Raging Throw - Interpretation

[TorresGlitch]

Thanks for taking your time to look into this.
I've been all over the bullrush feats and paths in pathfinder lately and have now returned to the feat "Raging Throw".
I can see how the feat works in 2 ways. But can't tell for sure whether either is correct.
________________________________

Raging Throw
You expend some of your rage to throw one opponent at another.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Con 13, rage class feature, Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: While raging, when you attempt a bull rush combat maneuver, you can spend 1 additional round of your rage as a swift action to add your Constitution bonus on your combat maneuver check to the bull rush.

Further, if you bull rush an opponent into a square another creature occupies or into a solid object, the opponent and the creature or object take bludgeoning damage equal to your Strength modifier + your Constitution modifier.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/ultimateCombatFeats.html
______________________________

I've devided the feat texts in 2, making it easier of understanding how the second ability might not be part of the action of applying the swift action.
The Swift action do enable you to apply your Con bonus to your Bull Rush, but is it required for the damage?

Can the second part of the text be considered passive?
(while the first part requires activation?)

[TorresGlitch]

The text doesn't say:
"If 'this' bull rush push an opponent into a square another creature occupies or into a solid object, the opponent and..."
The text stays vague with the words:
"Further, if you bull rush an opponent into a square another creature...

[Prof. Löwenzahn]

Sorry to bring this up, but since there was no answer so far...

RAW I would agree to say the second part is always in effect. It would otherwise say "when you use this ability and bull rush an opponent..."

Anyone has further evidence or different opinions?

Itˋs kind of important for ragers that have other swift action abilities to use before adding CON to the bulll rush

[Warped Savant]

Thread Necromancy!

Does anyone currently have any thoughts on this one?
I can see it either way. What do you all think?
Can you gain the benefit of the damage mentioned in the second half without spending the round of rage mentioned in the first half?

A link to the AONPRD entry is HERE

[avr]

For a rando's opinion - both interpretations are completely viable RAW. There's no chance of determining RAI at this point. All that remains is determining which way it's better balanced.

If you're spending a lot of feats - more than a barbarian has until about L9 barring multiclassing - then this could let you repeatedly shield slam an enemy into another enemy (/wall/tree) behind them when the battlefield's set up right. I actually think the damage could get unreasonable when you're adding Str and Con bonuses to damage again on every attack with your dual dwarven warshields or whatever. If such setup seems easy in your experience then you need to make the swift action apply to both halves of the feat.

[Warped Savant]

That's what I was thinking, AVR, thank you.
My campaign is 13th level right now, Unchained Barbarian (skinwalker wereboar-kin) currently has (among other things): Knockback (in which he replaces his last natural attack with a full CMB bull rush), Spiked Destroyer (swift action to attack with armor spikes after bull rushing), Painful Collision (damage when you bull rush enemy into another enemy), Greater Bull Rush (moving enemy via bull rush provokes AoO against the enemy)... So adding Raging Throw is more damage stacked on top of everything else. A lot of resources put into bull rushing, but able to do a whole lot of damage by replacing an unlikely to hit, low damage natural attack to do a bull rush that ends up with a whole lot of damage.

Raging Throw reads like it could be either way, and it's flat-out better than Painful Collision which makes me think it should require the swift action, but it's also limited to characters than can rage so it's more restricted so maybe it's more powerful than Painful Collision on purpose.

[Agénor]

Like the readers of years ago, I think each of the two parts stands alone. Sentence analysis shows each of them is logically sound and there is a full stop between them. Moreover, the style is coherent with the rest of the rules when they create two separate effects rather than develop one further.
Assuming the writer cares a bit about syntax, which s/he did given her/his occupation, I think it was deliberate.

Yes, when it applies, it is a powerful feat. Good, it means it was well thought^^

In short, to add damage, only having the feat is needed, raging isn't even needed. The Swift Action while raging to spend a round of Rage is only for the bonus to performing the Maneuver.

[ShadowcatX]

The OP put in a break where there is none in the text. Furthermore, sentences that start with words like "furthermore" are referencing back to what preceded them. Lastly if this bonus damage stood on it's own why would they do that and not simply start a new paragraph and start with "if you bullrush?"

That said I think the idea of the feat is good and I don't believe a few extra points of damage in fairly specific circumstances are game breaking. And I would love to play with a character who is routinely doing this, so while I believe RAW and RAI would not have it apply I would probably give it the nod provisionally. But then again I prefer spheres and the brute sphere's hammer is very close to this so a version of this already exists (without a stupid high number of prerequisites).

[Agénor]

ShadowcatX wrote:

The OP put in a break where there is none in the text. Furthermore, sentences that start with words like "furthermore" are referencing back to what preceded them.

I've used «Moreover» in the exact same fashion^^, to show a case where these transition words are style, not substance.