I have a player who is looking to taking advantage of Shield Bash during combat. He eventually plans to take Shield Slam and use that as well. However, by RAW, Shield Slam forces him to use the free bull rush every time he does a shield bash, which isn't something he wants to do.
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack...
The question is, although Shield Slam's wording does not make it optional, is the bull rush something he could choose not to do? This also would also apply to the Grab ability for monsters.
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action
I would assume he could choose not to do it, but clarification would be great.
IMO that's one of the biggest reasons to try for that feat. Has the player said why the wouldn't want to make use of the free bullrush? Just from what little I've heard, it makes me wonder if something about it is confusing them.
To answer your question, the express purpose of using Shield Slam is to bullrush someone without needing Improved Bullrush. If they don't want to make the bullrush, then they should simply not make use of the feat. Mind you, unlike the regular bullrush, Shield Slam does not require the character initiating the bullrush to move with the person they just slammed.
In that light, if the character wanted to use Shield Slam without the bullrush, I'd kindly inform them that they are simply performing a regular shield bash.
Well, the thing is, he plans to fight with only a pair of shields. When the time comes for him to make a full attack, he will constantly be pushing his opponent away when he hits, thus negating the full attack for the most part. At most, he could get two hits in before he coouldn't attack anymore.
Also, I'm trying to get some clarification on it so I can apply the knowledge to monsters with Trip and Grab actions included in their attacks.
For real. Shield slam is sweet. You should convince him to use it, or at least point to another shield feat that might be of more use to him.
EDIT: Ninja'd; that sucks. Double shields sounds strange, but to each their own. He should work for Whirlwind Attack, too. :D
The only reason to take shield slam would be for the bull rush in most cases. The only other reason would be to nock a foe prone if they can't move back. Otherwise why take the fear at all? There are other options which would likely be as useful.
I don't think explicitly stated anywhere one way or another. This seems like a GM judgment call. I dont think a dire rat or lycanthrope can choose to turn off the decease/curse that goes along with their bite, but a snake or more intelligent Grab creature could chose not to coil around it's target.
Okay, barring whether or not the player should take Shield Slam, what I'm trying to figure out is if the rules state that a Combat Maneuver is made along with an attack, does it have to be made every time?
You don't have to turn on a feat if you don't want to. you don't have to power attack, or vital strike, i don't see what would make him shield bash
It's the fact that Power Attack is presented as an optional benefit, while the Shield Slam is not.
Power Attack:
You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.
Shield Slam:
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.
It's the lack of the word can that is causing a problem here.
I think it's pretty clearly intended to be optional, but YMMV.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
by RAW, Shield Slam forces him to use the free bull rush every time he does a shield bash
deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple[/b] as a free action [/i]
Both are non-optional.
If you are DM, you are free to rule zero it.The Bull Rush is thematically required, since you are bashing them and that force must go "somewhere", in this case into a Bull Rush.
If you are DM, you are free to rule zero it.
I understand that you're here for a ruling, not just opinions. However, I would also go with rule zero, "Do what is fun!"
Raw wording that implies its optional:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description)
enables, not requires.
|
I don't believe that feats connected to an action must be used. Making this a requirement violates basic logic as the person improves their skill and suddenly loses the ability to slam with their shield *without* knocking someone back.
It's like saying that you cannot turn off a critical feat (which use similar wording of "When you strike you X"), which would be equally ridiculous. ("Sorry, instead of knocking him out with that sap you killed him because of bleed damage.")
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It's like saying that you cannot turn off a critical feat (which use similar wording of "When you strike you X"), which would be equally ridiculous. ("Sorry, instead of knocking him out with that sap you killed him because of bleed damage.")
You would be the first player or DM I've seen that would allow bleed damage to be "deactivated" for a non-lethal strike. I have a Monk who carries around Kama's for doing non-lethal damage because he can not turn off Bleed damage when striking unarmed.
So.. if I have greater trip and I use it to trip a target I don't want to harm, I MUST make the AOO because the feat says it triggers an AOO?
What If I have 3 critical feats? The gameworld implodes because I cannot apply them in the same time ?
Well, the thing is, he plans to fight with only a pair of shields.
By RAW, I don't think you can shield bash with both hands (it specifies it's something you're doing with your offhand), so no matter what he's going to need some level of DM houseruling.
It's like saying that you cannot turn off a critical feat (which use similar wording of "When you strike you X"), which would be equally ridiculous. ("Sorry, instead of knocking him out with that sap you killed him because of bleed damage.")You would be the first player or DM I've seen that would allow bleed damage to be "deactivated" for a non-lethal strike. I have a Monk who carries around Kama's for doing non-lethal damage because he can not turn off Bleed damage when striking unarmed.
A feat is something you know how to do. If you don't want to stab someone in a way that forces them to bleed out I don't see why you could not choose that option. It is not different than turning off the blind critical feat. Just don't aim for the face.
