit from haste or bless on a player.
Yes, I would interpret it as the same thing. It's just poorly written and something that should have been caught by an editor.
As already discussed, I would look at similar spells (that do combat maneuvers) to see how they might work.
For example, hydraulic push (which does a bull rush maneuver) says
your CMB for this bull rush is equal to your caster level plus your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier, whichever is highest.
In the toppling spell description, it says:
make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on)
It looks like they forgot to add at the end "as your CMB."
And since it is, through this interpretation, considered "your CMB" -- you could argue that bonuses you get to attack rolls would apply to this attempt, yes--a combat maneuver check (which includes a "trip check") is an attack roll and therefore bonuses to attack rolls technically apply. I'd leave that between you and your GM however.
And of course remember that if the players are allowed to apply such bonuses to such spells, then so is the GM and the NPCs/foes the GM controls.
So, do you think that the trip allowed by toppling spell should gain benefit from spells, such as the +1 to attack granted by haste?I don't see how they aren't the same thing. A Trip check is a roll made to Trip an opponent. A Trip Combat Maneuver is a roll made to Trip an opponent. They function as the same thing, and just because they're defined differently doesn't mean they're not synonymous.
This falls into SKR's category of the GM "growing half a brain and using common sense" to fall into it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Improved Trip feat was supposed to work only for maneuvers, it'd specifically state that it doesn't work with other abilities that provide the same effect. After all, if the Devs had the energy to specify whether or not a maneuver would provoke AoO's for the person performing the maneuver or not (which does make the difference), then I'm sure this sort of thing was already discussed and they were all like "Yeah, it's cool, whatever, I doubt a Caster would waste feats on this, but if they do it's fine."
Even so, the extra +2 in this game, where CMB and CMD scale to a ridiculously uneven level, is hardly gamebreaking (if even really that beneficial), so even if by RAW you do allow it, what difference is it going to make? 2 difference to be exact, when the difference needed to actually do something is 10 or higher. (Plus, you'll be fighting big fat monsters who are immune to your Trip attempts.)
A better question would be if the metamagic feat requires you to be at least one size smaller than the target in order to trip them.
Haste would be invalid because it's done as part of a Full Attack (or Full Attack Action); casting spells aren't Full Attack Actions, so it wouldn't apply, but only because of Haste's conditions. So poor spell example on your part.
Taking a different spell that provides bonuses to hit, I still don't see why it wouldn't apply. By this logic, a Wizard casting Scorching Ray at a target doesn't get the +1 Bonus from say, Bless, because the attack is caused from a spell, even though the spell causes the character to make a Ranged Touch Attack. Bless gives a +1 Morale Bonus to all Attack Rolls, regardless of which source they come from, so by RAW, the Scorching Ray Attack Roll gets the +1 Morale Bonus. If we take, say Force Punch, which has a Melee Touch Attack Roll and has the Toppling Metamagic applied to it, not only are they knocked back, but knocked on their rear on a successful trip, in which the +1 from Bless (and the +2 from Improved Trip or whatever else) applies quite easily.
The point is, if the Improved Trip feat had a clause that says it only applies to attacks within reach or something of the sort (because let's face it, Toppling Magic Missiles isn't that big of a deal), this would be cut and dry. But it doesn't, and quite frankly if the RAW doesn't say it doesn't apply, it boils into GM FIAT territory, which can easily be taken as Houseruling on these boards, something which the thread (as well as the question and players) can't really take as an answer.
The RAW stance is that it applies because there is no clause that says it doesn't. The RAI stance is up for grabs, but quite frankly if we take spells like Force Punch to not receive a +2 from Improved Trip for the Toppling Metamagic, it not only spits in the stance of the character making a Trip Maneuver with the Melee Touch Attack that comes from Force Punch, it's also silly to not include it in such an instance. But when we take Magic Missiles, it's silly because the character themselves aren't making any attempt to do it, the magic is? This would make sense if the spell would also require the character to have such feats; the only spells that limit and/or nullify such criteria are spells such as Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally, and such spells have the conditions set. The other spells really don't, and fall into the "No Cite, No Bite" ruling that I present for Improved Trip having application.
So, do you think that the trip allowed by toppling spell should gain benefit from spells, such as the +1 to attack granted by haste?I don't see how they aren't the same thing. A Trip check is a roll made to Trip an opponent. A Trip Combat Maneuver is a roll made to Trip an opponent. They function as the same thing, and just because they're defined differently doesn't mean they're not synonymous.
This falls into SKR's category of the GM "growing half a brain and using common sense" to fall into it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Improved Trip feat was supposed to work only for maneuvers, it'd specifically state that it doesn't work with other abilities that provide the same effect. After all, if the Devs had the energy to specify whether or not a maneuver would provoke AoO's for the person performing the maneuver or not (which does make the difference), then I'm sure this sort of thing was already discussed and they were all like "Yeah, it's cool, whatever, I doubt a Caster would waste feats on this, but if they do it's fine."
Even so, the extra +2 in this game, where CMB and CMD scale to a ridiculously uneven level, is hardly gamebreaking (if even really that beneficial), so even if by RAW you do allow it, what difference is it going to make? 2 difference to be exact, when the difference needed to actually do something is 10 or higher. (Plus, you'll be fighting big fat monsters who are immune to your Trip attempts.)
I pretty much agree with this, except that Haste gives a +1 to attack rolls even if you are not gaining the extra attack that it provides to full-round attack actions.
A better question would be if the metamagic feat requires you to be at least one size smaller than the target in order to trip them.
Haste would be invalid because it's done as part of a Full Attack (or Full Attack Action); casting spells aren't Full Attack Actions, so it wouldn't apply, but only because of Haste's conditions. So poor spell example on your part.
Taking a different spell that provides bonuses to hit, I still don't see why it...
Haste would be invalid because it's done as part of a Full Attack (or Full Attack Action); casting spells aren't Full Attack Actions, so it wouldn't apply, but only because of Haste's conditions. So poor spell example on your part.
Taking a different spell that provides bonuses to hit, I still don't see why it wouldn't apply. By this logic, a Wizard casting Scorching Ray at a target doesn't get the +1 Bonus from say, Bless, because the attack is caused from a spell, even though the spell causes the character to make a Ranged Touch Attack. Bless gives a +1 Morale Bonus to all Attack Rolls, regardless of which source they come from, so by RAW, the Scorching Ray Attack Roll gets the +1 Morale Bonus. If we take, say Force Punch, which has a Melee Touch Attack Roll and has the Toppling Metamagic applied to it, not only are they knocked back, but knocked on their rear on a successful trip, in which the +1 from Bless (and the +2 from Improved Trip or whatever else) applies quite easily.
The point is, if the Improved Trip feat had a clause that says it only applies to attacks within reach or something of the sort (because let's face it, Toppling Magic Missiles isn't that big of a deal), this would be cut and dry. But it doesn't, and quite frankly if the RAW doesn't say it doesn't apply, it boils into GM FIAT territory, which can easily be taken as Houseruling on these boards, something which the thread (as well as the question and players) can't really take as an answer.
The RAW stance is that it applies because there is no clause that says it doesn't. The RAI stance is up for grabs, but quite frankly if we take spells like Force Punch to not receive a +2 from Improved Trip for the Toppling Metamagic, it not only spits in the stance of the character making a Trip Maneuver with the Melee Touch Attack that comes from Force Punch, it's also silly to not include it in such an instance. But when we take Magic Missiles, it's silly because the character themselves aren't making any attempt to do it, the magic is? This would make sense if the spell would also require the character to have such feats; the only spells that limit and/or nullify such criteria are spells such as Spiritual Weapon and Spiritual Ally, and such spells have the conditions set. The other spells really don't, and fall into the "No Cite, No Bite" ruling that I present for Improved Trip having application.
I pretty much agree with all of this except your view on Haste. It provides a +1 bonus to attack even if you do not use it as part of the extra attack granted by the spell.
You are right; I was thinking that the +1 bonus would only apply while making a full attack with the Haste. I have no clue why I thought that. Perhaps because the only benefit I really saw with Haste was the extra attack, and assumed the +1 tacked on with it. So it would work with my example.
Thanks for the correction. I can't believe I screwed that up...