SuperBidi's page

Bard was my most played class in previous editions. I won't touch it with a 10ft. pole in 2e.
It's not the Bard I used to know, for so many reasons...

But lots of players like it. To each their own.

Thanks everyone for all your answers. I'm in line with what has been said but I wanted to check I was not alone :)

Superbidi, I was looking at your build since it seemed interesting. As a lizardman, you can't raise cha and dex, so starting with something like STR 2 DEX 3 CON 1 INT -1 WIS 1 CHA 3 ? Or alternate with STR1 DEX 4 CON 1 INT 0 WIS 0 CHA 3?

I used alternate stats.

Ruffian rogues are slightly more armored than a thief rogue. I would not call them heavily armored. Ruffian is like a thug who likes to beat people down. Though nowhere near as effective a thug as a barb, monk, or fighter using strength.

Why don't you grab a Full Plate on a Ruffian Rogue? For Strength based characters it's just so obvious, especially when you speak about optimization.

I don't know how you're matching greatsword fighter damage with Reactive Strike with half-damage from electric arc every other round since you will have to generate panache to do finishers to combine them.

By default, I don't count reactions unless you have a way to trigger them reliably. A Greatsword Fighter doesn't make enough Reactive Strike if no one trips the enemy for them (and if they have to Trip the enemy themselves they lose damage during their round, ending with the same damage output).

And I'm just running the numbers on Citricking's tool. A Finisher does a lot of damage, and the build I've used gives Frightened 2 conditions to enemies. With the occasional Electric Arc, it ends rather well.

"You always have to take electric arc" to be effective type of build

That's not what I've said. You're asking for damage so I show damage graphs and take damage options. But other options exist, Threatening Approach, Timber Sentinel, the game is full of excellent 2-action activities. But as they don't do damage I can't compare them to anything and it just leaves us with a big maybe.

you will have to generate panache

You gain Panache through free actions and reactions now. Using actions to generate Panache is a low level issue.

The example in question was using Aid for an hour. Actively by doing things to assist during the entire time. Not just gathering equipment (preparing), but actually handing the right equipment over at the right time.

Yeah, it's called Aid: You’ll also need to determine how long the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient to help with a task that’s completed in a single round, but to help someone perform a long-term task, like research, the character has to help until the task is finished.

Bolded ;)

Replace "performing surgery" by "doing research" if you really want to stick to RAW to the closest.

Whereas electric arc on the swashbuckler makes them kind of ok. I'm not even sure how good electric arc looks as you level given to get a high proficiency for a save you have to build up a caster stat and often a caster skill to Legendary just to get master casting. That seems a very steep investment to make a class do decent damage.

Since remaster, Innate spells automatically move to Expert at level 12 so the only thing you miss is Master proficiency at level 18 (and you know I couldn't care less about level 18+). And they use Charisma as casting stat which is your secondary stat outside Gymnasts and Rascals. So the investment is just an Ancestry feat. I would really invest in a casting archetype only in an FA environment.

so much easier to see them taking imaginary weapon than Mr. Swashbuckler with his rapier taking electric arc and casting it while in range.

Still, you have no issue seeing a heavy armored Ruffian Rogue despite the extreme difference with the classic image of the Rogue. So I question your lack of imagination in this case. I'm pretty sure you'd have more of it if you were seeing the resulting build as strong.

SuperBidi wrote:

The build I've given is the best Demoralizer in the game, competing with spell-based Fear spells.

Which has little to do with Swashbuckler, and more with the ancestry used.

It's a combo between Swashbuckler and Threatening Approach. I don't see another class able to use it with even half this effectiveness. So it has very much to do with the Swashbuckler.

electric arc as an option does not come from the class and, being one of the strongest cantrips, can offer a strong option for almost any build.

Once again, you miss the synergy with the Swashbuckler class. The excellent Swashbuckler action economy allows it to do the Strike + 2-action cast a spell a lot of classes would love to do.

And "not coming from this class" is a hollow argument. You know many people who speak about the Magus without mentioning Imaginary Weapon? For many classes, optimized builds include grabbing options from elsewhere. Acrobat Archetype fits the Swashbuckler very well for example.

But, as usual, it has to infuse inside the community before people accept it as "natural".

What do you think of this addition to the Finisher tag:

If your finisher misses or critically misses, you can continue to use actions with the attack trait for the remainder of your turn. The finisher tag does not apply to Escape actions with the attack trait.

In my opinion, unless you allow to perform multiple Finishers per round you won't really alter the class much. Non-Finisher attacks with MAP are hardly impactful.

What does the swashbuckler have standing out for them that others cannot do as well or better?

There are a few Swash builds that can't be mirrored by other classes. The build I've given is the best Demoralizer in the game, competing with spell-based Fear spells. Guardian's Deflection is functionally a +2 circumstance to AC to all allies in your reach as long as you keep your reaction (if you want to play an Indiana Jones style Swashbuckler with a whip).

Deriven Firelion wrote:

This seems to be the price for having 10 hit points per level and a better AC than the rogue.

Better AC? Why?

Feats like Flashy Dodge and Charmed Life are good at increasing your defenses (and I won't speak of Incredible Luck). Buckler Dance is a must have (but they have removed the other Stance which is still available in environments where old feats are available). And Opportune Riposte can get an enemy thinking twice before using a third attack. Overall, the Swashbuckler is significantly more defensive, especially once you have the Stance.

That's the point that I talked about since the beginning but I stopped enfasis on it when Firelion ask to focus into DPR (because it was where his player as suffering about).

In my opinion, if you want to get into the DPR maximization as a Swashbuckler, the build would be a thrown build with Chakram with a routine of Dual Finisher + some spell (Electric Arc is easy to grab even if it's not incredible). And you get your Panache with free actions and reactions so you can just spam Dual Finisher and EA. I get to 54 damage at level 20 on 2 targets. So it depends how you value damage on 2 targets compared to one, but that makes some fine damage.

I didn't see Thief also had this one. Thief really has it all, there's such a difference between it and the other Rackets that when people speak of Rogue they just speak of Thief Rogue.

By using Improvise an Activity. Unless you have some other way of running it by RAW. The action is only defined properly in Encounter mode. Also, in Encounter Mode a better choice of activity may be Follow the Expert rather than using Aid at all.

But that is still irrelevant to the discussion of Aid in combat anyway. Point 2 still stands. How Aid works in Exploration mode does not change the rule about penalties not applying in Encounter mode when it is not your turn.

I showed you a clear example of why a penalty during the preparation phase could carry on to the final check. And you're desperately making up things to dismiss it. If that's your point then I think we will stop this conversation now as, from my point of view, you bring strict RAW when it's on your side and you dismiss it when it's against you.

One, that isn't how Aid works during Exploration.

I think I spot a houserule...

So, how does it work during Exploration?

That is still irrelevant. The Aid check is not being made during the Aid preparation action. There is no roll being made to apply MAP to.

Even if you show that you apply MAP to the Aid preparation action, that is not a rules reason to apply MAP to the Aid reaction also.

Let's take 2 examples:

In which of these 2 cases will you apply the penalty?

But I see nowhere that you have given any rule support for applying MAP. Where in the rules does it say that MAP should apply to the Aid reaction?

MAP applies to the preparation action, not the Aid reaction.

Zero Aid checks with Attack Rolls have MAP.

All Aid checks, whether they are Attack Rolls or not, are made when it is not your turn and so by RAW do not have MAP apply. I already quoted the rule for Multiple Attack Penalty that explicitly says that.

I seriously don't understand why that is a difficult rule to read.

And I also explained you why it is flat out wrong. We will run in circle again ;)

It is a discussion with no future because it reflects the difference in experiences.

Ok, no problem ;)

As a side note, you didn't comment my build showing what I consider a good approach in building a Swashbuckler (but you were posting at the same time, so you may have missed it).

It's much closer to what I consider the Swashbuckler role: A mix of damage, tanking and support. And that's why I find the comparison with a pure damage dealer Rogue rather unhelpful.

In practice this is very very rare.

I tend to disagree. Anyway, that'd be a gigantic post to respond to an enormous one, I'm not sure anyone but us is interested in such a conversation inside a Swashbuckler discussion. If you want to have it, you can PM me.

But it does need to be on a case by case basis.

Taking the abilities I've linked as examples, are there some you'll refuse?

To illustrate my philosophy with the Swashbuckler and going into Deriven's direction of not taking any Dedication, here's a simple level 1 Swashbuckler:

Takss, Braggart Swashbuckler Frilled Lizardfolk Tax Collector
Str +0, Dex +4, Con +1, Int +0, Wis +1, Cha +3
Feats: Flashy Dodge, Bone Magic
Cantrips: Electric Arc

Classic first round is Threatening Approach (Move + Panache + Demoralize for Frightened 2) + Finisher.
Flashy Dodge as a Reaction.
Classic subsequent round when Flashy Dodge worked: Finisher + Electric Arc.

In terms of damage, if I add both rounds, it's equivalent to a Greatsword Fighter making 2 attacks during 2 rounds. In terms of debuff, it Demoralizes with a maxed out (+7) Intimidation bonus for Frightened 2 (which I think we can all agree is a significant debuff). In terms of tanking, between the Frightened condition and the +2 from Flashy Dodge, it's also very good.

I think this build overshadows most martials at level 1.

That's what I want to show by stating a Swashbuckler needs an impactful 2-action activity. With the proper ability, I don't see the Swashbuckler as a subpar martial. But for that you need quite some system mastery, it's hard to get the best out of such a good action economy. The Swashbuckler is, in my opinion, one of the hardest classes to build and play.

PS: I always wanted to play a Frilled Lizardfolk but never managed to find a suitable build. I think I finally got one! Don't steal my Takss in PFS!

Sorry for the necro, but I didn't see the point of creating a new thread when this one already exists.

I wonder how you, as a GM, would react to a player asking to use an Exploration Activity similar to Defend but with feats similar to Raise a Shield, among others:
- Twin Parry
- Extravagant Parry
- Hydraulic Deflection
- Ceremony of Protection
- Flowing Palm Deflection
- Defend Summoner

I made a comparision with PF2Calculator and the DPR difference between rogue and swashbuckler become huge when rogue get Precise and Bloody Debilitations. The advantage of do precision damage in every Strike in tremendous.

I can't edit my previous post as I waited too long.

I made a comparision with PF2Calculator and the DPR difference between rogue and swashbuckler become huge when rogue get Precise and Bloody Debilitations. The advantage of do precision damage in every Strike in tremendous.

I don't think anything can compete with your Rogue. At level 20, 70 damage per round is a good measure of expected damage, 100 when taking reactions into account. Anything beyond that starts to raise one of my eyebrows.

Rogue is a massively damaging class when everything is under control. On the other hand, it has a lot of pain points that can suddenly turn it into a dead weight, especially at the worst moment, ie. when s**t hits the fan. That's why I don't like to use it as a measure of effectiveness as it's a really unreliable class. I prefer to use a good Greatsword Fighter who's damage output is really consistant.

This is an analysis of if the swashbuckler damage is competitive in groups, so this talk of a third action is irrelevant. If that is what is expected of the swashbuckler, they are going to suck.

On that I fully agree with Deriven. Third actions are not impactful enough to shift a build value.

The Swashbuckler asset, like the Precision Ranger and the Monk, is action economy. That's always really hard to judge as it's value is partly GM/table-dependent and otherwise asks for complicated builds.

Yes, but I was focused on that you can describe both action+reaction if you really want to. And as this is the existing mechanics and it isn't really jarring we can do just that and happily continue playing.

Sorry, I didn't understand you were describing the preparation, as "fencing" and "observing" is just what you do while fighting. Hence my answer.

Thus, when the GM decides that the DC 15 check is too easy or permissive and always replaces it they are, in fact, deviating into house rules territory.

When I speak of applying MAP, the only checks I'm modifying are "Aid checks with Attack Rolls while having MAP". So a limited number of checks. Most Aid checks, from my experience, happen outside combat and GMs don't care about modifying the base difficulty in this case.

So none of us is doing anything outside RAW.

The action is "you are fencing with an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". Or "you are observing an enemy and waiting for the perfect moment to strike so that they wouldn't be able to avoid ally's strike". And the reaction is that striking/feinting attempt which results in a check. For example. You could make your own description.

Or "Their shield gets stuck with your weapon and you keep it that way while your ally attacks the enemy" or "you grab the dragon leg for a couple of seconds while your ally attacks". There can be 2 ways of describing it, either focusing on the reaction or on the preparation.

I actually love these sentences: "You’ll also need to determine how long the preparation takes. Typically, a single action is sufficient to help with a task that’s completed in a single round, but to help someone perform a long-term task, like research, the character has to help until the task is finished."

The first one speaks about the preparation duration and the second one, which is supposed to help determine the duration of the preparation, completely replaces the word preparation by help: "The character has to help until the task is finished" when we are speaking of the preparation duration...

The preparation for an ally's attack could be taking swings at the enemy yourself, the reaction is when you make your well timed attack giving your ally a better chance at getting through.

I react, a bit late, at that statement because I think it points out a real issue with Aid.

Aid is a reaction with a preparation phase. But it actually doesn't really make sense. If you are aiding a surgeon during an hour, the preparation is... actually the Aid itself and the Aid reaction represents nothing.

Even in the lockpick example given in the rules, the preparation is the Aid itself and the reaction is meaningless.

And when you Aid an attack, what is supposed to be the preparation? You think: I gonna Aid this attack! How is that supposed to even take an action.

So I think Aid is misleading, which is why there are so many disagreements. If, when aiding your ally attack a foe, you visualize a single action that you perform exactly when your ally attack, then the preparation is meaningless. But if you visualize a process where you badger the opponent for your ally to find the good moment to Strike, then the reaction is meaningless.

I feel that this concept of action + reaction is a balance one. But it's misleading as it isn't clear. In my opinion, they should have removed the reaction as it makes the less sense to me.

Define 'rude'. People tell me that a lot - that I am being rude to them.

Bolding can be read as someone raising their voice and insisting. We are at a point in the conversation where I think everyone has understood the rules, it's not as if they were complicated. So bolding text is not necessary. We have all understood that you want to choose what "hard" means, but we disagree.

Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, use the DC by level table permanently

Aiding to attack a goblin is easier than aiding to attack a dragon. That's just common sense. So there's a real reason to follow a DC progression either through the DC by level table or using the enemy AC - 10 (as I've seen in this discussion).

Explain how that bolded phrase is being used in your position that the GM is allowed by RAW to, for example, decide that MAP applies to the Aid process

Performing an action with a penalty makes the action harder. That's once again common sense.

Their rounds almost always require two actions to attack with with one action used to recover panache and one used to do a finisher combined with the usual movement.

Not anymore. Panache generation can be done with reactions, free actions or carried from one round to the other. So you will have rounds with Panache right at the start and in position to use immediately a Finisher (especially with Flying Blade/Brandishing Draw) and as such left with 2 actions.

Now you're advising the way this class has to be played to be equally effective is some up with some two-action activity that combines casting?

No, I took a damaging spell because it's easy to compare to other options as it deals damage. But any 2-action ability will give the same effectiveness. Unfortunately, there are not that many 2-action abilities, spellcasting is the obvious one, Kineticist Impulses are also excellent and there are a few ancestry specific ones but they are rarely impressive. As for skills, the only one I see asks for high Intelligence :D

90 percent of the damage with you somehow calculating them to use frostbite every round

Every other round, as I don't think you'll have 3 actions every round. Even if, considering the amount of options, you can be pretty close once in the 2-digit levels if you use Flying Blade.

Sometimes I really wonder what you're thinking. Focus on what the class itself can do and imagine that base class must stand on its own with no archetypes. Just the base swashbuckler class.

When I analyze a class, I always look at how it fares when played to its best.

Anyway, you don't have to criticize my approach. You can just say that you don't think this level of optimization should be necessary to play a Swashbuckler, which I fully understand and agree with. Unfortunately, as it's often the case when it comes to complex action economy, Paizo makes good calls when it comes to determining their effectiveness but doesn't really think about the available options to get the most out of them. As of now, the Swashbuckler class really needs high impact 2-action abilities as otherwise you're forced to look for them through Archetypes.

I actually never came back to the Swashbuckler after the remaster, considering the near automatic Panache to be a crime against the spirit of the class. I just took a first look at this new version, and it's much better than it used to be. The near automatic Panache is great, obviously, but the Swash gained a few nice feats, too. With a clear Panache generation, I really find the Swash plays very differently than it used to, you can now count on Panache generation in 95% of the cases and as such can devise much more precise routines.

I just looked at what a Swashbuckler with Psychic Dedication for Amped Frostbite would do compared to a Greatsword Fighter making 2 attacks and the Swash is at 90% of the Fighter damage. So I think the Swash can hold its ground in terms of damage, now. It's not as ridiculous as it used to be.

Dual Finisher with two attacks requires two weapons which not every swashbuckler uses and close targets. It's about on par with Swipe and weaker than Whirlwind Attack when many targets are about.

It's true it requires a specific build but dual weapon Swashbuckler is definitely supported by the class. And it's significantly better than Swipe (Swipe requires targets to be next to each other and asks for 2 actions) and vastly better than Whirlwind Attack which is really usable only with a Giant Barbarian.

And I don't speak about ranged Dual Finisher, as it tends to raise oppositions.

I already stated Bleeding Finisher was an outlier, but there are immune creature and bleed damage is subject to physical resistance.

Definitely, but you have a default Finisher for these targets. It's also interesting to state that Bleeding Finisher works against creatures immune to Precision damage. That's not incredible but Precision builds hate these creatures.

a rogue thief

I think we can both agree the issue is with the Thief Rogue more than with the Swashbuckler. The Thief Rogue is definitely an outlier, even compared to most Rogue Rackets. Comparing anything to the most optimized class/build always lead to disappointments.

What does a swashbuckler look like for damage performance against other damage classes which the swash should be since it is a combination of the two highest damage martials: fighter and rogue.

It's not a high end damage dealer. It is around Ranger, so very average.

I also think it's a complex class to play. As you say, the Rogue attacks, attacks, attacks, etc... It's overall a rather simple class to play (even if it's paper made). But to get the most out of a Swash, you need to perfectly handle the dynamic of your Finisher. With a Routine of generating Panache, Finisher, thumb twiddling, you won't get the most out of a Swash.

But bringing a more effective routine asks for quite some tactical savvyness. If you take for example: "generating Panache, Finisher, generating Panache, new round, Finisher, Timber Sentinel/Imaginary Weapon/whatever". That's a routine that can clearly get your Rogue watching. But to get there, you'll need a very good Swashbuckler player. The strength of the Swashbuckler is in my opinion the same than the Precision Ranger and the Monk: All its damage is concentrated on one action. But most players never manage to leverage anything out of that.

So, to answer your question: Allowing the Swashbuckler to attack after a Finisher is missing the point in my opinion (as your second attack at -5 without the Finisher bonus damage is comparable to a d8 Champion second attack, so nothing you fight for). What you need is a 2-action activity for the rounds where you can start with a Finisher.

The investigator does 5d6 once per round and they made it far easier for remastered investigators to get the Devise a Stratagem as a free action. I see no reason why one additional d6 of damage should lead to such an intense limit on the swashbuckler other than the name "Finisher" which I guess the designer wanted to be a killing blow type of attack.

Sorry, but a Finisher does much more than 6d6 damage. Bleeding Finisher (which is a staple) does 6d6 damage + 6d6 Persistent damage. Dual Finisher allows you to make 2 attacks with no MAP + 6d6 damage. That's a whole lot of damage that could largely justify a second action. And even if Perfect Finisher doesn't exactly increase your damage, rolling twice and taking the best result, especially on an attack with extra damage, leads to crazy average damage output.

The damage issue of the Swashbuckler is mostly a low level one, when you are stuck with Confident Finisher which is far from overwhelming (dealing damage on a miss is kind of stupid, the whole goal of making a Finisher is to hit for high damage, not to get ridiculous damage on a miss).

I agree with Bidi that the only thing that really looks RAW in Aid is the action cost.

The reaction cost. The preparation can take any time, it only "usually" takes an action during your turn. Free action preparation is largely possible, even if no one thinks about it. The GM can also force you to use more than one action to prepare for an Aid.

There's also another thing that is not stated in Aid: The time separating the Preparation from the Aid. For example, if I decide to grab some dirt and throw it at the enemy's face to distract them from an ally, it looks like a valid way to Aid (GM as the final say, obviously, but I can see GMs allowing it). Preparation would be to grab the dirt and Reaction would be to throw it. But there's no need for the Preparation to happen on the same round I throw the dirt, I could even do it before the fight even starts as long as I don't do anything else with my hand.

I could even go further in this direction: There are Alchemical Items like Sneezing Powder, Dark Pepper Powder or Mustard Powder that can replace easily the aforemention dirt, pushing to use Crafting for the skill check to determine the effectiveness of the Aid. A Bestial Mutagenist can easily have 2 hands free for 2 Aid reactions with their best skill without the need for Preparation during the fight. Sick!

That's why I dislike the lack of directions of Aid used during combat. It's so loose players can come up with a bit of everything, leading to extremely different effectiveness and a lot of GM adjudication. Actions you can use in combat must be strictly defined, as players can otherwise find ways to abuse them.

Edit: Thinking more about it, I don't see how I could forbid the aforemention irritating powder trick. It fully follows the rules of Aid so the only thing I could do is to prevent an Alchemist from producing an irritating powder (or give it an abusively high gp cost) which seems silly as it's definitely something Alchemy should provide at an acceptable cost.

Not seeing and acknowledging the clear contrasts with Ready is crazy to me.

But I do. I acknowledge both their similarities and their contrast.

On the other hand, you are still not acknowledging the similarities between Aid and Ready, which is really crazy :)

Ho, more bolded text, great... When you start bolding text, you should wonder if you are still having a real conversation or are just considering the other one to be stupid.

That sounds like a variation of "You are just being rude".

It is. Bolding, as if we were not able to read or understand the rules, is rude. Sorry to state it.

That isn't logic. That is just an attempt to shame someone else into leaving an argument.

I am the one leaving the argument. I don't think there's anything else to add. Which is certainly the reason why you end up bolding text, because rational arguments have run dry. This is just a matter of opinion, of how we envision Aid from the rules as written. Differently. I don't think I can convince you because I understand your arguments, I'm not even sure you think you can convince me.

"Agree to disagree" is the conclusion, even if I think, from the multiplicity of rulings we have seen in this discussion, that there are really a lot of different ways to run Aid. So it's more, in my opinion, an "expect table variation" than just a disagreement between 2 sides.

The GM can adjust the Aid DC to something other than 15... for particularly hard or easy tasks.

Bolding it doesn't make you look good.

All of us are following RAW, which is not hard considering how loose the rules are.

It also made me realize how every table envisions Aid differently, leading to very different ways of adjudicating it. At least, I know I can expect very different rulings around the tables I play with, there was a lesson to get out of this conversation.

SuperBidi wrote:

Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.

Less legitimate and more finagly in your case I'd say.

Disagreeing with you doesn't make my ruling less valid. You're no authority here ;)

What's funny is that there's nearly no RAW to Aid. The only thing that is RAW is the need to use a reaction and the bonus. Besides that, the GM can do whatever they want.

SuperBidi wrote:

If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.

If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.

No wizard gets +3 or +4 by using a bow attack Aid, because they don't reach Master or Legendary in bow.

Yeah, that's why there's a point and a carriage return between the example of the bow and the +3/+4. Because a permissive GM can allow the Wizard to Aid with a Master/Legendary skill, that's completely RAW. And that would be disruptive.

Honestly, outside of combat I employ the idea that if one person in the party can do "The Thing", they will find a way to allow the party to bypass "The Thing" so that actually rolling for Aid isn't needed (because I'm not going to make the rest of the party roll).

The goal is to Aid the character who does "The Thing". Like if you have the Bard making Diplomacy with the king, the Champion can Aid for a +2 (which is not an incredible bonus but at least the Champion doesn't feel bad about having increased Diplomacy alongside the maxed out Bard).

Aid is pretty much an Ad-hoc bonus that unlike most other actions become more impactful as proficiency goes up. And much like ad-hoc bonuses it risks falling into the same traps which GMCore warns about.

I think it's why some people, myself included, are defensive when it comes to Aid. I'm not usually a GM who "blocks" players. But being too nice with Aid can backfire. It's an aspect of the game that is extremely important outside combat but that I'd prefer to keep in check during combat.

The general context I wanted to present with this list, although many will probably question it on several points, is that Aid, even with all its benefits, still falls by default into an opportunity cost where it is only used when the character no longer has something better to use. Penalizing it even more will only penalize these characters even more.

That's not true.

If I take a very simple example: A Wizard who happens to carry a bow and uses their third action to Aid their Greatsword Barbarian player first attack. On paper, it's not the most impressive use of Aid one can think of, it's still as good as the same Wizard with maxed out Dexterity and a fully Runed Bow (including Elemental Runes) making an attack but with no character investment but level.
If this Wizard starts giving a +3, or even better a +4, because the GM is nice it becomes the de facto third action as it now competes with a martial second attack.

At high level, Aid has the potential to really disrupt the game strategy by becoming the single best third action with no competition. All of that at absolutely no character cost.

So I highly disagree when people say it's not disruptive. All it takes is a permissive GM and a bunch of optimizers to turn it into a real high level issue.

Now the fact that it can only be a problem at high level really hides the issue.

I agree the rules let you apply any numerical penalty you want. I don't agree with your reasoning or your contention that the rules are supposed to work that way.

Great!

IMO getting the RAW wrong.

...

As a side note:

The argument is that the Aid roll IS a reaction. Which it is. You don't disagree, do you?

I do disagree. Aid is composed of a Preparation and an Aid reaction. These are 2 actions sanctioned by a single roll. It's not just a reaction, it's more complicated than that.

What a great quantity of Internet ink for... nothing.

Do I want to apply MAP to Aid? Yes, because I see an intent in the rules.
Can I by following the rules? Yes.

So why so much back and forth discussion? We don't read the same intent, which is fine.You won't prove me wrong because you just can't, rules allow me to use my ruling. Both our rulings are legitimate. So we should just agree to disagree.

Rules about using the same skill or being limited to melee range Aid comes from PF1 (and D&D3 before that). I must admit I'm used to these rules and as such continue to use them (they existed because they made sense and as such continune to make sense for me).

Now, it's clear there's not much guidance on how to run Aid. Table variation has to be expected, it'll be much easier around some tables and much harder around others.

As they are two distinct and separate actions, with their own rules, it is not logical to assume that the intent is that they follow the same rules.

Aid specifically indicates that you can add any trait you want to the preparation or the reaction. And most traits are either weird for an aid (Move for example) or useless (all the Linguistic, Visual, etc... are already covered by the fact that the GM is supposed to indicate if you can perform the Aid or not). The elephant in the room is Attack. That's why I use this rule, because I feel an intent that Aid should work like Ready.

Also, I love when some of you use the argument that Aid should work like "other reaction attacks" but then you bring the argument that it shouldn't work like Ready (which is the closest reaction attack to Aid in the game).

Why is Bob the fighter aiding by a reaction 'attack' (which does no damage) harder than Bob the fighter striking by a reaction attack?

It's not harder. The closest rule to Aid is Ready which applies MAP.

I have no issue with people not playing it like that. But my intention is clear and motivated by actual rules. We can disagree, but there's no reason to not understand why I do it.

Why would you do that?

Ok, let's answer that.

So, from that moment on, I don't care about Preparation/Strike/Strike or Strike/Strike/Preparation. As you have performed 2 Strikes during your round you have full MAP and as such the difficulty of the Aid check will be increased to take that into account.

Simple, I just tell the player that an Aid through an Attack will be affected by MAP.

Because this isn't forbidden in the game mechanically and frankly doesn't break anything.

That's where our opinions differ.

While for a melee character Aiding is extremely costly (melee characters lack actions and reactions), for a ranged character it just costs you a third action and a useless reaction. The cost is negligible. If you can do it using an attack roll you also benefit from a bonus that goes automatically up to +3, and even +4 for Fighters (and Gunslingers but they already have Fake out for them). At high level, with the natural action compression archers can gain with Hunted Shot or Flurry of Blows, it's incredible.

On the other hand, it severely nerfs Fake Out, which is in my opinion one of the selling points of the Gunslinger (which is definitely an issue, Gunslingers need some love), and all the feats to Aid (like One For All). And it pushes archers toward some form of "One True playstyle", again a hit on build variation.

So, in my opinion, it significantly impact high level play to the point of being an issue. So, no, I don't allow Aiding a melee attack with a ranged weapon at my table.

The problem there is that it introduces an 'ordering' effect. Strike/Strike/Aid will be much harder than Aid/Strike/Strike, when ideally the order of actions shouldn't matter.

It's a non issue. Either you give the Aid action, in general, the attack trait and Aid/Strike/Strike will see a penalty on your Strikes. Or you consider that you use the MAP at the end of the turn and it also works. Or you just consider that Striking after the Preparation breaks the Preparation (as you are now doing something else than being ready to help).

Applying MAP to attack based Aid doesn't create any problem.

I've noticed that against high AC enemies the swashbuckler damage really drops badly. The fighter is the king martial for dealing with high AC targets. Single big hit classes really have their damage reduced against high AC targets. The Swashbuckler in particularly really suffers with the single big hit strategy.

That doesn't make sense from a statistical point of view. Against high AC targets your damage gets more and more concentrated on your first attack. While a second attack against a same level enemy will deal 55-60% of a first attack average damage, against a level +3 enemy it drops to 40% of a first attack average damage. So the higher the enemy and the less attacks you do, significantly improving big hit martials like Swashbuckler and Magus.

The only classes that don't really suffer from that are Fighters and Gunslingers due to their higher original chances to hit.

So I don't know where you get this impression but there are certainly other factors generating it than concentrating damage on one big hit.

Edit: You answered while I was typing. Opportune Backstab is clearly strong and significantly increase Rogue damage output. But outside classes that have easily triggered reactions, the Swashbuckler should not be sad as other classes are hit more significantly.