Exhaltia's page

The rules arguing on a buckler is silly, the way you're ruling, i.e. RAW, was meant to make the buckler the most versatile shield not least. Any decent DM would say that restriction doesn't actually apply in this case. If you're the DM in your game make the rule, but I feel sorry for the players having to deal with that non-sense.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

James,

Ugh.. these rules are giving me a headache. It is so terribly poorly put together. This is quickly rising to the top of the list of things I had cleaned up in Pathfinder.

Jason

Jason,

First thanks for the answer to mine and a lot of other questions.

Second I think that this mess really is a nice place to have the dev team's full touch and look forward to what comes from it.

Lastly, on the order for TWF and 'descending order' for BAB.. I've often wondered if there was a real reason for this rule, if the reason is now outdated, and if it's even known at this point. I would think that letting someone take one weapon's iteratives before the other weapon's top attack would invalidate most of what I see as the potential mechanical reasons for it. Regardless, it seemed like a thing to question as rules shouldn't exist just because they 'always' have.

Best of luck with all of this, and thank you again,

James

I believe the reason for this rule is not about this rule, but about other parts of the game that this balances. For instance True Strike is the one that jumps out right away.

True Strike- You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.

If you could choose the order in which the attacks happened you should choose your worst first since it would then get a +20 to the attack roll.

On the other hand; that would make true strike significantly more useful.