Can you turn off Shield Slam?


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I have a fighter/ranger with Shield Slam, and sometimes when I'm flanking an opponent, I don't want to start a conga line. Is the free bull rush mandatory, or do I have the opportunity to not take it if I think it's strategically a poor decision?


you can can choose not to do it.

Dark Archive

Do you have some proof for that?


Nothing RAW to support me but I would assume that your not required to take it if you don't want to. It would seem silly that your now so trained that you couldn't use the weapon to a lesser extent.

Similiar Rant:
Its kinda like all the post on how monks can't TWF with unarmed attacks because of the clause that they have no off hand. So apparently monks with out flurry cannot throw a one two punch yet jimmy the town drunk can.


No it doesn't say you "may" attempt a free bull rush it says "are also hit with a free bull rush attack".

In any game I ran it would be an option though, it seems quite silly for it to be required.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
Do you have some proof for that?

Common sense?


Benefit: Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

----------------------------------------
Attacks are always voluntary.

Quote:

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.

The word attempt is evidence that it is a conscious choice, not a reactionary one.


I like cheapy's proof better.


Not by RAW but common sense say you can. you can hit a target with a sword and then choose not to deal damage by pulling out at the last minute.

Dark Archive

Cheapy wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Do you have some proof for that?
Common sense?

Is not common, and often makes no sense.


@Mergy by Raw you can choose not to make an attack roll so if you choose to not bullrush and attack instead then you Could choose not to attack.
Ranged damage is different you cant attack then choose not to roll damage because you have already loosed the arrow.

are you hearing from the DM you can forgo the bullrush? I would like to hear why you think you cant?

Dark Archive

Lobolusk wrote:

@Mergy by Raw you can choose not to make an attack roll so if you choose to not bullrush and attack instead then you Could choose not to attack.

Ranged damage is different you cant attack then choose not to roll damage because you have already loosed the arrow.

are you hearing from the DM you can forgo the bullrush? I would like to hear why you think you cant?

There's been no ruling made either way necessarily. From my reading of it, it doesn't seem optional, especially because you substitute your attack roll as your CMB roll; however, I'll be talking to him anyway to see if I can make it optional. As far as I can tell, the feat doesn't allow for you to not take the free bull rush, because there's no 'may' in the wording.


Mergy wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Do you have some proof for that?
Common sense?
Is not common, and often makes no sense.

...and...? It makes more sense that you can't restrain yourself to not knock someone back?


You could just purposefully fail the Bull rush check.

Dark Archive

Cheapy wrote:
You could just purposefully fail the Bull rush check.

I don't think you could even do that, since your attack roll is substituted for your CMB roll.

1. Make attack roll, get a 25, which is enough to hit.
2. 25 + bonuses specific to bull rush = CMB roll.
3. Bull rush at 25+.


But doesn't it go against what you would perceive to be free will?

you slam with a shield then you are compelled by some unknown force to push a dude across the room?

think you cant jut hit them and stop at that? what id the guy had some magical power that every time he was bullrushed he was given 1d10 HP?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"THE POWER OF THIS SHIELD COMPELS ME TO PUSH YOU BACK!"


can you choose to fail your attack roll? since it does not provokes can you give it the weakest push possible?

Dark Archive

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but it's the way the feat is written.


The intent is always more important than the word.


Lobolusk wrote:
Not by RAW but common sense say you can. you can hit a target with a sword and then choose not to deal damage by pulling out at the last minute.

That is not correct. You roll the dice separately, but the damage is there when the attack is made. Rolling the attack dice, and the damage dice are not two separate actions. They just require two different real life actions that have to be done to resolve one action which was the attack itself.


A feat is basically something you have learned how to do. Just because you know how to bull rush with a shield that does not mean you have to bull rush with a shield.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:

A feat is basically something you have learned how to do. Just because you know how to bull rush with a shield that does not mean you have to bull rush with a shield.

That's what I'll present to my GM, but I wish it had been stated explicitly in the feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is your GM actually seriously arguing that you are bull rushing people away against your will? Like a Disney's Hercules, "Sorry, I don't know my own strength" kind of deal? That's just so silly...


Mergy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

A feat is basically something you have learned how to do. Just because you know how to bull rush with a shield that does not mean you have to bull rush with a shield.

That's what I'll present to my GM, but I wish it had been stated explicitly in the feat.

Feat that require effort work this way. Things like Iron Will are assumed to always be on.

Sorry your GM is being so difficult also.

Dark Archive

He's not being difficult. We both had a similar rules interpretation, but I decided to ask and see if my mind could be changed.


d20pfsrd.com wrote:

If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.

The "can" implies a choice. You can push someone less than what you rolled. The specific wording does not include 0 ft, but I think that is because in this context, if you wanted to push someone 0 ft you would not use a bullrush action. I think it is safe to generalize so that you can always choose to push less than the maximum.


Cheapy wrote:
Mergy wrote:
Do you have some proof for that?
Common sense?

Common sense have been vilified so many times in this forum.

By RAW you always bullrush, of course nobody should take that seriously.


While I cannot find wording to this effect it is my understanding the use of (or failure to use) any feat is optional. Thus, if you do not want to perform a bull rush when you shield slam simply declare this before the attack roll is made.

- Gauss


So lets extend the ruling to other feats, shall we?

like say- extend spell.

Is it optional or mandatory?

Empower Spell (Metamagic)

You can increase the power of your spells, causing them to deal more damage.

Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables including bonuses to those dice rolls. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

Exhausting Critical, Blinding, bleeding, and deafening crit feats also have the same wording despite you only being able to apply one.
Guess you have to randomly roll for it?

Maximize Spell also had similar (but not exact) wording- but it lacks things like "if you choose" or "if you want to".

I think the clear intent for feats is that you can choose to utilize them or not- therefore a good many of them simply don't include the language that would imply or directly say otherwise. They assume it, rather than stating it out right.

-S

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Can you turn off Shield Slam? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.