I have a player with an Arminger who is interested in taking Shield Slam. He has a class ability that allows him to use a polearm and a shield at the same time, so he wants to be able to shield bash people and bull rush them back out where he can hit them with his polearm. It's a good build idea and Shield Bash would fit great. I do have a question about it though. I have an opinion on it, but I would like other inputs and don't want to prejudice the jury. ;)
Here's the ability in question I want advice on.
And here's the feat description.
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.
The bolded portions are the sections I am a tad fuzzy on. Would the bonuses from Slam still apply to the bull rush attempt made using Shield Slam, since the feat changes the mechanics slightly?
By RAW, no. Neither does Improved or Greater Bull Rush. However, I've let players add bull rush bonuses to shield slam attacks to overcome CMD, but only if the attack itself hits. Essentially, the modifiers to bull rush attempts (but not other modifiers to CMB) are added to the shield's attack roll. But that's a houserule. By RAW, you just use the attack roll.
My opinion: I would allow the bonus from the Arminger ability to apply. I feel that the intent is for the d20 roll made for the attack to also be use for the CMB check. Any extra bonuses to CMB would apply.
|
By RAW, no. Neither does Improved or Greater Bull Rush. However, I've let players add bull rush bonuses to shield slam attacks to overcome CMD, but only if the attack itself hits. Essentially, the modifiers to bull rush attempts (but not other modifiers to CMB) are added to the shield's attack roll. But that's a houserule. By RAW, you just use the attack roll.
I do not follow your reasoning, and I firmly disagree.
You add all relevant bonuses to the free Bull Rush from Shield Slam which includes feats, class features, items, and buffs (and anything else that applies).The attack roll is substituted for your Combat Maneuver roll, not your Combat Maneuver Bonus.
@OP:
Armiger is 3rd party and seems pretty broken.
If I were you, I would not allow this combo (or the Armiger class in general). It's way over-the-top.
I have a 9th level Fighter in PFS that uses the Shield Slam feat. With very little optimization (he took the two Bull Rush feats), his bonus is high enough to succeed 90% of the time, even vs. 4-legged enemies and others that are really tough to land any maneuvers on.
Adding a +12 (or more) bonus from his armor and shield on top of his already high CMB is a ridiculous idea. The result would be chaos and nonsensical outcomes on the table top.
It would be cartoonish and silly, not awesome and thematic.
"I Charge and Bull Rush the Ancient Red Dragon"
<rolls dice>
"The dragon is slammed back 60', hits the mountain, and falls prone."
Baloney.
The rules say "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check". So the attack roll substitutes the entire check, not just your roll. "Attack roll" means "die roll + relevant bonuses".By RAW, no. Neither does Improved or Greater Bull Rush. However, I've let players add bull rush bonuses to shield slam attacks to overcome CMD, but only if the attack itself hits. Essentially, the modifiers to bull rush attempts (but not other modifiers to CMB) are added to the shield's attack roll. But that's a houserule. By RAW, you just use the attack roll.I do not follow your reasoning, and I firmly disagree.
You add all relevant bonuses to the free Bull Rush from Shield Slam which includes feats, class features, items, and buffs (and anything else that applies).
The attack roll is substituted for your Combat Maneuver roll, not your Combat Maneuver Bonus.
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. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.)
In other portions of the rules such as "skill check", the usage of "check" means "die roll + relevant bonuses". Since the shield bash attack roll replaces the "combat maneuver check" that would include bonuses you would otherwise gain to that check.
This was done for simplicity. Whatever you rolled to hit them (compared to AC) for damage is the same number you use (compared to CMD) for the bull rush. Again, if your group is up for the added complexity of different modifiers applying to the same die (which admittedly is not that complex), then go for it. Just know that doing so is now RAW, but a very reasonable houserule.
|
|
"I Charge and Bull Rush the Ancient Red Dragon"
<rolls dice>
"The dragon is slammed back 60', hits the mountain, and falls prone."Baloney.
The Wizard casts Forceful Hand, and Bull Rushes the Dragon.
Nobody bats an eye.
Hah! Our party wizard did that to a flying dragon once. Poor thing couldn't move forward for a couple rounds. We almost felt bad for it when we killed it.
The rules say "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check". So the attack roll substitutes the entire check, not just your roll. "Attack roll" means "die roll + relevant bonuses".
Quote:
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. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.)
In other portions of the rules such as "skill check", the usage of "check" means "die roll + relevant bonuses". Since the shield bash attack roll replaces the "combat maneuver check" that would include bonuses you would otherwise gain to that check.This was done for simplicity. Whatever you rolled to hit them (compared to AC) for damage is the same number you use (compared to CMD) for the bull rush. Again, if your group is up for the added complexity of different modifiers applying to the same die (which admittedly is not that complex), then go for it. Just know that doing so is now RAW, but a very reasonable houserule.
You are partially right. This seems like it was done for simplicity in that it keeps you from having to roll another d20 when one will do just fine.
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Shield slam gives you a "free Bull Rush attack." It also says "This Bull Rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity." It is clear that the PC is making an actual Bull Rush attack in addition to, or as a part of a regular attack.
There is every indication that it means you are making a free Bull Rush attack/Combat Maneuver, not some kind of new maneuver that is like a Bull Rush, only isn't a Bull Rush, like Bull Rush Strike does.The Bull Rush feats add bonuses "on checks made to Bull Rush a foe" which is what's happening here. They don't say "only when the PC declares an independent Bull Rush Combat Maneuver attack." They also don't say "when the PC makes a check that moves the enemy back as if from the Bull Rush maneuver." It is clear that when you Shield Slam, you are in fact making a Bull Rush attack at the same time.
The Shield Slam feat is more direct and specific about what it does than other feats that grant free combat maneuver-like benefits.
For instance:
If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent's CMD, you may push your opponent back as if from the bull rush combat maneuver.
That is not written like a combat maneuver. That is written like an added effect that is like a combat maneuver.
vs.
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack
That is a very specific difference. If we were instead disagreeing about how Bull Rush Strike works, I think you would be right. Here, I cannot agree because the RAW disagree with your perspective.
Shield Slam is a powerful feat, especially because it gives you the ability to make your opponent fall prone without having to trip them. There is a heavy tax for this feat, however.
To take it, you must have:
Improved Shield Bash
Dexterity of 15
Two-Weapon Fighting
Waited until at least 6th level to take it.
Many would say that these taxes would cripple their build and would avoid this feat.
It is balanced, fair, and RAW to add all relevant bonuses to it.
Arminger? That's third party, right?
Yes, it is. It's a real tank and he's having a fair bit of fun with it. Here's a link.
The class is very powerful defensively and has helped the party stay alive in situations where I thought they might lose a character or two. Limited offensive ability helps balance the class out, I think. Some people don't like it, but I do. It allows me to toss stronger foes at the party without worrying too much about killing them all. :)
|
I was just wondering this same thing. I have a build that was going to grab gauntlets of the skilled maneuver but after looking at the wording, I don't think it works. I just use the shield bash attack roll that hit their ac and compare that to their cmd. So when bull rushing with shield bashes you want the highest attack bonus you can get.
<<wall of arguments>>
Shield Slam wrote:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack
That is a very specific difference. If we were instead disagreeing about how Bull Rush Strike works, I think you would be right. Here, I cannot agree because the RAW disagree with your perspective.
You're making a lot of arguments, but completely absent from your post is the heart of the matter, this sentence: "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check".
It's clear that a combat maneuver check is never rolled. From that' I'd say it follows that there's nothing valid to add your Improved Bull Rush bonus to.
Shield Slam is a powerful feat, especially because it gives you the ability to make your opponent fall prone without having to trip them. There is a heavy tax for this feat, however.
To take it, you must have:
Improved Shield Bash
Dexterity of 15
Two-Weapon Fighting
Waited until at least 6th level to take it.Many would say that these taxes would cripple their build and would avoid this feat.
It is balanced, fair, and RAW to add all relevant bonuses to it.
Or, you know, Ranger 2.
I agree that Shield Slam uses your attack roll from the attack which just hit, no other bonuses would be added. There are various ways to increase your attack rolls though.
The Armiger ability would still be very strong for Greater Overrun, Charge Through, etc.
|
|
<<wall of arguments>>
Shield Slam wrote:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack
That is a very specific difference. If we were instead disagreeing about how Bull Rush Strike works, I think you would be right. Here, I cannot agree because the RAW disagree with your perspective.
You're making a lot of arguments, but completely absent from your post is the heart of the matter, this sentence: "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check".
It's clear that a combat maneuver check is never rolled. From that' I'd say it follows that there's nothing valid to add your Improved Bull Rush bonus to.
Or, you know, Ranger 2.
Shield Slam is a powerful feat, especially because it gives you the ability to make your opponent fall prone without having to trip them. There is a heavy tax for this feat, however.
To take it, you must have:
Improved Shield Bash
Dexterity of 15
Two-Weapon Fighting
Waited until at least 6th level to take it.Many would say that these taxes would cripple their build and would avoid this feat.
It is balanced, fair, and RAW to add all relevant bonuses to it.
Yeah, a friend plays an Ulfen shield ranger in PFS on occasion. It's really strong at low levels. It's been pretty amusing to see in action because of how low the CMD of most foes can be at low levels.
I can appreciate your argument, but RAW does not confirm your position. I think that you (and others) are also neglecting the relevant rules text of the Improved Bull Rush and Greater Bull Rush feats, and focusing on the text of Shield Slam. In order to be complete, and to fully understand how this action works, the argument must include all relevant feats and observe how they interact.
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.
You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).
If the bolded areas read: "In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on Bull Rush Combat Maneuver checks" then I think you might have had a point.
That is not what they say though.Also, "substituting your attack roll for the CMB check" means that one is the same as the other for the purposes of the Shield Slam feat. It does in fact imply that a CMB check is occurring, you're just not rolling it. You just use the numerical value of the attack roll in place of your d20 roll for the maneuver, since they are part of the same action.
It is a nuance, but the feats say that you get the bonus when you Bull Rush, not when you specifically take an action to make a bull rush CMB check. The Shield Slam feat does not state that you must make a CMB check in order to deliver this Bull Rush or to benefit from the feat. It applies whenever you bull rush an opponent which would apply to Shield Slam.
It would not, however, apply to a feat like Bull Rush Strike, because in that case, you are not bull rushing a foe, you are pushing them back like a bull rush.
Eh, you're twisting the meaning of the words "substitute" and "attack roll", and your argument by volume does not convince me.
Also, you're ascribing significance to the difference between "+2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe" and "+2 bonus on Bull Rush Combat Maneuver checks". The rules are not written to that degree of precision.
|
|
Eh, you're twisting the meaning of the words "substitute" and "attack roll", and your argument by volume does not convince me.
Also, you're ascribing significance to the difference between "+2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe" and "+2 bonus on Bull Rush Combat Maneuver checks". The rules are not written to that degree of precision.
I concede that the sometimes imprecise nature of the written rules makes things muddy at times.
I do understand your argument, I just believe that it is incorrect for the reasons that I outlined above. Perhaps it will get a FAQ some day.In my experience, the Shield Slam ability can be strong, but it is balanced and has never disrupted things when played as written.
I concede that the sometimes imprecise nature of the written rules makes things muddy at times.
I do understand your argument, I just believe that it is incorrect for the reasons that I outlined above. Perhaps it will get a FAQ some day.In my experience, the Shield Slam ability can be strong, but it is balanced and has never disrupted things when played as written.
I just re-read it, and here's how it goes:
Mauril: "Attack Roll means (d20 roll + modifiers), Combat Manuever Check means (d20 roll + modifiers)" [Sources].Tomos: "No, you're wrong, attack roll and combat maneuver check means the d20 rolls" [No sources].
"Attack Roll" is a defined term, "Combat Maneuver Check" is a defined term, but you insist on using different meanings for those terms. THAT is why no-one agrees with you.
|
|
I concede that the sometimes imprecise nature of the written rules makes things muddy at times.
I do understand your argument, I just believe that it is incorrect for the reasons that I outlined above. Perhaps it will get a FAQ some day.In my experience, the Shield Slam ability can be strong, but it is balanced and has never disrupted things when played as written.
I just re-read it, and here's how it goes:
Mauril: "Attack Roll means (d20 roll + modifiers), Combat Manuever Check means (d20 roll + modifiers)" [Sources].
Tomos: "No, you're wrong, attack roll and combat maneuver check means the d20 rolls" [No sources]."Attack Roll" is a defined term, "Combat Maneuver Check" is a defined term, but you insist on using different meanings for those terms. THAT is why no-one agrees with you.
There is still much that I disagree with what you are saying, based on RAW.
The PRD listing of the Shield Slam feat has no less than three hypertext links to the combat section on Bull Rush. This does not imply, but rather indicates directly that this is in fact a legitimate Bull Rush.
The Improved Bull Rush and Greater Bull Rush feats state that you gain a +2 bonus from each when you perform a Bull Rush.
That is my argument.
You are arguing that Shield Slam acts like a Bull Rush, only it's not.
This is where we disagree.
Also,
THAT is why some in this thread disagree with you."
Corrected for accuracy.
I concede that the sometimes imprecise nature of the written rules makes things muddy at times.
I do understand your argument, I just believe that it is incorrect for the reasons that I outlined above. Perhaps it will get a FAQ some day.In my experience, the Shield Slam ability can be strong, but it is balanced and has never disrupted things when played as written.
I just re-read it, and here's how it goes:
Mauril: "Attack Roll means (d20 roll + modifiers), Combat Manuever Check means (d20 roll + modifiers)" [Sources].
Tomos: "No, you're wrong, attack roll and combat maneuver check means the d20 rolls" [No sources]."Attack Roll" is a defined term, "Combat Maneuver Check" is a defined term, but you insist on using different meanings for those terms. THAT is why no-one agrees with you.
Sorry, that's needlessly rude. What I mean is, I don't see how you get from the defined terms and the sentence about substitution to "there's a combat maneuver check, not rolled but re-using the natural d20 roll".
There is still much that I disagree with what you are saying, based on RAW.
The PRD listing of the Shield Slam feat has no less than three hypertext links to the combat section on Bull Rush. This does not imply, but rather indicates directly that this is in fact a legitimate Bull Rush.
The Improved Bull Rush and Greater Bull Rush feats state that you gain a +2 bonus from each when you perform a Bull Rush.
That is my argument.You are arguing that Shield Slam acts like a Bull Rush, only it's not.
This is where we disagree.
Okay, first item of common ground: The initial attack roll is not a check to perform a bull rush, agreed?
Now, "Attack roll" means "d20 roll + attack bonus", agreed?
"Combat Maneuver Check" means "d20 roll + CMB + conditional bonus (Improved Bull Rush)"
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack,
Okay, we just made an attack roll, it hit the target's AC. Now we get a bull rush (special) attack; that would normally mean making a combat maneuver check now. But wait:
substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check.
Even if you decide that this means "roll a combat maneuver check", the result is STILL replaced by your attack roll.
|
|
Sorry, that's needlessly rude. What I mean is, I don't see how you get from the defined terms and the sentence about substitution to "there's a combat maneuver check, not rolled but re-using the natural d20 roll".
Apologies unnecessary, but appreciated. It is a rare thing in the Rules Forum for members to say this.
If any of my phrasing came across as rude, I also apologize. That's not my intention either.
There is still much that I disagree with what you are saying, based on RAW.
The PRD listing of the Shield Slam feat has no less than three hypertext links to the combat section on Bull Rush. This does not imply, but rather indicates directly that this is in fact a legitimate Bull Rush.
The Improved Bull Rush and Greater Bull Rush feats state that you gain a +2 bonus from each when you perform a Bull Rush.
That is my argument.You are arguing that Shield Slam acts like a Bull Rush, only it's not.
This is where we disagree.Okay, first item of common ground: The initial attack roll is not a check to perform a bull rush, agreed?
Now, "Attack roll" means "d20 roll + attack bonus", agreed?
"Combat Maneuver Check" means "d20 roll + CMB + conditional bonus (Improved Bull Rush)"
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack,Okay, we just made an attack roll, it hit the target's AC. Now we get a bull rush (special) attack; that would normally mean making a combat maneuver check now. But wait:
substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check.Even if you decide that this means "roll a combat maneuver check", the result is STILL replaced by your attack roll.
I think I see the precise disagreement:
I am focusing on the specific physical 'roll' of the dice, which, from my perspective is modified by two different bonuses, producing two different results as part of the same action.You are suggesting that the attack roll is precisely that: an attack roll with all of its appropriate bonuses and is not a Combat Maneuver at the same time.
Kainpen has some good points too. I think the observation that the "no bonuses from Bull Rush feats" (Pupsocket's argument) can lead to shenanigans where a medium creature can Shield Slam a Colossal creature and knock it prone.
Kainpen is also right that a PC like a Fighter could actually end up with a higher result on the Bull Rush if your position were the rule (weapon enhancements, weapon feats, Weapon Training, etc.) However, that only applies vs. a generic Bull Rush without using a weapon to take advantage of its bonuses. Like Tripping with your foot vs. Tripping with your Guisarme.
@N N 959 I agree with your perspective.
To answer, I do not think that the Bull Rush bonuses should apply to the initial attack which damages the opponent. That would not make sense, unless there was an 'advanced Bull Rush' feat that treated it like some kind of weirdo Greater Sunder effect. That would be complicated.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This has been a fascinating read, but it is ever so slightly off the mark. I am asking if the bonuses that would apply to a bull rush would apply to the free bull rush you get with Shield Slam. I ask this because in this weird corner case, the player in question actually has a higher bonus to his bull rush CMB check then to his attack roll. So, instead of wanting to substitute the roll, he's wondering if he has to substitute the attack roll for his CMB check, or at least apply his modifiers to the check (not to the actual attack roll, though, he agrees that wouldn't be right).
So, to clarify and re-focus the question at hand, here it is in two points;
1) Can the bonuses to a bull rush apply to the free bull rush (maneuver only, not initial attack) given by a successful Shield Slam attack?
2) If not, if the characters wishes to, can they forgo the substitution and make a CMB roll as normal, with all the bull rush modifiers in place?
I clarify this so that people can FAQ it if they wish. I have made a decision to allow the synergy to happen in my games, as it looks like all the feat does is allow the free bull rush and remove the requirement to roll for a CMB check. So the original roll is made, attack bonuses are added for the attack resolution and, if the attack hits, bull rush bonuses are added to the same original roll to resolve the bull rush. Does this sound fair to people? Am I missing something?
|
|
Static bonuses do apply to the Shield Slam attack.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus; this includes all bull rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.
When you have a "substitute" teacher, you still have a teacher. When you substitute in a player in a football game, the player is treated as having been the original player for that position. You don't create a completely new position. Ergo, you haven't gotten rid of the CMB check, you just use the number from the attack roll in its place. The check is still considered to have been made.
Your analogy falls flat. When you have a substitute teacher, you do still have a teacher, but he or she is out today, so all things rely on the substitute. When you substitute a player on the field, the new guy doesn't get to use the stats of the fielder he replaced - he uses his own stats.
The clearly defined game terms of "attack roll" and "[game mechanic] check", and a very simple understanding of "substitute" meaning "to replace, even if temporarily", means that whatever your total value (dice plus bonuses) on your attack against AC is now also your attack against CMD for this bull rush. Any other bull rush attempt by standard means get all your Bull Rush bonuses (or penalties) but not this specific substitute attack. The regular teacher will be back tomorrow, but today you have to abide by the rules of the substitute.
This is why I think RAW is clear about what value you use for your check vs CMD. Do I think it ought to logically be that way? No. It's kind of silly, for many of the reasons outlined above. But RAW is not always sensible. It is strongly encouraged for GMs to tweak the rules to fit their games, and this is an area where I suggest tweaking the rules. Since this doesn't seem to be a PFS question, the GM ought to allow whichever result is best for the table.
But, since we can't know what will or won't be best at that specific table, we have to look at exactly what the rules say.
I am focusing on the specific physical 'roll' of the dice, which, from my perspective is modified by two different bonuses, producing two different results as part of the same action.
You are suggesting that the attack roll is precisely that: an attack roll with all of its appropriate bonuses and is not a Combat Maneuver at the same time.
This is why I quoted the rules text in my first response to you. "Attack roll" is a clearly defined game mechanic. The "attack roll" (the die result plus relevant bonuses for a shield bash attack) substitutes the "combat maneuver check" (whatever your result would be on a normal bull rush attempt).
So, to clarify and re-focus the question at hand, here it is in two points;
1) Can the bonuses to a bull rush apply to the free bull rush (maneuver only, not initial attack) given by a successful Shield Slam attack?
2) If not, if the characters wishes to, can they forgo the substitution and make a CMB roll as normal, with all the bull rush modifiers in place?
1) No, by RAW. Outlined above. Good and perfectly reasonable houserule that I use myself at my table.
2) No. However, as KainPen points out, you can forgo the bull rush attempt altogether, as you may choose to not utilize the feat if you'd like. Alternately, your player might want to look into Quick Bull Rush.|
|
So, to clarify and re-focus the question at hand, here it is in two points;
1) Can the bonuses to a bull rush apply to the free bull rush (maneuver only, not initial attack) given by a successful Shield Slam attack?
2) If not, if the characters wishes to, can they forgo the substitution and make a CMB roll as normal, with all the bull rush modifiers in place?
1) No, by RAW. Outlined above. Good and perfectly reasonable houserule that I use myself at my table.
Incorrect. As I demonstrated one post earlier, there is a RAW and clear precedent for a bonus applying to a Shield Slam bull rush attempt. If it is possible for bonuses to be applied to this check, then any bonuses which apply to Bull Rush checks apply.
2) No. However, as KainPen points out, you can forgo the bull rush attempt altogether, as you may choose to not utilize the feat if you'd like. Alternately, your player might want to look into Quick Bull Rush.
Correct.
1) No, by RAW. Outlined above. Good and perfectly reasonable houserule that I use myself at my table.Incorrect. As I demonstrated one post earlier, there is a RAW and clear precedent for a bonus applying to a Shield Slam bull rush attempt. If it is possible for bonuses to be applied to this check, then any bonuses which apply to Bull Rush checks apply.
No. You demonstrated that a magic weapon ability allows adding its bonus on top of normal checks, not that it improved bull rush adds to shield slam. Another way to read the impact ability's statement is "the impact bonus applies on top of whatever the total check would normally be, even if you aren't using a weapon to make the attempt; now here are some bull rush things that use weapons". Bull Rush Strike also doesn't gain the benefits of bull rush specific bonuses, as you use the crit confirmation roll as your CMB check.
To answer the OP, 3 levels of Phalanx Soldier (fighter archetype) will let one use a polearm in one hand as long as you're also using a shield.
This is why I think RAW is clear about what value you use for your check vs CMD.RAW is clear about value gets used for the check. What RAW does not discuss is whether other bonuses specific to the maneuver can be applied. It is not unreasonable to assume that modifers specific to the CM you are attempting would apply. If the Shield Slammer had negative modifiers for a bull rush, I would apply those as well.
This is where you and I are disagreeing, I think. The whole check, not the value used as part of the check, but the whole thing is being replaced. When the rules say check, they mean "roll plus any and all relevant bonuses". This excludes the possibility of adding additional bonuses later.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are asserting that "check", in this case and as an exception to the general rule, means "just the value on the die" or maybe "value on the die plus some bonuses but not all of them". If that is not what you are asserting, then I don't understand your argument.