The search feature did not bring up any obvious result that answered the below question.
The Bull Rush Strike feat states that the movement caused by the bull rush (caused by the critical hit) does not provoke attacks of opportunity. It has Improved Bull Rush as a prerequisite, but not the Greater Bull Rush feat.
If you have the Greater Bull Rush feat as well, then does the movement from the bull rush (from the critical hit) provoke attacks of opportunity?
I would personally say that the answer is somewhat unclear...
Greater Bull Rush means the enemy provokes 'Whenever you bull rush an opponent', but Bull Rush Strike doesn't explicitly say you *actually* Bull Rush the opponent, it says you 'push your opponent back *as if* from the bull rush combat maneuver'.
I personally *think* the intent is that you are *effectively* bull rushing them, so they would provoke...
I would support this by looking at Tripping Strike which uses similar "as if" language and then talks about being able to drop your weapon if you are tripped in the attempt...
If the "as if" didn't mean "treat this as if you were actually making a trip maneuver for all intents and purposes apart from using your confirmation roll for the check", then that text about being tripped in the attempt would be nonsense, since there is nothing in the feat that suggests that being tripped yourself is even a possibility - that only comes in if we decide to follow the rules for making a normal trip combat maneuver.
I can, however, totally see the alternate interpretation. That group of feats is quite poorly written IMHO. Also consider the +2 from Improved Bull Rush and Greater Bull Rush that apply "on checks made to bull rush a foe"... are you making a check to Bull Rush a foe, or are you primarily making a check to confirm a crit, with the "push your foe back" being a possible side effect? I would let you have the +'s, but not everyone would (especially considering you can already tag on +4 from critical focus and a +1 from anatomist).
Expect table variance.
BTW, the line "this does not provoke an attack of opportunity" (which is also present in the other "[maneuver] Strike" feats) is referring to you not provoking an AOO *from* the opponent (like you would if you tried one of the specified maneuvers without the applicable "Improved [maneuver]" feat).
At least I'm 99% certain it is, lol.
I'd say you definitely get the extra attack, because you're bull rushing the opponent, you're just not using the bull rush combat maneuver to do it.
The feat even says "Normal: You must perform a bull rush combat maneuver to bull rush an opponent" which seems to pretty clearly say that you are bull rushing, just without using the maneuver.
So anything that works on a bull rush works, but anything that specifically interacts with combat maneuver checks does not.
You are certainly bull rushing, you're just not making a roll to bull rush. I think there might be an issue with your own movement from the combination?
"The feat even says "Normal: You must perform a bull rush combat maneuver to bull rush an opponent" which seems to pretty clearly say that you are bull rushing, just without using the maneuver."
That's a good point, which I think pretty much seals the deal.
Laureth wrote: "The feat even says "Normal: You must perform a bull rush combat maneuver to bull rush an opponent" which seems to pretty clearly say that you are bull rushing, just without using the maneuver."
That's a good point, which I think pretty much seals the deal.
But that means a Halfling can use Bull Rush Strike to do an end-run around the Size Restrictions on Bull Rush, since it is only the Bull Rush Combat Maneuver, not some other kind of Bull Rush, that has a Size Restriction. The same would apply to Tripping Strike and Shield Slam.
If you allow for non-Bull-Rush Bull Rushes, you allow for getting around the Size Restrictions.
I don't think it is the Intent of the Designers that Bull Rush Strike nor Shield Slam should be a way for a Halfling to Bull Rush a Rhinoceros. I think the conservative interpretation here is that those special Bull Rushes (and Trips) are true Bull Rushes and Trips with all the Bonuses, Penalties, and Restrictions.
Scott I think we are actually agreeing with you that for all intents and purposes it *is* a Bull Rush, as per the maneuver, with the exception of using the crit roll in place of the normal attack roll.
At least that's what I was driving at.
The point I was making by agreeing with swoosh was that that part confirms in my mind that you are *actually* making a Bull Rush, rather than just pushing the opponent back "as if" making a Bull Rush.
I agree that the size restriction would apply.
I don't entirely agree that *all* the same bonuses and penalties apply... for example the Halfling would normally take a -1 special size penalty to CMB, but CMB simply isn't a factor here since we are using the confirmation roll instead of d20 + CMB + attack roll modifiers.
I can see some people debating whether you get to apply the +2's from Imp. Bull rush and Grt. Bull Rush on top of the confirmation roll. I can also see them debating whether you get to apply +4 from Critical Focus and +1 from Anatomist... I think you can in both cases.
For something like the penalty [Edit: bonus to the DC] for an opponent having more than 2 legs for Tripping Strike, I agree that that should clearly apply... but there is some room for debate... this is what I was saying about the feats could have been better worded.
I'm pretty clear in my mind what the RAI is as far as I am concerned, but if a player were to argue 100% RAW I would have to concede there is at least some grey area in several places here and therefore some possibility I was house-ruling.
I can certainly understand the argument that its not REALLY a Bullrush, it just happens to be mechanically identical to a Bullrush, especially with some of the recent FAQs the PDT has been putting out that effectively say "Ability A and mechanically identical Ability B have different names and are therefore different." I'm open to the possiblity that I could be convinced that, by RAW, you may not apply Greater Bullrush to the movement caused by a Bullrush strike. I would never, however, actually play the game that way. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Yeah, I tend to be extremely careful about making absolute statements these days, due to the way the PDT operate (quite possibly through no fault of their own).
There have been quite a few cases where it seems to me like the RAW said one thing, the probable originally intended RAI by the author in question was (very likely) another, and then the PDT come out with an FAQ which doesn't match either.
That said, I think that the FAQ's tend, on balance, to be correct in terms of how the game *should* work in terms of balance, and I take my hat off to the PDT for doing an overall excellent job in improving the game.
I can only assume they aren't allowed a totally free hand to just make rules changes straight up, in case people who have paid for now inaccurate materials get annoyed.
To me, when writing an *FAQ*, rather than an erratum, if the person writing even vaguely takes into account how the game *should* work, rather than how it *does* work, either by RAW, or by the most reasonable originally intended RAI, then they are doing it wrong. It's not OK to make rules changes while pretending to clarify already existing rules.
I wish they would more often say, "Yeah, we are just going to change that for balance". But that seems vorboten by Paizo policy in most cases.
Therefore, these days, I try to acknowledge any possible reading, no matter how odd, as there is a fair chance that the PDT will decide (generally correctly) that the result of that odd reading is the best thing for game balance, and then justify that via the odd reading, rather than just saying they changed the rules.
I want to reiterate again that PF is IMHO exceptionally well balanced for such a huge rule base, and that I have huge respect for the PDT for that. A lot of SKR's stuff irked me, but really happy with the current devs. It's just the FAQ system and how it sometimes gets "abused" (in my opinion) that drives me nuts. [Edit: I probably shouldn't post after coming back from the pub :P].
It seems hardly the case that if you take Tripping Strike that you might get Tripped by your own Crit Confirmation Roll. It must be the case that the Crit Confirmation Roll is not an attempt to trip.
Tripping Strike wrote: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can trip your opponent, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may knock your opponent prone as if from the trip combat maneuver. Tripping Strike not being an attempt to Trip implies that Bull Rush Strike is not an attempt to Bull Rush. So in neither case would you enjoy the +2 bonuses of Improved or Greater trip of bull rush.
Bull Rush Strike wrote: Whenever you score a critical hit with a melee attack, you can push your opponent back, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the attack. If your confirmation roll exceeds your opponent’s CMD, you may push your opponent back as if from the bull rush combat maneuver. Since Bull Rush Strike would cause the target to be moved "as if from the Bull Rush Combat Maneuver," if the attacker had Greater Bull Rush, then the target would provoke attacks of opportunity from the attacker's allies because if the target had been Bull Rushed Greater Bull Rushed, that would trigger AoOs, so BRS does, too.
However, a target 2 or more sizes greater than the attacker would not be moved by a Bull Rush Combat Maneuver at all, so Bull Rush Strike would not enable you to get around the size restriction, since it still works "as if from the Bull Rush Combat Maneuver."
I think I've been convinced.
A little off-topic, this doesn't speak to Shield Slam. Worded differently,
Shield Slam wrote: 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). The Bull Rush from Shield Slam is an attempt to Bull Rush, and the attack roll is also an attempt to Bull Rush.
Improved Bull Rush wrote: you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. And it does seem that since the size limitation only applies to the Bull Rush (Trip, and Reposition) Combat Maneuver, if a GM disallows applying the bonus from Greater Bull Rush to Shield Slam, it would be only fair if he allowed Shield-Slam-Bull-Rush attempts from a Halfling upon the Tarrasque, also without the Feat Bonuses, but also without Size Penalty, since that, too only applies to the Combat Maneuver Check.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
