| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's a link to an old thread on the topic. I wanted to know if a developer ever spoke out on this.
Okay, so I understand that when you use Shield Slam you trigger a free bull rush attempt that uses your Attack Bonus as your Combat Maneuver roll, but you target CMD instead of AC. My instinct says "Well, that means you don't add Improved Bull Rush's +2 bonus to the roll." However, the wording is... weird.
In the right position, your shield can be used to send opponents flying.Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +6.
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. 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.
But looking at Improved Bull Rush...
You are skilled at pushing your foes around.Prerequisite: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a bull rush combat maneuver. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Combat Maneuver Defense whenever an opponent tries to bull rush you.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a bull rush combat maneuver.
So it sounds like an argument could be made as to whether or not the +2 would be added to the attack roll used to Bull Rush the enemy.
Now, this is one of those situations where I think "No, you do NOT add your +2 to your attack roll for the Bull Rush attempt; you are completely overriding your combat maneuver roll with your attack roll." But I wanted to see what others have to say.
Long story short: I'm building a Shield Slam focused character and would love to know what my options are.
Also, different question:
Shield Slam triggers Bull Rush. Bull Rush triggers Overrun when used with 2 levels of the Siegebreaker archetype. If you're using shield slams as your full attack action, you're not actually running around after the enemies when you make free overruns against them, right?
Or would you need Elephant Stomp to actually get your full attack action?
I don't know what any Dev would say, but based on the wording, you would get the +2, since you're making a free Bull Rush check on a successful hit, which Improved Bull Rush modifies. The only difference is that the check uses the roll you used to hit, and not a separate roll (or activity on the user's behalf).
Also consider that you're adding your weapon's Enhancement Bonus when, as a Bull Rush, you don't add any benefits from your Weapon, which wouldn't apply to the Bull Rush check's result unless you had a special weapon or property which lets you do so. So, right from the gate, if you're using a Masterwork/Magic Shield (with an Enhancement Bonus to attack rolls), you're doing it wrong, because those wouldn't apply to a Bull Rush maneuver.
There is the Bull Rush Strike, which is a feat that functions similar to Shield Slam, except the Bull Rush check is based off of the Confirmation Roll, and not the original Attack Roll. In that case, you wouldn't use any Weapon bonuses, but you'd use any bonuses from things like Improved Bull Rush, because you're making a Bull Rush check in addition to the effects of the critical hit, which is essentially what you're doing with Shield Slam.
**EDIT** You'd only ever get one attack, since Elephant Stomp's attack is similar to Hurtful, in that you need to spend an action (which you can only do once per round) in order to make the extra attack, and that attack has no bearing on whatever other attacks you make in the round, such as AoOs and your remaining iteratives, or even your extra attack from Haste (which you wouldn't receive).
In other words, you get one Attack, one Bull Rush, one Overrun, and then an extra attack from Elephant Stomp. Don't forget, every attack you make with a Shield triggers Shield Slam per RAW, so even if you managed to make another attack, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of the following attacks due to Elephant Stomp being usable once per round.
There are similar feats which has the same problem, such as Tripping Strike discussed here.
There are similar feats which has the same problem, such as Tripping Strike discussed here.
That's not as much of a problem, since a lot of the benefits of Trip attempts use Weapon Bonuses in addition to the bonuses from Feats (which again, would apply since you're making a Trip check in addition to the original attack).
The bigger problem with Bull Rush is having to deal with not applying Weapon benefits, since you aren't making a Bull Rush check with weapons (lest you have a special weapon property that lets you do so).
In other words, you get one Attack, one Bull Rush, one Overrun, and then an extra attack from Elephant Stomp. Don't forget, every attack you make with a Shield triggers Shield Slam per RAW, so even if you managed to make another attack, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of the following attacks due to Elephant Stomp being usable once per round.
Well, here's the scenario in question - assume we are NOT using Elephant Stomp:
Beefy McFighter bull rushes an enemy in round one, traveling with them and slamming them into a wall.
Round two comes around. Beefy McFighter decides to use his full attack on the enemy. He has 3 attacks. He hits with his shield slam; he deals damage and triggers a bull rush which triggers an overrun attempt (he's a Siegebreaker, so this works). He hits again with shield slam; then bull rush; then overrun; and then again with shield slam, bull rush, and overrun.
Does that sound right? In this case the Overrun attempt from Siegebreaker is a free action, so even if he DID move into the enemy's space he's doing so as a free action. But I'm thinking that he doesn't actually move into the enemy's space each time he gets a free action overrun because that's silly.
Thoughts?
Based on that, then yes, since in round 1, he Shield Slams an enemy into a wall, knocking them prone (and he's adjacent to them).
On the enemy's turn, when he stands up, it'd provoke an Attack of Opportunity, Shield Slam would trigger, he'd be hit into the wall again, and fall prone again. He could stand again, and if you have Combat Reflexes, the same scenario I just described would happen.
In the following round, you Full Attack, performing Bull Rushes (and Overruns) and knocking the enemy into the wall, even occupying his square for the subsequent attacks you make.
As long as you don't end your turn in the enemy's square (you'd be put at the last legal spot you occupied, which would be adjacent to the enemy who's prone by the wall when you turn ends), that's legal. You can move into his square all you like with Overrun, as long as the check is successful, and he's an eligible enemy to be affected with Overrun (you need to be one size bigger than them to qualify).
Huh, that's cool. Okay, so my character effectively occupies the same square after the first overrun ("moving" through its space), it's prone thanks to Shield Slam, and the prone creature has -4 AC against my maneuvers and attacks thanks to being prone. Repeatedly shield slam it while it's prone for maximum effect. And I can take a five foot free step at the end of my full attack to go to whatever adjacent space I wish, otherwise I end my turn in the last legal space.
Okay, I think I see how this works rules wise now. And I DO get the +2 from Improved Bull Rush on the free action Bull Rush via Shield Slam? Should I expect table variance on that one?
EDIT: Also, with Overrun you actually can affect creatures 1 size category larger than you. And there are feats (Poised Bearing, Imposing Bearing) that make you able to affect 1 size category more each. Sort of a side note.
|
I don't think you add the Improved Bull Rush bonus to the "maneuver" check, because it's made with your regular melee attack roll. The flip side is that there are bonuses to melee attack rolls that you normally don't get to bull rush checks. For example, normally you can't use weapons (or shields) to bull rush so you can't add enhancement bonuses or Weapon Focus to the maneuver check. Also, size modifiers are reversed between normal attacks and maneuvers. For a small shield-slammer this is much better.
Huh, that's cool. Okay, so my character effectively occupies the same square after the first overrun ("moving" through its space), it's prone thanks to Shield Slam, and the prone creature has -4 AC against my maneuvers and attacks thanks to being prone. Repeatedly shield slam it while it's prone for maximum effect. And I can take a five foot free step at the end of my full attack to go to whatever adjacent space I wish, otherwise I end my turn in the last legal space.
Okay, I think I see how this works rules wise now. And I DO get the +2 from Improved Bull Rush on the free action Bull Rush via Shield Slam? Should I expect table variance on that one?
EDIT: Also, with Overrun you actually can affect creatures 1 size category larger than you. And there are feats (Poised Bearing, Imposing Bearing) that make you able to affect 1 size category more each. Sort of a side note.
You can't 5 foot if you already moved 5 feet into their square via Overrun, but since the space you occupy is illegal, you're shifted back to the last legal space you occupied once your turn ends (which is where you began). No mechanical difference, but you can't take a 5 foot step back per the rules, and means you can't, for example, take a 5 foot step to one of two sides if you wanted.
You should get the +2, because it's a separate check made against a separate statistic. It's just you use the same dice roll. This also means if you're using a Magic Shield with Enhancements to attack rolls, that those wouldn't apply to your Bull Rush check unless you have a weapon property that lets them.
Unfortunately, since people can't seem to split the difference, table variance appears quite likely.
@ Ascalaphus: You use the same dice roll, but that also means checks are still different, and made against different statistics (AC V.S. CMD). This means that any bonuses (or penalties) between those checks apply independently, such as Weapon Enhancement Bonuses and Improved Combat Maneuver feats. You might succeed on an attack, but fail on the combat maneuver check because of these differences (and inversely, you might fail the attack, but succeed on the Combat Maneuver check, though you aren't given the check if you miss the attack in the first place).
Waaait. You use the dice roll? As in if you rolled a natural 17 your die roll for the Bull Rush is treated as a natural 17?
...Oh, wow.
|
If you have an opponent backed against an immovable surface (e.g. a wall or floor) OR if there are multiple targets in reach then you can get bull rush via Shield Slam on every attack of a full attack action.
However, I do not see how this would work with the free overrun from Siegebreaker. Bull rush allows you to move to follow after the target... overrun requires you to move. Ergo, even if the target can't go anywhere from the bull rush because you are slamming them into a wall or floor... you still have to move through their square to overrun them. That requires movement, and if you are making a full attack action then your only available movement is usually a single 5' step. Thus, you could bash someone into a wall, take a 5' step in to their square (possibly trampling them for extra damage in the process)... and that's it. You're done. No more movement available for the turn, so no more overrun maneuvers possible.
Overrun specifically requires you to move through their square - but if you're already in their square, then you're fine, right?
|
|
Unfortunately, that gets murky. Moving 'through' their square could be taken to mean you need to move into and then out the far side of it.
Even if just >into< the square and stopping there is allowed, then can you really said to be using your 'movement' to bowl the target over... while staying in the same place? And even if you somehow could... wouldn't you still need to expend actual movement to do it?
Waaait. You use the dice roll? As in if you rolled a natural 17 your die roll for the Bull Rush is treated as a natural 17?
Yup.
And then you calculate the differences as appropriate between the two attack rolls. Such as removing Weapon Enhancements (if any) and applying feats like Improved Bull Rush.
@ CBDunkerson: Not really. Moving through the square doesn't mean it has to be a straight line, and to be honest, moving through a square doesn't even technically require that you're moving into the square to move through it.
Not to mention, Overrun as a maneuver is broken anyway, and has way too much table variation to be a viable combat option (especially for PFS).
Well, overrun is the bread and butter of the build I tinkered with. I still need to adjust the math to make up for the difference with bull rush and attack rolls (that might take a little while), but basically the build I have gets most of its damage from Overrun. To quote myself...
Shield bashes trigger Shield Slam, allowing a free Bull rush attempt.
Bull Rush deals STR+2+armor enhancement bludgeoning damage (Breaker Rush) and triggers a free action Overrun attempt. This = 13 damage, or 15 when raging.
Overrun deals STR+2+armor enhancement bludgeoning damage (Breaker Rush), 1d8+1/2 Armor Bonus to AC+1.5xSTR (Bulette Rampage), damage equal to STR (Overbearing Advance), and can be used against multiple foes in a round (at a -2 penalty each time). This = 1d8+35 damage, or 1d8+42 damage when raging.
I think the exact math of the damage dealt with Overrun is off a little (I remember my average damage with overrun coming to 44.5, not 46.5) and the bull rush damage should be 14 when raging due to the same source of extra damage being changed (armor enhancement bonus) but you get the idea.
So basically: overrun working in this context (shield bash > bull rush > overrun > rinse and repeat for as many attacks you have in a full attack) is necessary for this to be functional. (Well, no; the DPR is still high against single targets when simply charging someone from across the field.) I'd like to know what notes I should make about table variance, any relevant FAQs, that sort of thing. It's for the DPR Olympics as a pure "Let's try this fun idea" build.
I do want to try it seriously at some point.
no you don't apply it. Instead of making a bull rush CM check you use your attack roll.
ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus.
A CM check is
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
thus using your attack roll instead of making a CM check doesn't mean to take the result of the d20 and use it IN a combat maneuver check, since that's not what an attack roll is. It's using your attack roll, which is the d20 + bonuses, instead of making a combat maneuver check, which is the d20 + CMB + certain bonuses to attack rolls.
|
|
So basically: overrun working in this context (shield bash > bull rush > overrun > rinse and repeat for as many attacks you have in a full attack) is necessary for this to be functional. (Well, no; the DPR is still high against single targets when simply charging someone from across the field.) I'd like to know what notes I should make about table variance, any relevant FAQs, that sort of thing.
I've developed very similar builds previously, but they have generally required using overrun against multiple different opponents to get a full attack with all the benefits applied. Even that is only possible with options that allow you to combine a full attack with movement.
If you have a GM who somehow waves the movement requirement, either by allowing you to 'overrun' while standing still OR move without expending movement, then it is easy, but I can't really see either of those being plausible / common interpretations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no you don't apply it. Instead of making a bull rush CM check you use your attack roll.
ATTACK ROLL
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus.A CM check is
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.thus using your attack roll instead of making a CM check doesn't mean to take the result of the d20 and use it IN a combat maneuver check, since that's not what an attack roll is. It's using your attack roll, which is the d20 + bonuses, instead of making a combat maneuver check, which is the d20 + CMB + certain bonuses to attack rolls.
It's quite obvious that the intent behind Shield Slam is to give you a Bull Rush check as part of the successful attack, using the dice roll instead of rolling it separately. This means you apply whatever you can to a Bull Rush compared to a typical attack.
Otherwise, you're adding Weapon Enhancements to a check that doesn't benefit from them, and you're denying feat benefits from obvious triggers listed from said feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite obvious that the intent behind shield slam is to give you a bull rush at the same value as your attack, that you use the attack roll you made instead of making a combat maneuver check, not making a combat maneuver check using the same d20 result as your attack roll. This means that your not adding stuff specific to bull rush, but do get to add whatever bonuses went to the attack, like weapon enhancements, since those already went into your attack roll that you're using.
So basically: overrun working in this context (shield bash > bull rush > overrun > rinse and repeat for as many attacks you have in a full attack) is necessary for this to be functional. (Well, no; the DPR is still high against single targets when simply charging someone from across the field.) I'd like to know what notes I should make about table variance, any relevant FAQs, that sort of thing.I've developed very similar builds previously, but they have generally required using overrun against multiple different opponents to get a full attack with all the benefits applied. Even that is only possible with options that allow you to combine a full attack with movement.
If you have a GM who somehow waves the movement requirement, either by allowing you to 'overrun' while standing still OR move without expending movement, then it is easy, but I can't really see either of those being plausible / common interpretations.
Hm. I may have to reserve this concept for a Gestalt game, then. I'm assuming that Whirlwind Dervish would be capable of doing exactly what I want to do thanks to its Whirlwind Dance? The DEX-to-damage is pretty useless to me, though...
Would the Dervish Dancer qualify with its Dance of Fury?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite obvious that the intent behind shield slam is to give you a bull rush at the same value as your attack, that you use the attack roll you made instead of making a combat maneuver check, not making a combat maneuver check using the same d20 result as your attack roll. This means that your not adding stuff specific to bull rush, but do get to add whatever bonuses went to the attack, like weapon enhancements, since those already went into your attack roll that you're using.
If it was, we wouldn't be having this debate.
So, according to you, anything that triggers on a Bull Rush would not work with Shield Slam, despite you making a Bull Rush check? Because under that interpretation, that's exactly what happens; anything that functions or requires a Bull Rush doesn't trigger. No Greater Bull Rush effects trigger, No Overrun follow-up trigger, all that good stuff, doesn't apply. Congratulations, you just turned Shield Slam from a Bull Rush maneuver into a Bull Rush-like Ability. I don't know how, nor is that founded in the rules, but it's there.
Suggesting that Shield Slam makes its own unique check that functions like a Bull Rush, but isn't actually a Bull Rush check, is just dumb. It also flies in the face of already-defined mechanics, and creates new rules which have no precedent, compared to already-existing mechanics that are identical in nature (Bull Rush Strike), which I will also remark would be given the same treatment as Shield Slam under your interpretation.
|
|
I'm assuming that Whirlwind Dervish would be capable of doing exactly what I want to do thanks to its Whirlwind Dance?
Would the Dervish Dancer qualify with its Dance of Fury?
Yep, both of those allow full attack while moving... so as long as you have enough movement to complete all the overrun maneuvers you could knock some poor fool about like a pinata.
No, you're making a bull rush, thus the movement can provoke if you have greater bull rush. But you're not making a combat maneuver check to see if the maneuver is successful. I never said anything of the sort that it's not a bull rush and that stuff that triggers on successful bull rush wouldn't trigger.
SHIELD SLAM IS NEVER MAKING A BULL RUSH CHECK OF ANY KIND. But it's still making a bull rush on success. Success is determined using your attack roll vs their CMD to see if you successfully bull rush them or not. You don't and aren't making any bull rush check and that means that your CMB never comes into the equation.
And bull rush strike expressly says that if your crit confirmation is higher than their CMD, again using the attack roll for determining success of the maneuver going off. But if you succeed to bull rush because your attack roll was higher than their CMD then it's a bull rush that does anything and everything a bull rush does since that's what it is.
No, you're making a bull rush, thus the movement can provoke if you have greater bull rush. But you're not making a combat maneuver check to see if the maneuver is successful. I never said anything of the sort that it's not a bull rush and that stuff that triggers on successful bull rush wouldn't trigger.
SHIELD SLAM IS NEVER MAKING A BULL RUSH CHECK OF ANY KIND. But it's still making a bull rush on success. Success is determined using your attack roll vs their CMD to see if you successfully bull rush them or not. You don't and aren't making any bull rush check and that means that your CMB never comes into the equation.
And bull rush strike expressly says that if your crit confirmation is higher than their CMD, again using the attack roll for determining success of the maneuver going off. But if you succeed to bull rush because your attack roll was higher than their CMD then it's a bull rush that does anything and everything a bull rush does since that's what it is.
That's wrong too. If I was making a Bull Rush, I'd be making a CMB check, against the enemy's CMD, like what the rules say you'd normally do. But I'm not making a CMB check, and to be frank, Shield Slam doesn't even say that the substitution is checked against the enemy's CMD, so suggesting that it does, as is the default for a Bull Rush check, can't be made when you're suggesting that Shield Slam supersedes that sort of paradigm.
If it's not making a Bull Rush check, then anything that triggers off of a Bull Rush Check (AKA Greater Bull Rush) doesn't apply, period. No Greater Bull Rush, no Pauldrons of the Bull, none of that, because it's not a Bull Rush check. And I never said anything about CMB. What I said is that it's a Combat Maneuver, which means anything relevant to the Combat Maneuver (such as no Weapon Enhancements due to the type of maneuver, and any Maneuver bonuses from feats like Improved Bull Rush) applies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your attack roll is the D20 plus all modifiers
Shield slam substitutes "your attack roll for the combat maneuver check"
With Shield Slam you clearly get to add any bonuses to hit you get from your shield, including for example enhancement bonuses to hit if you have enchanted your shield as a weapon. You also use your attack roll size modifier, not your CMB size modifier.
It is also a free "bull rush attack", I cannot see any legitimate reason to not add any bonuses due to relevant feats to your attack roll to determine the effect of the bull rush. I cannot see how you get to an interpretation that gives you "it's a bull rush, but you're not actually making a bull rush". Just because it substitutes your attack roll for your CMD it is still a bull rush - the only thing shield slam changes is the formula you use to calculate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's wrong too. If I was making a Bull Rush, I'd be making a CMB check, against the enemy's CMD, like what the rules say you'd normally do. But I'm not making a CMB check, and to be frank, Shield Slam doesn't even say that the substitution is checked against the enemy's CMD, so suggesting that it does, as is the default for a Bull Rush check, can't be made when you're suggesting that Shield Slam supersedes that sort of paradigm.
If it's not making a Bull Rush check, then anything that triggers off of a Bull Rush Check (AKA Greater Bull Rush) doesn't apply, period. No Greater Bull Rush, no Pauldrons of the Bull, none of that, because it's not a Bull Rush check. And I never said anything about CMB. What I said is that it's a Combat Maneuver, which means anything relevant to the Combat Maneuver (such as no Weapon Enhancements due to the type of maneuver, and any Maneuver bonuses from feats like Improved Bull Rush) applies.
You're the one that is really messing things up and arguing against things not said.
You are making a bull rush attempt. But instead of making a combat maneuver check you use your attack roll. Thus things that boost your CMB don't matter since you're not making a combat maneuver check. The only difference between a normal bull rush and this one is how you achieve the result to determine success. Shield slam doesn't care about and CMB bonuses to bull rush, but anything that triggers on a bull rush works.
You go against CMD since that's what maneuvers go against. Not making a CM check doesn't change anything about how to determine if a maneuver is successful.
Greater bull rush, "Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you)." Thus this only cares if you make a successful bull rush or not. Nothing about any combat maneuver check needed, just a successful bull rush which you're making.
Pauldrons of the bull don't work since you're not making any check there's no check to attempt twice.
Yes it's a combat maneuver, but instead of the normal way to calculate your success of d20 + CMB + relevant attack bonuses, it's whatever your attack roll was. So if you have fighter weapon training, and a +5 weapon, and weapon focus and greater focus those were all added to your attack roll, and that's the value you're using to see if you succeeded at your bull rush, and it doesn't care about any bonuses you do or don't have to your bull rush combat maneuver check. Thus it's potentially a lot better than your normal CMB check for bull rushes.
The shield slam feat SPECIFICALLY says you don't make a CMB check. "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check" How in the world do you read this and think, "you know what? Even though it's telling me to use my attack roll instead of making a combat maneuver check, I still need to make a combat maneuver check"?
I've also been wrestling with this question recently, although more with the RAI than the RAW.
Pauldrons of the bull don't work since you're not making any check there's no check to attempt twice.
Yes it's a combat maneuver, but instead of the normal way to calculate your success of d20 + CMB + relevant attack bonuses, it's whatever your attack roll was. /snip/
The shield slam feat SPECIFICALLY says you don't make a CMB check. "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check" How in the world do you read this and think, "you know what? Even though it's telling me to use my attack roll instead of making a combat maneuver check, I still need to make a combat maneuver check"?
RAW, this is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely correct.
So if you have fighter weapon training, and a +5 weapon, and weapon focus and greater focus those were all added to your attack roll, and that's the value you're using to see if you succeeded at your bull rush, and it doesn't care about any bonuses you do or don't have to your bull rush combat maneuver check. Thus it's potentially a lot better than your normal CMB check for bull rushes.
This is, however, very rarely the case IME. Instead, I'd say any fighter focusing on bull rush is of course going to have a magic weapon ability (such as Leveraging) or similar which makes weapon specific bonuses apply to bull rush checks.
The problem with the Shield Slam RAW is precisely that CMB bonuses don't apply. Since your attack bonus cannot ever be boosted even remotely as high as your bull rush CMB can, in contrast to normal bull rushes, Shield Slam will rapidly start losing its usefulness in mid levels, and end up completely useless in higher levels in most games. In case anyone doubts this, here's the relevant average monster numbers for a few CR ratings:
CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)
By 20th level, it's easy for any full-bab class to have a bull rush CMB bonus above +50, netting an average success probability of at least 80% against an "average" CR 20 monster. By comparison, a Shield Slam performed according to the current RAW has approximately a 20% success chance. (These success chances assume 20 bab, Str 36, Large size and the minimum of items and feats a character focused on bull rushes and shield fighting could be expected to have at this level, and of course that the monster isn't too big to be affected.)
Personally, I don't think this is anywhere near acceptable, which makes me question whether Shield Slam was intended to have the effects the current RAW have. And if it actually was intended, I really would like to know why.
(And yes, I've house ruled the Shield Slam bull rush to be treated as a CMB check, using only the d20 die roll of the shield bash attack it accompanies.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting to note that the various 'greater' and 'improved' feats never increase your CMB explicitly. Improved Bull Rush grants you +2 to checks to bull rush a foe.
It should apply even if you aren't using your CMB to make the bull rush.
Interesting to note that the various 'greater' and 'improved' feats never increase your CMB explicitly. Improved Bull Rush grants you +2 to checks to bull rush a foe.
It should apply even if you aren't using your CMB to make the bull rush.
Unfortunately not, since you're not making any checks whatsoever when using Shield Slam.
Following Chess Pwns Argumentation, dragonhunterq has a great point here. Of course you are making a check to bullrush, just no CMB Check. I was not aware of the wording on the Maneuver Feats, but obviously this is a check to bullrush someone (using your attack roll instead of CMB does not exclude it from being a check).
For this to be true, Shield Slam would have to say "treating your attack roll as a bull rush combat maneuver check" or similar. But as written, you're making an attack roll instead of a bull rush combat maneuver check.
Note also that "check" by itself is not game term. That is, you're never making only a "check", but always a "skill check", a "combat maneuver check", a "Strength check" etc. The mechanics for these vary, meaning there are no general rules specifically shared only by these game elements, despite all of them including the word "check". For example, a "combat maneuver check" is a specific type of attack roll, a "skill check" is not. And since the bull rush feats explicitly apply to bull rush combat maneuvers, the "checks" obviously refer to bull rush combat maneuver checks, not any other game term including the word "check".
On top of this, arguably the primary benefit of using your attack roll instead of a combat maneuver check (less complex and faster play) would be lost if certain bonuses to bull rush combat maneuver checks still would apply, while others would not.
If I understand you right, your argumentation goes like that:
1.) Combat Maneuvers are always tied to Combat Maneuver Checks
No. I'm not saying combat maneuvers are always tied to combat maneuver checks. I'm saying the word "check" is always tied to a specific game term/mechanic (skill check, combat maneuver check, ability score check, caster level check, etc) and that an "attack roll" is not one of these.
Or in other words, you might've had a bit more of a case here if the game term/mechanic "attack roll" was instead called "attack check". And I would've totally agreed with you if the bull rush feats had used for example the word "roll" instead of "check".
So what I'm saying is:
1. An attack roll is what the game defines it as, and it is not the same thing as any of the terms/mechanics including the word "check". And again, note that there is no such thing as a "check", only different game terms/elements including the word "check".
2. Using brackets around the game terms/mechanics to make it more clear: Shield Slam replaces the bull rush [combat maneuver check] (d20 + CMB) with an [attack roll] (d20 + attack bonus), not with [other game term/mechanic including the word "check"] (d20 + something).
To highlight the issues with your argument, let's have a look your statement in your previous post (my emphasis):
...obviously this is a check to bullrush someone (using your attack roll instead of CMB does not exclude it from being a check).
First, what you're saying here is that Shield Slam tells you to replace your CMB (a static value and not a check) with your attack roll (a value including both your static attack bonus and a d20 roll). So in order to actually make this a "(combat maneuver) check" (a value including both a static value (normally CMB) and a d20 roll), do you roll a d20 again and add that to your shield bash attack roll instead of your CMB, or...? What, exactly?
If you actually stand by your statement exactly as written, please tell me how you came to that conclusion, what it actually means and how that makes any kind of sense (mechanically speaking).
Second, if we assume that you actually meant to say "using your attack roll instead of a CMB check" then that makes sense, but it also does exclude the attack roll from being a "check", because you just replaced the check with an attack roll, which, again, is not a check of any kind.
So which one is it, the first or the second?
Regarding RAI, I am not sure what to think of it myself. Using the exact roll result of your attack roll, but comparing it to CMD seems illogical and nerfs the feat in any cases (because if you applied Bullrush bonuses, you'd also apply attack roll bonuses such as weapon Focus or weapon enhancement, since you use your weapon for the bullrush just like with trip or disarm maneuvers).
On higher levels, shield slam then becomes pretty useless. But maybe they wanted the feat to be that weak, who knows? However it is really poorly worded and mixes two different rule systems that can't be combined. I'm bothered that there has not been any Errata so far.My guess is: They intended "attack roll" to work like "the die-roll-result of your attack roll", apllying different bonuses since you also target different DCs (CMD vs. AC)
I agree. Although I suspect it may also be that it actually was intended to work as written, but that the writer didn't understand the CMB/CMD relationship is nowhere near comparable to the attack roll/AC relationship. The reason for this suspicion is that quite a few combat maneuvers would actually be useless in a game limiting PC options to the CRB, while several of the options which help remedy this issue were published relatively recently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
upho, I think you may be reading too much into the difference between 'roll' and 'check'.
An attack roll is a d20+modifiers, a skill check is d20+modifiers - I'm pretty sure there is little need to draw a distinction.
Even without that -
make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.
A combat manoeuvre is an attack roll.
Nowhere in either combat manoeuvres or the various 'improved X' manoeuvre feats is the term 'check' used.The only place I can see 'check' used is in the shield slam feat, and seems to be synonymous with 'roll' in context - I suspect to avoid duplicating the word 'roll'.
The rules aren't written in legalese, they change things to make them more fluid to read.
upho, I think you may be reading too much into the difference between 'roll' and 'check'.
An attack roll is a d20+modifiers, a skill check is d20+modifiers - I'm pretty sure there is little need to draw a distinction.
How I wish this was true. Because if it was, everything applying to normal bull rushes would also apply to Shield Slam bull rushes, effectively resulting in there being no difference besides using one d20 roll for both attacks.
Sadly, I can only refer you back to what ChessPWN has already written in this thread.
Even without that -
make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.A combat manoeuvre is an attack roll.
Which I've already said myself. So? Just because all combat maneuver checks are attack rolls, it doesn't mean that all attack rolls are checks. And regardless, in the case of Shield Slam, you're explicitly told to use your (shield bash) attack roll instead of your combat maneuver check. And a "shield bash attack roll" is definitely not the same thing as a "combat maneuver check".
Nowhere in either combat manoeuvres or the various 'improved X' manoeuvre feats is the term 'check' used.
The only place I can see 'check' used is in the shield slam feat, and seems to be synonymous with 'roll' in context - I suspect to avoid duplicating the word 'roll'.
Say what? You just quoted Improved Bull Rush yourself, the whole reason for this particular sub-discussion being that it does include the term. And FYI, every single "improved X" maneuver feat uses the term "check", as does for example the grapple rules and tons of other rules texts.
And equally important, AFAIK in all the thousands of pages of material published by Paizo, a normal attack roll (using d20 + attack bonus) is never called a check. But maybe I'm wrong. If you have examples of this, I would be grateful if you could quote them.
The rules aren't written in legalese, they change things to make them more fluid to read.
Looking at the many times when the exact wording of something has been confirmed as fully intentional, I think you could just as easily make a case for saying the exact wording is extremely important.
Besides, I assumed this was a discussion about RAW, which by definition leaves very little room for speculations about what the actual intent behind the wording was.
Ah! ignore me. bad point is bad. Still don't agree with your conclusion, but I do need to work on my argument a little :)
Please do! I don't like playing the devil's advocate, and I'd really appreciate being proven wrong about this.
The key word in Shield Slam is 'substituting'. Normally a Bull Rush involves a maneuver check, but with slam, you substitute the value of your attack roll in place of making a bull rush check. So if your attack roll was 22, you simply substitute 22 in place of rolling for bull rush. Things that benefit a bull rush check are irrelevant, since whatever the check might have been, it's replaced with the original attack roll.
This is arguably quite useful in the long run, since it means you're getting weapon bonuses and you don't need to pick up the Bull Rush chain.
My point is that upon making a successful Shield Bash, by someone with the Shield Slam Feat, that Attack Roll then is checked against the opponent's CMD to see if there was also a successful Bull Rush. If "check" is not by itself a game term, then it is an English Language word, and by that definition, the successful Shield Bash executed by someone with Shield Slam also is a check to see if a Bull Rush is also successfully executed.
And here we go again!
Paraphrasing:
"1. I'm replacing my check with an attack roll.
2. I'm still making the check.
RESULT: I'm making an "attack roll-check"! Or something..."
If we assume Shield Slam was intended to be interpreted only through the English language rather than "PF language", then the word "check" in this context does not refer to the same thing as it does in the context of any other rules texts (such as the bull rush feats).
This is arguably quite useful in the long run, since it means you're getting weapon bonuses and you don't need to pick up the Bull Rush chain.As I've already shown, the opposite is unfortunately true:
The problem with the Shield Slam RAW is precisely that CMB bonuses don't apply. Since your attack bonus cannot ever be boosted even remotely as high as your bull rush CMB can, in contrast to normal bull rushes, Shield Slam will rapidly start losing its usefulness in mid levels, and end up completely useless in higher levels in most games. In case anyone doubts this, here's the relevant average monster numbers for a few CR ratings:
CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)By 20th level, it's easy for any full-bab class to have a bull rush CMB bonus above +50, netting an average success probability of at least 80% against an "average" CR 20 monster. By comparison, a Shield Slam performed according to the current RAW has approximately a 20% success chance. (These success chances assume 20 bab, Str 36, Large size and the minimum of items and feats a character focused on bull rushes and shield fighting could be expected to have at this level, and of course that the monster isn't too big to be affected.)
|
|
It doesn't make sense to look at the average CMD/AC for all monsters of a given CR;
1) Big monsters may be too big for you to bull rush anyway, but they also have very high CMD compared to AC. These distort your figures.
2) Averaging all monsters suggests that each monster is equally likely to be encountered. But this discounts NPCs with class levels, who are extremely common enemies but take up relatively few Bestiary pages.
3) NPCs with class levels and using equipment are likely to have a very different AC/CMD ratio. Also because NPCs don't tend to grow to bigger sizes as CR goes up.
This is arguably quite useful in the long run, since it means you're getting weapon bonuses and you don't need to pick up the Bull Rush chain.As I've already shown, the opposite is unfortunately true:
Overall, 'useful' is a question of A)how high a character drives weapon bonuses vs how high they drive bull rush CMB bonuses, and B)how much a character wants to invest in driving up bull rush CMB bonuses at the cost of other things.
The first question depends a lot on class features. A weapon/shield Fighter focused on weapon feats and class features stacks up hefty weapon-specific bonuses; by level 20 they can have a +6 just from Weapon Training. Crucially, none of this is being invested specifically into CMB; they'd want it all anyhow, regardless of whether they had Shield Slam or not.
Which brings up the second question. Shield Slam is a single feat that has no prerequisites based on bull rush, and no practical considerations based on bull rush outside of ally AoO's. It's not a feat for a bull rush build, it's a feat to pick up an interesting trick on a shield bash build. Everything a character invests into improving their Shield Slam bull rush is something they're already investing into improving their combat abilities in general.
So I'm defining the way Shield Slam works as 'useful' based on the fact that you get to make bull rush attacks without the enormous amount of investment normally required, and you benefit from all kinds of things you normally wouldn't that are useful for straight combat as well.
If someone really wants to create a straight bull rush build, a Barbarian with a greatsword who uses the Knockback power probably makes a lot more sense than anything Shield Slam, even if Shield Slam used CMB. But straight bull rush builds are kind of dubious anyhow, due to size limitations and the usefulness of Bull Rush.
On the other hand, an 'ultimate Shield Slam' build (Siegebreaker Fighter with a little Barbarian maybe?) can plow all their resources into being as deadly as possible with TWF and shield-bash without needing bull rush feats or even necessarily worrying about improving CMB. If Figher/Barbarian, they can even pick up some attack bonus from a Furious shield.
I'm gonna have to say that the Shield Slam does not get the +2 from Improved Bull Rush.
IBR says it adds the +2 to a CMB when making a Bull Rush... Shield Slam substitutes your attack roll that you used for the shield bash attack.
If it said "make a Bull Rush as a free action" like with the Grab ability and grappling, you would make a separate roll and gain your bonuses from the feats but it specifically says that your attack roll is your total check that you compare to the CMD of your opponent.
It doesn't make sense to look at the average CMD/AC for all monsters of a given CR;
I agree it doesn't make for a very accurate illustration of the numbers in a real game, but it's about as accurate as you can get without having to do a ridiculous amount of surveys and statistical analysis. And the general development of an increasing gap between AC and CMD is very much true, and can be seen also in PCs and NPCs, not to mention in the fact that there are a lot more options for substantial bonuses to CMB than to attack.
In addition, it's not quite as misleading as you make it out to be:
1) Big monsters may be too big for you to bull rush anyway, but they also have very high CMD compared to AC. These distort your figures.
Likely, the only monsters a bull rush focused PC won't be able to affect in higher levels are those of Colossal size, and those are pretty rare even at CR 20.
Equally important is the fact that the AC values I listed are the design targets ("average") according to the monster creation table, and these are followed relatively closely by published monsters regardless of size. In contrast, CMD unfortunately doesn't have such target values, which I believe is part of the reason why it tends to get so darn high. (This is something I believe the PDT has recognized and also started to address through additional options for increasing PC CMB values, especially of maneuvers which normally aren't performed with a weapon.)
(The balor is btw a good example of a CR 20 monster with values close to the targets - Large size and AC 36 - and not surprisingly, it's CMD is 54, also very close to the actual average of published monsters.)
3) NPCs with class levels and using equipment are likely to have a very different AC/CMD ratio. Also because NPCs don't tend to grow to bigger sizes as CR goes up.
Well, using the same baseline numbers as I did in the post you're responding to, that PC would likely end up having an AC below 45 and a CMD vs bull rush above 60. That's quite a difference.
And NPCs with significantly lower CMD values are typically casters, meaning they often have very effective tools other than AC and CMD for avoiding all forms of melee attacks.
It doesn't make sense to look at the average CMD/AC for all monsters of a given CR;
I agree it doesn't make for a very accurate illustration of the numbers in a real game, but it's about as accurate as you can get without having to do a ridiculous amount of surveys and statistical analysis. And the general development of an increasing gap between AC and CMD is very much true, and can be seen also in PCs and NPCs, not to mention in the fact that there are a lot more options for substantial bonuses to CMB than to attack.
In addition, it's not quite as misleading as you make it out to be:
1) Big monsters may be too big for you to bull rush anyway, but they also have very high CMD compared to AC. These distort your figures.
Likely, the only monsters a bull rush focused PC won't be able to affect in higher levels are those of Colossal size, and those are pretty rare even at CR 20.
Equally important is the fact that the AC values I listed are the design targets ("average") according to the monster creation table, and these are followed relatively closely by published monsters regardless of sizes. In contrast, CMD unfortunately doesn't have such target values, which I believe is part of the reason why it tends to get so darn high. (This is something I believe the PDT has recognized and also started to address through additional options for increasing PC CMB values, especially of maneuvers which normally aren't performed with a weapon.)
(The balor is btw a good example of a CR 20 monster with values close to the targets (AC 36, Large size) and not surprisingly, it's CMD is 54, also very close to the actual average of published monsters.)
3) NPCs with class levels and using equipment are likely to have a very different AC/CMD ratio. Also because NPCs don't tend to grow to bigger sizes as CR goes up.
Well, extrapolating from the PC values I used in the original post you're responding to, that PC would likely end up having an AC below 45 and a CMD vs bull rush above 60. A difference of 17+ is usually more than enough to have your success chance go from "easy" to "near impossible".
And NPCs with significantly lower CMD values are typically casters, meaning they often have very effective tools other than AC and CMD for avoiding all forms of melee attacks.