Porridge's page

I'd like the Lore skill you get from your background to automatically scale like the skill from the Additional Lore skill feat.

One avenue that should be explored in this regard is simply enlarging the base pool of skills/actions that can trigger things like panache. The gunslinger has the same problem - the pistolero basically has a non-repeatable special reload and vanguard can only shove and nothing else. Adding things like Bon Mot via Diplomacy to Raconteur's Reload or the option to Trip to Clear a Path would do a lot. Sorry about always bringing the gunslinger into this, but it just the class I know the best ^^

I really like this idea. That would add a lot of potential variation to the gunslinger "loops".

On alchemists:

I think a lot of people fixate on the power curve; which is fair; but my biggest gripes with the class (having played it since the game released in a long term campaign 1-15 so far) are:

...

So, what I can conclude is that:
-Early game alchemists need zero cost or renewable resources to do cool things. The difference was night and day before and after perpetual alchemy.
-Due to distributing item bonuses, the alchemists main buffing outlet feels like a treadmill that has no progression through the game. When my table switched over to ABP, alchemical elixirs and the like got homebrewed into becoming status bonuses, which gave an immediate sense of progression; and my allies were a lot more happy to take the mutagens.
-All mutagens should have a built in "off switch"; even if it's just being dismissable; but preferably more like the drakeheart mutagen. Serene Mutagen having something like a "if your roll perception for initiative, roll twice, take the better result" and Cognative Mutagen being like a free action recall knowledge would make these mutagens a lot more useful since you're no longer risking making yourself terrible in combat by taking them.
-The alchemist needs more items that have a wow factor. Right now, they don't have much in the vein of "make your table cheer because you impacted the course of battle in a very dramatic and cool way"
-late game alchemists stuggle with accuracy; with the before mentioned houserule making my quicksilver mutagens status bonuses, my accuracy actually feels pretty good, but I know I would definately be stuggling under the normal rules. Alchemical Alacrity just doesn't work as it stands; and imo should either be turned into making Quick Alchemy a free action or just giving the people what they want and making it master weapon proficiency

I think this is probably the clearest and most level-headed assessment of the State of the Alchemist that I've seen. Kudos!

Really hoping they add optional 3-action economy rules. One of the best in the PF1 Unchained book. Bring it to Starfinder too!

To re-orient a bit:

Suppose I want to create a new magic item for my PCs that grants some underwater abilities, including water breathing and a swim speed. What price and level should it have? We're directed to look at existing items, and use those as our guide. But in this case it's not clear which items to look at.

I haven't finished it yet, but I'm loving Impossible Lands. Great ancestries, with enough page count to make them rich and exciting options; fantastic adventuring locations with a radically different feel from anything else you'll find in the Inner Sea; just all-around great stuff.

I think it's neck-in-neck with the Mwangi Expanse book for my favorite book in the Lost Omens line.

For those of us who already supported the KS for Ultimate Kingdoms, is this the same version? That is, you have not (yet) revised Ultimate Kingdoms for 2nd edition of the Kingmaker campaign, have you?

Thanks, and good luck!
Franklin

It looks like the book called "Ultimate Kingdoms" book is the same PF1/5e book as before.

But one of the add ons is the "Ultimate Rulership" book, which is described as the book that expands upon the PF2 kingdom/mass combat rules.

this class seems to want to be mobile a lot of its impulses are centered on the kineticist and ideally you want to be bouncing around the map to get into position however they don't have the action economy to do this at all, their offensive overflow impulses are all at least 2+1 actions leading to awkward gaps after you reposition since you have a remarkable lack of one action options leaving you nothing to do but blast, which leads us to the second problem.

This is a good point. It's nice to have class design make use of the three action economy, which motivates adding the extra action taxes to the class. But a class that focuses on AOE effects is *already* engaging well with the three action economy by heavily incentivizing spending an action to move before unleashing an AOE.

(This also makes it clear that, as is, cone or line AOEs are a lot less attractive to kineticists then "place a burst wherever you want" AOEs. The former almost always require movement to make work, while the latter generally will not.)

I think one of things that makes combination weapons feel bad in a lot of games (like mine) is the popularity of the ABP optional rules. Since that essentially removes the rune cost for having multiple weapons, it eliminates the big thing combination weapons have going for them.

@Michael Sayre: For people using ABP, do you have any thoughts about what a good house rule might be to make combination weapons more attractive? (Perhaps making the switch between ranged and melee modes a free action that doesn't have the manipulate trait?)

I'd recommend you use color coding to rank various options like many guides do. Makes it easier to read. Love the effort put into this.

I'll second this request. It makes guides much easier to read!

Porridge wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

Tier 1

Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.

According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.

Climbing a harsh cliff can be done with dimension door.

I cleared out an entire obstacle in a chase scene by casting stinking cloud in a crowd to disperse it, no roll needed.

Gravity Well cast twice near a cliff can solve an encounter immediately.

Casting sending for reinforcements, depending on the setting, can effectively nullify an encounter (My annoying bard with sending in Agents of edgewatch proved that often enough!)

Casting locate to find the important thingamagig for this part of the adventure can invalidate the need for an entire sequence that the GM had planned.

If you broaden encounter to not only narrowly encompass combat, then that premise holds true.

I think we're reading the "Tier 1" description differently.

Tier 1

...Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player...

I take the canonical examples of this to be the many 1-trick pony builds of PF1. For example, the uber-grapple monk build who just grapples and pins every other opponent, or the slumber-hex Witch, who puts them asleep for a coup de grace, etc. These are builds with one mechanical trick that can dominate many encounters, even if the players are playing on auto-pilot and barely paying attention.

I agree that in PF2 there are some non-combat encounters that clever players can solve with the appropriate spell (or alchemical tool). But this isn't a case where players who are barely paying attention can dominate many encounters using the same mechanical trick over and over again.

Tier 1

Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better or on par with classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels.

According to this, a necessary condition for being a Tier 1 class is "often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player". I don't know of any class in PF2 that can often solve level-appropriate encounters solo, to say nothing of solving them with a single ability and little thought. That by itself would seem to ensure that no PF2 class is Tier 1.

I’m hoping for some extra Gadgets. It would be great to get an expansion of the Inventor options.

It’s also my understanding that 2e doesn’t have any adventure paths widely regarded to be straight-up D-tier the same way 1e did with things like Second Darkness, Serpent’s Skull, or Council of Thieves.

Though the first book of Serpent's Skull was really good - probably my favorite first book of any AP.

The party needs another martial (to flank with the thief), and a tank of some kind. So a Champion would be the natural choice. (As well as an excellent class to pick for this AP.)

Top 3:

Gunslinger
Swashbuckler
Magus

Bottom 3:

Alchemist
Witch
Oracle

I tend to like classes that require you to cleverly juggle your action economy, and which feel really effective when you do.

I tend dislike classes which seem to have brute drawbacks you can't cleverly work around, or classes which tend to seem like strict downgrades compared of other classes.

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

It works with a Jezail even in 2handed mode because it is technically a 1handed firearm.

That's not how it works. Handedness in PF2 is determined by the number of hands being used to wield the weapon. So if you're using a jezail in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon and you can't use any options that require you to be using a firearm one-handed until you're back to wielding it in one hand. If you use a dagger in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon for the purposes of feats and abilities that require a two-handed weapon, as laid out on pages 279-280 of the CRB. When determining the handedness of a weapon, the two questions are just "What's the minimum number of hands used to wield this" and "How many hands am I currently using to wield it?"

Very helpful clarification!

By the way, should we read this as clarifying whether a pistolero can draw a Jezail when they roll initiative (Ten Paces), and be ready to use it 2-handed? (A) The minimum number of hands you need is 1, and (B) the number of hands you’re using when you activate Ten Paces is 0… which would suggest you can?

Or perhaps the two clauses you mentioned don’t settle this case, since the question isn’t whether you can *draw* it (you can, since it’s a 0/1 handed weapon according to the above confitions), but whether you can choose to come to be holding it in its 2-handed stance…

The smallest mech frames (which are Huge) allow for 1-2 pilots. So piloting one solo is definitely an option.

A Mechanic with the Experimental Armor Prototype alternate class feature would be my first guess.

If you really wanted to hit the "overwhelmingly powerful" angle, you could use the Starfinder Mech rules, and stat out the Glitter Boy as a kind of mech. But I think the smallest mechs are Huge, whereas the Glitter Boy seems like it'd only be Large.

Very nice guide!

It might be worth mentioning the Intuitive Cooperation and Helpful Halfling feats for the Halfing Ancestry, since this is a pretty nice boost for Aid-focused Wit Swashbucklers. (I'd also be inclined to make Halflings blue for Wit Swashbucklers.)

Will there be any changes/revisions to the AP? (Like in the Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne compilations?)

My five favorite depictions were:

The Devourer
Oras
Nyarlathotep
Pharasma
Triune

With Eloritu getting an honorable mention.

There weren't any depictions that I hated, though the art for Iomedae and Sarenrae looked a little funny to my eye.

Yeah, I love the cantrips in Galactic Magic - Adhere, Misfire, and Stumble (and maaaaybe Psychokinetic Shove?) do a lot to make a non-weapon focused spellcaster a viable option.

I'll second the Champion (Paladin or Redeemer) suggestion. Since you have a relatively squishy party, a Champion is a great tank to hold the front line. It's also a great way to protect other members of the party (with your champion reaction). And a number of the Champion feats work particularly well in this AP. Finally, it adds a lot of value by providing your party with a permanent source of between encounter healing (lay on hands).

EDIT: I don't want to spoil anything, but I'll flag that Blade Ally is what I'd recommend for this AP - it's really, really useful.

Does Spell Sergeant or any of the other methods of improving spell damage not work with scaling cantrips?

That's a good question. If you *did* allow the Spell Sergeant bonus to stack with the scaling cantrip damage, though it looks like a Spell Sergeant's cantrip damage would be almost exactly the same as a Longarms weapon of the same level. (Running some quick numbers against Laser Rifles, the cantrip would be 1 point ahead at L6, 1 point ahead at L9, 1.5 points behind at L13, and 0 points ahead at L17.)

So that looks pretty balanced, actually.

Here's another way to assess the scaling cantrip option, comparing them directly to pistols. Using the standard line of laser pistols as our point of comparison for EAC cantrips, we find that:

Level 1-5: Pistol (Azimuth) is ahead by 1 point (on average).
Level 6: Pistol (Corona) is ahead by 3.5 points (on average).
Level 7-8: Pistol (Corona) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 9: Pistol (Aphelion) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 10-11: Pistol (Aphelion) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 12: Pistol (Perihelion) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 13: Pistol (Perihelion) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 14: Pistol (Parallax) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 15-16: Pistol (Parallax) is ahead by 0 points (on average).
Level 17-18: Pistol (Zenith) is ahead by 2.5 points (on average).
Level 19-20: Pistol (Zenith) is ahead by -2.5 points (on average).

So the scaling cantrip is around 0-2.5 points of damage behind the corresponding laser pistol for pretty much one's entire career. Given that laser pistols are expensive and cantrips are free, this seems like pretty good scaling to me.

Aaron shanks said that it's fake on a Reddit thread.

Link here.

Xenocrat wrote:

I thought the downside to accessing the scaling cantrips was that they're still not good enough to replace a pistol?

That's unfortunate.

Two thoughts about the cantrip option.

1. Unlike on-level pistols, they're free. So if you stick to cantrips, you get a huge chunk of change you can spend on other things.

2. The damage is pretty comparable to that of a Vanguard taking the Entropic Shot alternate class feature (which makes the entropic strike ranged). Focusing on EAC-targeting cantrips, their damage compares as follows:

Levels 1-4: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 0 points
Level 5: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 1 point (on average)
Level 6: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 4.5 points (on average)
Levels 7-8: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 2 points (on average)
Level 9: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 5.5 points (on average)
Level 10-11: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 3 points (on average)
Level 12: Vanguard's Entropic Shot is ahead by 6.5 points (on average)

So it's only a smidge behind the Vanguard's Entropic Shot, and the Entropic Shot is one of the Vanguard's major class features. All in all, it looks like a viable option to me.

Here are the chapters:

Table of Contents
Preface
1 Prayers for the Living
2 Hymns for the Dead
3 The Grim Crypt
4 Lands of the Dead
5 March of the Dead
Appendix

I'll show an image of the ToC in Paizo LIVE in late February as motivation to subscribe. :)

"March of the Dead".

That's not ominous at all...

StarlingSweeter wrote:

Are equipment loadouts/character build examples useful to you? Do you like it when guides go through all published character options (like ancestries and backgrounds) or do you prefer they give some generalizations to keep it readable?

Only include the ones that are noteworthy. Equipment/Ancestry/etc that has a specific synergy (or non-synergy) with the class. Especially ones that may not be obvious. For example pointing out that Barbarian doesn't do well with mounted combat (Rage + Command an animal don't mesh well), or that Monk Monastic Weaponry, Bo Staff, and Tangled Forest Stance make a useful combination.

I'll echo Castilliano and breithauptclan here, and say that guides are definitely one place where "less is more" can apply. If a guide spends a couple pages focusing on ancestries that mesh well with the class I'll skim through the section for interesting suggestions; if it spends 40 pages covering every ancestry I'll skip it entirely.

I love pretty much every entry in this book.

But Ainamuuren might be my favorite. It just lends itself so naturally to a free-archetype 20-level campaign, where players get the Pactbound Initiate archetype as they agree to share the burden of the pact with the Ainamuuren. So many ways to go with this, from helping in low-level ways (finding other volunteers, helping to search for others of their species, keeping their existence and location hidden from potentially nefarious powers) and high-level ways (confronting high level agents seeking to break the pact and unleash the evil within, or even facing the evil itself).

Congratulations Mark!

And as sad as I am that Mark is leaving Paizo, this sort of thing is good for people working in the industry. The more talent poaching via salary increases goes on, the higher the expected pay for the people who work there.

My apologies. I didn't realize how long that ended up being.

As a side, I just had a thought. Would anyone else be interested in seeing this sort of book continued, but about specific groups of monsters? They could do a book themed around say Dragons or undead, and give detailed information on a number of the most well known examples alongside heavy lore. And I don't mean simply your run of the mill examples, but incredibly unique or powerful creatures, or those bearing names or heavy ties to Golarions lore.

Some examples could be Daughters of Urgathoa in an undead book, or Daralathxl, Sixth King of the Five Kings Mountains in a dragon book. And the dragon book wouldn't be restricted to just true Dragons, but draconic creatures in general.

Sort of a spiritual successor to books like Undead Revisited or Dragons Unleashed.

I would!

This book was fantastic. I'll just repeat what I said in the product thread:

Wow. I was not expecting to like this book as nearly as much as I did. I thought this might be a mini-bestiary, or something. I didn't expect 20 sketches for homebrew APs! Mix that with amazing, evocative descriptions, juicy stat blocks, and some interesting player options, and you get an amazing book. My favorite "short" Lost Omens books so far.

Kudos to the authors, developers, editors, and everyone else involved!

keftiu wrote:

Mewzard wrote:

Out of curiosity, what's the highest CR Monster in the book?

Fafnheir is level 24.

Thanks!

Guess my dream of some horrifying CR30 monstrosity will have to wait.

Any Great Wyrms yet? Last I saw, we were still peaking with Ancient Dragons.

Well, there is an entry for a class of monsters too powerful to get stats (the book flatly states that level 15-20 characters aren't powerful enough to deal with them)...

Wow. I was not expecting to like this book as nearly as much as I did. I thought this might be a mini-bestiary, or something. I didn't expect 20 sketches for homebrew APs! Mix that with amazing, evocative descriptions, juicy stat blocks, and some interesting player options, and you get an amazing book. My favorite "short" Lost Omens books so far.

Yes, that’s my reading. If you have Sword and Pistol, the tanged attack part of Stab and Blast won’t provoke.

I really like the Mechfinder rules. A real Battletech feel to it. And I really like how it gives a lot more weight to the size of mechs — it seems like this should be a huge deal, power-level wise, but in the Tech Revolution rules buying a larger mech doesn’t change much. (In fact, it generally seems like a downgrade, power-level-wise.)

Thanks for all the help. With unexpected Sharpshooter available, I might go

2: Unexpected Sharpshooter
4: Lucky Escape
6: Sniper's Aim
8: Unbelievable Luck
10: I meant to do that
12: Chain reaction

Would this be better or would I shoot myself into the foot?

Fake Out is really good. It’s a use for your reaction that you’ll get to use every turn. And it’s a good use. So (IMO) it’s hard to pass up.

(It won’t work if you’re hidden, though, so if you’re planning on being hidden a lot, you can skip it.)

Recent discussions have made it clear how little Paizo's staff/freelancers make, and how difficult it is to increase how much they're paid given the current pricing of products. So I, for one, am very happy to hear about the price increase!

I want to thank to KC for her great post here.

This is a really careful, thoughtful, and genuinely helpful response to a really tricky and hard to answer question (at least one that I'd struggle to offer an informative answer to). I think having something like this spelled out in the forum guidelines would be fantastic. But in the meantime, I've added it to my list of "to remember" posts, so I can link to it next time this question comes up!

This is a Hong Kong-style 2-weapon “gun” monk build, constructed around the idea of punishing anyone who targets them. Leap and Fire allows free attacks at anyone who makes ranged attacks against them, and Jellyfish Stance and Opportunist allows free attacks against anyone who tries to engage them in melee combat.

Build 16: Unapproachable

Porridge wrote:

The big outlier here seems to be [2]. [2] hasn't been addressed at all. I realize there are confidentiality issues here, but there hasn't even been a statement of the form "we can't talk about this publicly, but the circumstances of some recent employee departures are being investigated, and corrective action will be taken".

I'll just leave this here as looks like it only appeared a few days ago and not everyone might be aware of it:

https://ko-fi.com/charmedneedle

I think every post in this thread and every unionize hashtag on twitter should cost a donation to Sara's Ko-Fi.

Thanks for sharing this!

To help me sort out my feelings about all of this, it's been helpful for me to go back to the list of demands offered by #PAIZOACCOUNTABILITY:

[1] * Paizo needs to hire a whistleblower/arbitration company.
[2] * Said company must investigate Sara Marie's wrongful termination.
[3] * Executives need to be held accountable and investigated
[4] * Executives need to enter good faith negotiations with their employees
[5] * Salaries need to be posted and raised; some employees live below the median living wage in Seattle

So here's how things currently seem to stand with respect to these demands:

[1]: This announcement seems to meet demand [1].

[2]: This doesn't seem to have been addressed in this announcement or any other.

[3]: This announcement seems to meet the first half of this demand - the "investigated" part. The other half - the "held accountable" - is pending investigation, and so falls in the "we'll have to wait and see" category.

[4]: The voluntary recognition of the union seems to meet demand [4].

[5]: This issue is going to depend on how things go with negotiations with the union. So this also falls in the "we'll have to wait and see" category.

So Paizo has met 2.5 of the 5 demands, and 1.5 of the demands are in the "we'll have to wait and see" category - demands which they would need more time to meet, and might meet, but haven't met yet. So with respect to [1] and [3]-[5], Paizo's actions make me cautiously optimistic.

The big outlier here seems to be [2]. [2] hasn't been addressed at all. I realize there are confidentiality issues here, but there hasn't even been a statement of the form "we can't talk about this publicly, but the circumstances of some recent employee departures are being investigated, and corrective action will be taken".

So for the most part I guess I'm feeling cautiously optimistic. (Which is not to say other people should feel the same - I'm speaking only for myself here.) But the glaring omission on *anything* about [2] is disappointing.

I *think*(?) the Brawling Focus feat granted to the Bullet Dancer was probably intended to grant critical specialization effects for bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms? (Or, alternatively, that the Bullet Dancer Dedication feat was supposed to allow you to treat bayonets, reinforced stocks, and simple firearms as Monk weapons, which would yield the same result.)

As is, the Brawling Focus feat doesn't seem to do anything for someone in the Bullet Dancer Stance (which requires you to only make strikes with one of those three weapons).

★ What do you think is the best way to use a gun sword or other combination weapons, as they are? What rulings/edits would you make for their use, if any?

Interesting question. Here's my 2 cents.

The gun part of the Gun Sword is pretty good -- it's basically a Harmona Gun (which is roughly tied with the Arquebus for the highest expected damage firearm) with one less die-size of damage (d8 instead of d10). That's just 1-4 points of expected damage (depending on the Striking Runes), which is a pretty small decrease.

The sword part of the Gun Sword is more "meh". If the gun part of the Gun Sword is one step down from the best 2-handed firearms, the sword part of the Gun Sword is two steps down. It's a decent fallback melee option for a character with high strength (or for someone with special abilities pertaining to combination weapons) but it's definitely a fallback option.

Putting that together, I think the Gun Sword is going to be best used by:

(1) a ranged weapon specialist (since that's the best part of the Gun Sword)

(2) who is going to be near enough to their targets to make melee engagement a possibility,

(3) who also has a reason to invest in Strength as their second-highest stat,

(4) and who has the ability to take advantage of special combination weapon properties.

The Vanguard Gunslinger satisfies (1)-(4) -- they're a gun specialist, they want to stay close to the action to use their melee-range special abilities, they want a high Str to do Athletics maneuvers, and they have access to Stab and Blast, which is pretty good. So they're one optimal user.

The Fighter can also satisfy (1)-(4) -- they can specialize in guns, pick up some of the sweet melee abilities to keep melee an attractive option, and still want a high Str to use some of these nice melee abilities. They can also use the critical fusion ability of the sword without having to take an archetype or anything.

So it looks to me like those are the two prime contenders for best Gun Sword users.

Now, whether a Gun Sword is a better option than (say) a Harmona Gun with a bayonet is harder question. The latter is a slightly better ranged weapon, but (arguably) a slightly worse melee option (d4 instead of d8). That said, it's not clear the Gun Sword's melee advantage is that big - the Bayonet is finesse, which will give you a bit of a to-hit boost for half of your career, and the Bayonet allows you to switch from ranged to melee options without having to spend actions, or potentially triggering AOOs. All-things-considered, I'd probably favor the Harmona Gun+Bayonet option, but it's not an obvious call.

As far as alterations go, I'd be tempted to allow combination weapons to switch between melee and ranged uses as a free action instead of an Interact action. This would make the Gun Sword a firmly better melee option relative to the Harmona Gun+Bayonet, to balance off the fact that the Harmona Gun+Bayonet is a firmly better ranged option. But that's not to say it's clearly imbalanced as is.

@Porridge

I think you misread my post (or I wrote it badly). I'm not considering going Alchemist Dedication. I'm thinking about how valuable the Munition Crafter feats, Alchemical Shot and Shattering Shot are.

Still, it's good to know that your assessment of those feats are similar to mine. Thanks!

But I'm not going near that tool. I don't have the mental capacity to learn using it right now.

I somehow misread that part of your post, and slipped into thinking you were considering the same thing I was (whether an Alchemist dip is worth it). My apologies!

I've never really played or played alongside a ranged character in PF2 so far so I'm a bit at a loss. How many special attacks are too many? Is occasionally hitting weaknesses really worth the misfire chance (and losing our on the additional +2 attack from Sniper's Aim)?

Regarding particular feats it's worth considering, here are some thoughts:

I think Called Shot is a nice tool to have in your kit, as it gives a lot of situational abilities it can be nice to have: a way to debuff spellcasters, a way to help the party kite an enemy, a way to help your tank survive a terrifying melee opponent, and so on.

As I mentioned above, Penetrating Fire is a nice situational option too when facing multiple enemies. And since the opponents only have to be in a line (not adjacent), it's not even that situational if you have a good move speed.

Flesh Wound is a nice feat in that it's basically a strict upgrade to a basic ranged Strike. So if you're going to be making those, it's nice. But it conflicts with any other kind of strike - Sniper's Aim, Vital Shot, Penetrating Shot, Rapid Reload, etc. So if you're planning on using those other options, it's not worth it.

I think Alchemical Shot over Sniper's Aim can be worth it. Using the calculator, gainst an on-level enemy with a weakness you're targeting, the Alchemical Shot looks to yield an expected damage that's about 5 points higher than Sniper's Aim (using an Arquebus as the base weapon) during the mid-level range. That's decent increase, percentage-wise (about 30% at level 10). This doesn't factor in the chance of misfires, though, which makes the comparison more complicated. And, of course, if you need some energy damage to stop regeneration or something, Alchemical Shot is really good.

The other "special shot" feats available to an Arquebus user, like Trick Shot and Ricochet Shot, seem pretty niche to me; I think I've gone through campaigns without a situation where either would be useful. So unless you have reason to think your campaign will make these situations come up a lot, I'd be inclined to give them a pass.

★ What exactly is the default/expected stat build and playstyle of Vanguard? Did I hit the mark that it's Strength for Clear a Path/Blast Tackle, but mostly Dexterity for shooting, and getting into the thick of things just to stand, shoot, and push people around when they get close?

Regarding expected builds, here's a Vanguard Gun Sword build posted by the developer:

Orc Lawbringer

And here's another Vanguard build by the developer (wielding a different weapon):

Dwarven Gun Tank

So my hunch is this is the sort of thing they had in mind.

I thought about getting the Gunslinger's various Alchemy feats.

This drifter build mixes melee and ranged combat, using reach weapons to use Reloading Strike without provoking Attacks of Opportunity. Out of combat, she’s an expert at finding and disabling traps, haunts, and other hazards, and is capable of swimming, climbing, and leaping through almost any obstacle. (At level 20 she has a Climb and a Swim speed, and can Fly 1/day.)

Build 14: Tomb Raider