Yes, and it discharges the spell as well. It's one of the reasons magi make pretty decent maneuver specialists.
I would say that combat maneuvers are done in place of melee attacks, but are not still considered melee attacks.
Based upon the text from the feat Tripping Staff:
Special: If you are a magus with the staff magus archetype, you can use spellstrike on any trip combat maneuver you make with the staff.
You cannot normally apply spellstrike on combat maneuvers.
Wouldn't the spell discharge when you strike someone with your weapon when making a trip maneuver?
I never use archetypes to justify rules because half the archetype designers obviously don't understand how the magus's class features work. It's why we have the myrmidarch.
A trip is done in place of a melee attack. It is not itself a melee attack (although it is an attack, and it is done in melee, 'melee attack' is a specific thing i.e. attacking to do damage with a melee weapon.)
Some feats are just plain wrong, so a feat that allows something, especially as a 'special' doesn't always mean that the thing is disallowed normally, but in this case only the staff magus with the tripping staff can spellstrike with trip.
Normally a quarterstaff is two handed, but staff magus have the quarterstaff master feat which lets them wield it one handed.
Wouldn't the spell discharge when you strike someone with your weapon when making a trip maneuver?
The spell might well discharge (touch spells and discharging accidentally is a pretty poorly thought out part of the rules). But if it did so, it has nothing to do with spell strike. Anyone who cast a touch spell, and then went for a trip, would discharge the spell the same way.
What you can't do it use your free touch attack, which can be a free weapon attack with spellstrike, as part of casting the spell to make a trip attack.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been doing some internet research, and I'm finding just as many indications for or against in the various answers.
For this reason, I think we should FAQ this. Given that the answer would be relevant to other effects that may work similarly, I believe the question should be more like this:
Do combat maneuvers that use the weapon, such as sunder and trip, count as a melee attack for the purposes of additional effects that normally take place on a melee attack?
But Spellstrike isn't an effect that takes place on a melee attack... The melee attack is an effect of Spellstrike
Spellstrike has two basic effects.
The first, is it allows you to change the free touch attack granted by touch spells into a free melee attack, which you can use to deliver the touch attack.
The second, is it allows you to deliver a touch attack on any one of your regular melee attacks. This means that the delivering of the touch spell becomes an extension of your melee attack.
Before one can argue that you can make a combat maneuver in place of the melee attack that spellstrike turned your touch attack into, you must first be able to say that spells can be delivered via spellstrike as part of those same combat maneuvers.
That's the thing, though. The more I think about it, the more it feels like the same question as spellstrike.
In fact, when you think about it, you just used the flat of your sword to pry the guy's legs out from under him. If your sword is on fire, wouldn't it make sense that he takes some of the heat?
Similarly, if your sword is holding a shocking grasp charge, shouldn't it make sense that doing that also discharges the shocking grasp?
By flavor, I'm led to believe that you should be able to. By the wording of the feat, I'm led to believe that you shouldn't be able to. It feels like enough of a gray area that it needs clarification.
According to an FAQ, it sounds like the charge does not actually exist in your sword. The charge is still in your hand. However, weapons touched/wielded by that hand function as an extension of the hand.
When thinking about spellstrike, I like to use the reasoning as if a character used unarmed strike instead. Technically, any character can deliver a touch spell through an unarmed strike. If you cast shocking grasp and try to trip someone with your bare hands, that would discharge the spell because you're touching them with the hand that has the charge.
does anyone want to weigh in if they think you can spellstrike with combat maneuvers? maybe keep clicking the FAQ? Im not sure which it is personally.
I clicked FAQ for you.
As far as my two cents is worth, I've always allowed spell charges that are being held to be delivered by any sort of bodily contact, including combat maneuvers, as if the weapon was an extension of the person's body. In addition, I have allowed Magi (Maguses?) to use a combat maneuver to deliver their spell-strike.
I've always thought of holding the charge as the spellcaster reigning in the natural tendency of the spell to jump to an intended target through the shortest method possible (sort of like electricity). The spell is sort of .. well, designed that way (to effect a target). The spellcaster is considered grounded and not effected, but the moment anything they are touching makes contact with a possible target, the spell snaps into action, through a weapon or other item.
Probably not. The Bloodrager archetype Blood Conduit gives it language that allows the discharge of a touch attack via a combat maneuver:
At 5th level, as long as a blood conduit is wearing light or no armor, he can deliver bloodrager spells with a range of touch through bodily contact. When he succeeds at a combat maneuver check to bull rush, grapple, pin, reposition, or trip an opponent, or makes an unarmed strike against an enemy, he can as a swift action cast a touch spell on the creature that he affected with the combat maneuver, requiring no further touch attack roll. If this spell would usually require a successful touch attack, his successful combat maneuver check counts as this attack.
This ability replaces uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge.
If anyone could do it without this ability, there'd be no point in it for the Bloodrager.
Probably not. The Bloodrager archetype Blood Conduit gives it language that allows the discharge of a touch attack via a combat maneuver:
If anyone could do it without this ability, there'd be no point in it for the Bloodrager.At 5th level, as long as a blood conduit is wearing light or no armor, he can deliver bloodrager spells with a range of touch through bodily contact. When he succeeds at a combat maneuver check to bull rush, grapple, pin, reposition, or trip an opponent, or makes an unarmed strike against an enemy, he can as a swift action cast a touch spell on the creature that he affected with the combat maneuver, requiring no further touch attack roll. If this spell would usually require a successful touch attack, his successful combat maneuver check counts as this attack.
This ability replaces uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge.
Not exactly. That particular ability is allowing a Bloodrager to cast a spell as a swift action AFTER already succeeding on the combat maneuver. Anyone can already deliver a touch spell that is being held (holding the charge) by bodily contact.
Also, the bloodrager ability is further clarifying that the already successful CMB check replaces the need to roll a touch attack that is normally required AFTER casting a touch spell. Since the spell is being cast immediately after the combat manuever succeeds, this clarification is necessary.
|
The way I see it, caster can deliver touch spell via CMB, but Spellstrike mechanic suggests an attack that would deal damage and deliver spell.
A better question would be: "Can a caster with active touch spell, deliver the spell, through a combat maneuver check?". My guess is that he can, but such attack provokes attacks of opportunity nevertheless. Attempting such an attack might be harder on higher levels against high CMD opponents, so I don't see too much issue with it.
Adam