Benefit(s) Your understanding of physical forces gives you power over them. You add your Intelligence modifier on combat maneuver checks and to your CMD. You also add your Intelligence modifier on Strength checks to break or lift objects.
I'm not completely sure what rules this bonus is applicable for. Obviously if I make a bull rush attempt it does, but what about hydraulic torrent or other spells and effects that explicitly say what you CMB is?
Make a combat maneuver check and apply its results to each creature within the area. Your CMB for this bull rush is equal to your caster level plus your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma modifier, whichever is highest. This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
What about toppling spell, that says "...make a trip check against the target,using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus "?
The feat is thought having in mind a person that, when making a combat maneuver check or breaking objects, thinks where to hit to maximise the force, instead of a brute that just hits.
So for a spell that changes the standard bonuses of how maneuvers work, I think I wouldn't allow the feat. I think that the feat has a fine print saying that it applies to physical nonmagical checks only.
Thing is, it's a wizard discovery, so it seems logical it should apply to spells. Besides, when using telekinesis to trip or disarm I'd say the caster can apply the same thought as in a physical attempt. As for fine print, RAW there is no such exception made. The quoted text is the exact wording of the discovery, at least as it appears is the SRD.
Yes, but (I didn't even know what it was) such spells already have the casting stat applying to them. It's for them to be as capable as a fighter doing it manually, but it could also be thought of as that. I mean, a wizard casting telekinesis, he is controlling a force. To move an object, he has to cleverly apply the force to move the object as he wants.
First of all, the discovery says "you add your intelligence modifier on combat maneuver checks", not to the CMB, but to the checks.Secondly, why wouldn't I be able to add Int twice? It's an untyped bonus from two separate sources. Shouldn't be an issue.
I doubt anything is relevant to this specific thread at this point (considering it’s almost 5 years old), but it would stack with your STR modifier, not replace.
I fail to see how a thread's age affects its relevance to a rule question that hasn't been changed since it was published, but thank you for the reply. :)