|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The Shield Slam feat reads:
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. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.
Two questions:
(1) Do I not get a choice whether or not to bull rush? As-written, it doesn't look like it. But that seems to make the feat a trap.
(2) How does the moving-with work? Is it just a poorly-written reminder of the standard limitation on moving with a bull rush?—"You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so." Or is it meant to offer free movement? (I assume the former.)
Here's the case I have in mind: full attacking without having taken 5-ft step prior, second attack shield slams for a 10-foot bull rush. You "are able to take a 5 foot step ... This turn", because you haven't taken one prior, but you're locked in to your full attack so you don't have a standard move remaining. Shield Slam says you can move with, but if you choose to move the target the full 10 feet can you go the full way (free movement) or can you only go 5 feet (standard bull rush limitation)?
1. Feats generally do not remove options, only grant them. You should be able to act as if you are not using the Shield Slam feat.
2. As you supposed, it's basically a reminder that you get the movement part of the bull rush and not just the knockback.
In the same way that I could make an attack action without benefiting from Vital Strike (if I wanted), I can make a shield attack without benefiting from Shield Slam (if I wanted).
In the same way that I could make an attack action without benefiting from Vital Strike (if I wanted), I can make a shield attack without benefiting from Shield Slam (if I wanted).
The problem is, the wording of the feats are different. Vital strike's wording makes it optional.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon's damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
Shield Slam, however, doesn't say "you can" or "you may". IT just says if you hit, you get a free bull rush. The way it is worded makes it read like you don't have an option.
Of course, it should be totally optional. You should get the choice of a bull rush attempt or not.
or, take the shield-trained trait from the inner sea gods and have heavy shields be a light weapon, thus one no longer really needs shield master or shield slam as a -2 to attack from normal TWF penalties is pretty doable
edit: this post assumes you want shield master and are just taking slam as pre requisit, if thats not the case ignore me
I have a PC who plans to take Shield Slam, and I share these concerns. Assuming you can choose whether to use the bull rush effect I also wonder whether you need to make that choice before you attack or only when you've scored a hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.
|
|
I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.
Woo! Thanks for the input. :-)
I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.Woo! Thanks for the input. :-)
I have a big advantage in terms of not confusing my personal opinion with an official pronouncement--I'll be using this account to make it clear that something is just my opinion.
|
|
I have a big advantage in terms of not confusing my personal opinion with an official pronouncement--I'll be using this account to make it clear that something is just my opinion.I'm with Joe on both points--that it should be optional, and that it is meant to be a reminder on the usual text of Bull Rush in terms of movement. However, since that stance is not strict RAW, I would expect table variation. That said, I've not yet seen a GM try to force a Shield Slam character to bull rush if they didn't want to, and I've seen a few Shield Slam characters in PFS.Woo! Thanks for the input. :-)
Yeah, that's very helpful. Glad you'll still be hanging around the boards in an unofficial capacity!
Feats are intended to give you options so despite RAW I am sure the intent is to give you a choice, otherwise the feat would not be worth taking.
Noob here, but why would you not want to bull rush? You always have the choice whether to follow up or not.
"You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn."
There is nothing that says(either in the feat or under bullrush)that if you don't follow up they aren't pushed back. Once you hit the bad guy they are stumbling backwards whether you follow up or not.
Also if you don't want to push someone back I don't recall there being any requirement to use a feat. Can't you simply choose not to use the feat?
I can't see anyway to interpret the feat such that you get free movement.
Noob here, but why would you not want to bull rush? You always have the choice whether to follow up or not.
"You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn."
There is nothing that says(either in the feat or under bullrush)that if you don't follow up they aren't pushed back. Once you hit the bad guy they are stumbling backwards whether you follow up or not.
Also if you don't want to push someone back I don't recall there being any requirement to use a feat. Can't you simply choose not to use the feat?
I can't see anyway to interpret the feat such that you get free movement.
The reason is that if you can't follow after them, it might break up your full attack.
Cool, I was somewhat concerned that my Shield Slam PC might accidentally push enemies out of his reach before his full attack is finished. I guess he still might if I want to be sure of pushing the foe away rather than waiting to try it with attacks at lower bonuses which might miss or fail to beat the foe's CMD.
I still wonder if you need to decide whether to use Shield Slam before you attack or if you can wait and decide after you've hit. The former seems to make a little more sense from a logical perspective, but the latter could have some advantages in tactical terms since then you could choose not to activate the feat unless it would push the foe back far enough to ruin its full attack along with yours.
|
|
I still wonder if you need to decide whether to use Shield Slam before you attack or if you can wait and decide after you've hit. The former seems to make a little more sense from a logical perspective, but the latter could have some advantages in tactical terms since then you could choose not to activate the feat unless it would push the foe back far enough to ruin its full attack along with yours.
(1) I would expect that, like most such effects, you should choose before rolling the attack. (In this case, mostly to keep things consistent & streamline play!)
(2) I did share your concern about pushing opponents back too far, but the bull rush rules are clear that you choose how far to move them after the first square. (This is the first time I've really looked at bull rush. Like many rulesets in this very complicated game, I haven't bothered to learn it until it's come up!)
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.
It’s worth noting that the Shield Slam bull rush is materially different from the standard bull rush. The feat specifies, “Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance.” A regular bull rush doesn’t do that. This makes Shield Slam better than a trip in many cases against many opponents. It’s great for knocking down multilegged creatures, for example.
@KC&C - The ability to knock people down and the hope of knocking them off the sides of ships are part of what make the feat appealing to me.
@Joe M - I'm actually more worried about not moving the opponent far enough. I'll be working with a Phalanx Fighter who uses a reach weapon to make AoOs on enemies I push away if they try to move back in. We're already using Shield Wall though it hasn't helped much yet since the DM's dice are hot.