Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harliquinn 07-17-07, 10:04 AM	Okay I'm considering doing some retooling of my Cabal Duskblade character. Before I do so, however, I want to make sure that my line of thinking is correct. If I can't do what I'm thinking of doing, I won't make the changes... Class: Duskblade (Assume 13th level) Weapon: Tripping Weapon Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip Okay my plan is to do the following: Full Round Action to Arcane Channel a touch spell into my weapon. During that round, make a trip attack against an opponent. This *should* trigger the spell effect since it's an attack (arcane channeling doesn't say you must do damage for the effects, just that damage is applied normally then the spell effects are triggered). If the trip is successful, I would get an immediate additional attack ("as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt.") which *should* trigger the spell effect again assuming I hit. Does this make sense and is that how it should work based on the rules? I know the FAQ specifies you can't affect the same creature more than once with Arcane Channeling (13th) (Which I think is completely bogus by the way but that's a different issue). However, trip specifically says as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. This is why I think it would work. Thanks Harliquinn
Skerrit 07-17-07, 10:44 AM	So I don't have a book in front of me, and this is definately a DM call at the table, but it sounds to me like the answer is no. If the ability says you can't use it twice, you can't use it twice.
smerwin29 07-17-07, 10:45 AM	We can't make rulings on core rules, so it is up to each individual DM to decide how it works. I can share how I would rule it though: The trip attack would not trigger the spell effect, but the follow up attack certainly would. This is strictly based on my personal interpretation of what I think the spirit of the rules are implying rather than on a rules-lawyerly scrutiny of the definition of each word in the book. For me, when they write "melee attack," they mean normal attack with a melee weapon. The touch attack that precedes a trip attempt, for me, is not what they mean by "melee attack." But as I said, that is just my ruling as a DM at my own tables, and not anything official for XE.
Harliquinn 07-17-07, 11:05 AM	I understand that it will likely be a DM ruling at the table. However, it would be wasteful of me to develop a strategy that all DM's will rule inadmissible :) I certainly appreciate the insight of how factionmasters would rule this at their table, since that is a good litmus test for how a majority of others might rule as well. So it sounds like a trip attack wouldn't in general trigger the arcane channel (nor any other type of 'on melee hit, trigger spell ability), but the follow-up would. This means that Improved Trip would be needed in order for Arcane Channeling to be used with it and the Channeling wouldn't be effective if the trip attack failed. Correct? (At least in how you would interpret it). Thanks for the feedback as it will help me flesh out my ideas. My goal is certainly not to break any rules or create an overpowered character. However, for flavor reasons, I was thinking this would be an interesting tactic. Harliquinn
Istaran 07-17-07, 02:59 PM	Can you even arcane channel and make a trip attack in the same round like that? I thought arcane channel was a single action that lets you cast and make a normal melee attack, with the spell effect triggering off the successful hit, not casting a spell and making an attack action (which could be a trip attempt, grapple, etc.) Someone with the rules text handy can confirm or deny? Your trick might plausibly work if you had a wolf-like trip ability (such as hands-bind on Worg Pelt in MoI?) and Improved Trip? Personally as a DM I would still rule that the spell couldn't hit twice in that case, but at least you'd be able to hit-spell-trip-hit as a beautiful combo.
Harliquinn 07-17-07, 03:33 PM	Can you even arcane channel and make a trip attack in the same round like that? I thought arcane channel was a single action that lets you cast and make a normal melee attack, with the spell effect triggering off the successful hit, not casting a spell and making an attack action (which could be a trip attempt, grapple, etc.) Someone with the rules text handy can confirm or deny? A trip, disarm, grapple, or sunder attacks are all considered melee attacks. Sunder: You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. Trip: You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. (The rules for tripping with a weapon say you make the melee touch attack instead of the unarmed melee touch attack). Disarm: As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. Grapple: Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses). In fact, the SRD even has this to say in the table about Trips, Disarm, and Grapple: These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Your trick might plausibly work if you had a wolf-like trip ability (such as hands-bind on Worg Pelt in MoI?) and Improved Trip? Personally as a DM I would still rule that the spell couldn't hit twice in that case, but at least you'd be able to hit-spell-trip-hit as a beautiful combo. The hitting twice thing is indeed iffy which is why I was wondering how it would be 'ruled' in RPGA games. I don't want to invest in a tactic that I won't get to use. :) I just never understood the wording in trip that said "as if you didn't use your attack for the trip attack" if they didn't intend it to have the same bonuses, penalties, and exact same effects as the trip attack. Harliquinn
lseelba 07-18-07, 02:32 AM	Does this make sense and is that how it should work based on the rules? I know the FAQ specifies you can't affect the same creature more than once with Arcane Channeling (13th) (Which I think is completely bogus by the way but that's a different issue). However, trip specifically says as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. This is why I think it would work. Thanks Harliquinn The extra attack rules in improved trip are poorly worded, so it's really a DM's call. I wouldn't allow the spell damage to apply twice at a table I judged. I would allow the spell to discharge on a successful trip attack though. What would be really interesting is if you turned your duskblade into a sunder-beast. There is nothing in the PHBII rules that says the target of your attack can't be a weapon. And Xen'drik is one of the few campaigns where sundering doesn't turn the rest if the party against you!
Istaran 07-18-07, 05:57 PM	Having looked over the wording, I note that the duskblade ability does not specifically say a "normal melee attack". The word normal is missing there, unlike in the rules to deliver a held charge while doing normal damage. This lends some wiggle room for your case, in that it doesn't explicitly say you can't make a special melee attack. However, it does specifically say you deal normal weapon damage and inflict the effects of the spell. Does this mean that doing a trip will cause you to get an opposed roll to put them prone, normal weapon damage, and the spell effect? And you only need to make the touch AC? That seems ludicrous. In fact the trip text has nothing to say about the damage your attack does; rather it lets silence speak for it. The trip attempt gives an opposed roll to knock the opponent flat instead of any and all other effects the attack you are replacing would have had. Therefore using arcane channelling, you burn the spell, then give up the attack that would have had the effect of dealing normal weapon damage plus spell effects, and replace it with an attack action that can knock the opponent prone (and possibly give you a free normal attack). The bonus attack from Improved Trip would be a perfectly normal attack, not an arcane channeling attack, unless you were 13th level and using the full attack version of the ability. As a DM I would probably be willing to bend the rules somewhat by allowing the free attack to deal spell effects even on the standard action version of the ability, but still subject to the one spell-hit per target per use. However, the point of the ability (the low level version) is that you give up the ability to go against the opponents touch AC in order to gain the advantages of not provoking and being able to deal normal melee damage on top of spell damage. I am however only one DM, and one you probably will not face. Clearly, as demonstrated, there will be different opinions form different DMs.
Harliquinn 07-19-07, 10:23 AM	I'm guessing most DM's would rule the spells aren't triggered by the trip attack (touch) but would be triggered by a successful attack on the follow-up. I would probably agree with that also, though my original idea still makes me giggle :) Given this, I may still try out a trip attacking duskblade since I'll have a +6 on trip attacks in addition to strength (Which is only 14 though). I guess a +8 on trip attacks is a feasible bonus to get the follow-up attack with spells. I also discovered a new feat: Smiting Spell :) So, with Arcane Channeling, swift cast Blade of Blood, a Spell storing weapon, and Smiting Spell, I could affect a target with 4 touch spells every other round (or 3 touch spells every round). Thanks for all the feedback.
Marcus Majarra 07-19-07, 01:10 PM	Does this make sense and is that how it should work based on the rules? I know the FAQ specifies you can't affect the same creature more than once with Arcane Channeling (13th) (Which I think is completely bogus by the way but that's a different issue). However, trip specifically says as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt. This is why I think it would work. This won't help you at all. Greater arcane channeling specifies that opponents struck during your full attack are affected by the channeled spell, not that these opponents are affected by the channeled spell every time you strike them. Even if you were to secure more attacks against the same target, you still won't get any other benefits from arcane channeling. Basically, you resolve greater arcane channeling as follows: 1) You perform your full attack. 2) After making your attacks, every target you struck is affected by the channeled spell. Given this, I may still try out a trip attacking duskblade since I'll have a +6 on trip attacks in addition to strength (Which is only 14 though). I guess a +8 on trip attacks is a feasible bonus to get the follow-up attack with spells. You know what else is nasty? (Greater) Arcane channeling with a whip. Trip + touch spells at 15-feet? Sign me up!
Harliquinn 07-19-07, 02:05 PM	You know what else is nasty? (Greater) Arcane channeling with a whip. Trip + touch spells at 15-feet? Sign me up! That is my entire strategy :) I'm a daelkyr half-blood going the Tentacle Whip route :)
Istaran 07-19-07, 03:01 PM	Something to look into though is a ring in Dragon Magic that lets you attack up to six opponents (once each) at full BAB as a full attack. I know they all have to be in reach but I think they might have to be all adjacent to you. It's a judgement call as to whether it's worthwhile, but it seems like your character is built to take maximum advantage of the option.
Harliquinn 07-19-07, 03:14 PM	I'll check it out, thanks. I don't know how often I'll have 6 enemies around me. I do plan to go the TWF route (with a buckler) also and wield a long sword + whip :) I'll be doing some planning prior to GenCon to see how it will work out. So many feats to take now :)
Istaran 07-19-07, 06:47 PM	I'll check it out, thanks. I don't know how often I'll have 6 enemies around me. I do plan to go the TWF route (with a buckler) also and wield a long sword + whip :) I'll be doing some planning prior to GenCon to see how it will work out. So many feats to take now :) There's a cheaper version that caps out at 3 enemies. For most cases that'll do just as well.