SuperBidi's page

"Tut-tut!"

Herr Doktor stops the Pathfinder who was going to take Urxhel's fingers. He gathers the blood on them in a small vial and extract pieces of godly muscles with an enormous smile on his face.

"Now, you can take it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bane o' Urxehl. I like it," he says with a smile and a tip of the jaunty green hat. "But gents, I've got a rendezvous to make, so I'll be seein' you all around!" he finishes as he swaggers out.

Herr Doktor slips a vial in Cal's hand as he leaves the room.

He can read on the flask: "GODLY power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Possible aftereffects: blindness, massive loss of blood, shrivelling member, painful death, lobotomization, demigod quintuplets."

I second YuriP, Evolution Surge is excellent, definitely an asset of the Summoner. I've used it a lot and it's super handy.

I shouldn't have been snarky like that. Sorry.

Don't worry, no harm done.

I just disagree with you so much on your basic point. Kineticists are a fine class.

Well, we will certainly agree to disagree on that. Whether it's a question of expectations or experience, we didn't come to the same conclusion.

Versatility has huge value and it can often be overlooked.

Definitely. I'm a great proponent of versatility. But I find the Kineticist doesn't embody versatility at all, I consider it one of the most specialized class in the game. For me, it's literally a few-trick poney.

So I think our disagreement comes from something deep, on the very meaning of versatility in the context of PF2.
Anyway, I won't disrupt this conversation more than that. If people like the Kineticist, it's great. To each their own!

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Where do you get the part about not actually being a generalist from?

The Kineticist can:

Things the Kineticist can't really do:
- Single target damage. Your AoE Impulses are actually more damaging than your single target Impulses. Obviously, you can deal single target damage through AoE Impulses but they don't carry the expected damage of a single target damage dealer.
- Heal. Medic Dedication is just straight up better and accessible to everyone. The only thing you do is out of combat healing.
- Control (besides walls). The Kineticist has access to a lot of control Impulses but they are for the biggest part just plain bad.
- Skills. Worst class in the game for skills.

Another problem of the Kineticist is the cost of being a jack of all trades. First, Impulses are your main weapons and focusing more on utility than offense is not really a good choice. Also, offensive Impulses age badly so you need to use your top level Impulses for offensive options.
And then there's the "element" issue. It's great to be able to do a lot of things but each of these things are limited to a few elements. And grabbing new elements takes time (levels), and comes at an actual opportunity cost: not getting a junction.
So before very high levels, the Kineticist is nowhere close to a jack of all trades. And even at high level it hardly competes with a caster. The Kineticist is a few-trick poney.

Other than the much-lauded +1 to attack, what else makes the Bard (or indeed, any other class) a serviceable generalist?

I don't consider the Bard a Generalist. Bard is first and foremost a buffer/debuffer. There are much more versatile classes in the game.

PS: I very often see players mistaking specialized characters for versatile ones. Having the potential to do a lot of things is not enough to be versatile, you need to be able to do these things "simultaneously".

Kineticist, Animist and prepared casters are not versatile. They can, on paper, do a lot of things. But they are mutually exclusive: If you prepare a spell then you don't prepare another one, if you choose one Apparition you don't have another one, if you take an Impulse you don't have another one. The end result being that at a specific moment, your actual choices are limited. And having limited choices is not exactly the definition of versatility.

On the other hand, the Summoner is versatile. It can deal martial damage, cast spells and use skills, and these are not really exclusive, it can do all of them always. And because it has more actions than other classes it can actually do them simultaneously. Which is why the Summoner is, in my opinion, the undisputed most versatile class in the game.

The kineticist is a jack of all trades, and a master of none.

The Kineticist can hardly be called a jack of all trades. It's mostly an AoE damage dealer with martial level of tanking.

And being a Fire creature doesn't really solve the issue as Extract Element is mostly useless against Fire-Immune creatures (which most Fire creatures are).

Yeah, Kineticist is weak.
Pyrokineticist is fine in damage when you combine the Aura Junction and Thermal Nimbus but you need to position yourself in the thick of things (even if it becomes easier at level 10). And of course you lose all of that against Fire Immune/Resistant enemies.

But overall, the class is nowhere close to impressive, you need to find a broken ability (Fire Aura Junction, Timber Sentinel) and just focus on it to perform ok.

A spellcasting archetype can't be a trap option. For an option to be a trap option it must somehow be misleading, which spellcasting archetypes are not.

Now, it's not a strong option. It doesn't really interact with the class.

I don't really see the point in bringing 10 arguments to justify it.

Please, can we avoid badwrongfun discussions?

The issue is that at levels 1 and 2, a GM needs to apply the weakened template (or make some other kind of compensation) to achieve the same kind of game play experience for moderate encounters at higher levels.

Conversely, I could say that at levels 5+ (exact starting point may vary) you can apply the Elite adjustment or redo encounters to be Severe or Extreme to achieve the kind of difficulty you're looking for.

That's a massive overstatement. Difficulty is overall the same at level 1 and 5. The main difference is that progression is faster at level 1 creating a bigger difference when you face higher or lower level enemies. Also, combats are much faster.

To me a "random death" is one where there is nothing/little a player could do to control it. So the random crit putting you a dying 2 at level 1 that results in death...that's a random death.

I really wonder what's the actual occurrence of this so called "random crit [...] that results in death". I've seen it once and in my opinion it had more to do with a broken monster (extreme damage, extreme attack bonus and persistent damage) and setup (the monster literally appeared next to us with all its actions) than something that should happen normally. All the other deaths I have experienced have been the conclusion of a large number of hits, even at low level.

PF2 is not a deadly game. Even if going down to a crit at low level happens it very rarely ends up with a death or TPK, at least not without a lot of bad luck (on top of the crit) or bad decisions.

Could you free archetype (or just archetype) into wizard, witch, or sorcerer, take Reach Spell at L4, then go to town with your 3a, 30' ranged two-target striking amped IW? It's not great range, but it's out of melee.

You can't metamagic amp cantrips. So, nope :)

Which is werid, given that that made the remaster Oracle so much more powerful but lost a lot of its uniqueness.

My gut feeling is that those interested purely by optimization will go for a Sorcerer and then grab the good Oracle stuff through a Dedication. I think you reach higher power through this method (and also you choose your tradition).

My reason for calling this out as "a problem" is because of that observation of GMs working to erase that lethality via all means available to them, including incredibly obvious foe lobotomies.

You should really question your confirmation bia because your whole post is conspiracy theory 101.

I've played roughly 300 sessions (2/3rd played, 1/3rd GMed), got 1 character killed and killed 5 as a GM. If you consider 3 to 5 sessions per level, it means getting killed once every 20 levels roughly. That's not what I'd call "lethal".

...

Farmhand states: "With a strong back and an understanding of seasonal cycles, you tilled the land and tended crops. Your farm could have been razed by invaders, you could have lost the family tying you to the land, or you might have simply tired of the drudgery, but at some point you became an adventurer."

Considering that level 1 is the beginning of your adventuring career, it's very much written that peasant with a greatsword is a proper description for a level 1 character.

Most of the common backgrounds consider that you got a simple life and decided to go adventuring after that (which doesn't mean that it has to be the case for all characters, you can be a gladiator or a bounty hunter, just that it's a common occurrence).

And if you look at level 1 humanoids, a lot of them are just commoners: Barkeep, Acolyte, Local Herbalist, etc...

Level 1 is not the level supposed to represent a "well-trained combatant with field experience". Also, I'm not stating that the low hit points at level 1 is "good", just that in my opinion it embodies the "peasant with a greatsword" fantasy well, fantasy that is very much written in the book. So I understand it.

I have no point of view on the original question besides the fact that it is way above my league.

One could argue that the lethality of low-level play is intended to contribute to the feel of lower level play, but I don't think we see that reflected in the stories produced by paizo - few of the APs I've run or prepped seem like they want you to feel like you're a peasant thrown into an incredibly dangerous situation, about to die at any moment. They mostly feel to me like pretty classic heroic fantasy, starting at a pretty good power level

You need to wait for level 2 to get your Full Plate or even sometimes your weapon (some firearms are really expensive). That's peasant's concerns.

Feelings being what they are we have all the right in the world to disagree. But I do think the feeling of playing a peasant with a greatsword is there.
I've played games where you start at a "pretty good power level" and it's not at all the same feeling: You start with all your equipment, you have most of your powers, you don't wait for higher levels for your build to go online, etc...

The only Psychic build with good DPR is the Silent Whisper one. And you have an entire spell list for fights against mental immune enemies (7.5% of the creature base, you won't face that many of them unless you play the Slithering).

Oscillating Wave has a big issue as its main damaging spells, namely Fireball and Howling Blizzard, have to be used during round 1 and as such don't benefit from any of your damage enhancement abilities (Unleash Psyche and Entropic Wheel). It leads to a kind of lose-lose gameplay where you either target a lot of creatures or deal a lot of damage to each of them but never both simultaneously.

I agree that Tangible Dream is suicidal. You need a very specific build to get the most out of it (and especially an extremely tanky build).

Any tangible dream psychic that wants to use imaginary weapon is not going to do melee. It's going to use ghostly carrier for it which turns it into a 120 foot ranged spell that hits 2 targets. As long as you can keep the ghostly carrier alive anyways

The Ghostly Carrier can only target a single creature. If you want to target 2 creatures you need one of them to be at melee range from your Psychic. Still, it's certainly the safest way to play a Tangible Dream Psychic.

You're presenting it as if people that were playing the class [...] are innately more important than any people that counted problems as significant enough to talk them out of playing the class despite their interest in it.

Of course they are. It's basic respect.

For players such as myself who were playing Oracle characters that were spellcaster types of characters roughly equivalent to a Divine tradition Sorcerer, the Remaster changes were mostly good - sometimes really good.

I was playing spellcaster Oracles, namely a Life Oracle and a Tempest Oracle. The Life Oracle lost its healing abilities and became the worst healer among all Mysteries. While the Tempest Oracle lost all its flavor, which was important to me.

Also, it's not just about being broken, it's about trading a mechanically interesting class with a bland and boring one. I already have a divine Sorcerer (my main character), getting 2 new ones is not what I wanted for my Oracles.

A GM shouldn't have to learn that the system doesn't work the same at low levels as it does at high levels.

Again, why?

The fact that low, mid and high level experience is different is in my opinion a conscious design choice. At low level, you really have the feeling of playing a peasant with a greatsword considering how fights are fast, deadly and random. I think it's the expected low level experience.

I'm in a game with my kid right now. Guess what approach we're using.

You haven't understood my previous post. Difficulty is not related to learning curve: If you increase or decrease the game difficulty you don't change the learning curve.

Tiers of play being different is the default rather than the exception in TTRPGs.

That. So common that there isn't even a sidebar.

Games with consistency between the early game and the end game don't give at all the feeling of playing a peasant who rises to godhood. It's just all samey (I don't say it's bad, just that it's not Pathfinder at all).

Slowly and explicitly introducing new mechanics (and I'm putting emphasis on explicitly for a reason) is a time-honored way of teaching complex games.

But I don't expect the adventure to do that. The beginner box, why not. But most importantly the GM. I personally don't GM beginners the same way I GM experienced players: I help them more, give them advice in real time, I sometimes remove some punishing mechanics (like critical failures on Trip/Grapple) to encourage them using the abilities, and so on.

Having low level adventures structure in such a way that they always spend time teaching concepts will feel like playing the same tutorial all over again: An awful experience for experienced players.

So a GM actually understand the level of challenge they're sending to the players.

You mean that the GM has less things to learn. Because it's a question of experience, not something you can't control ever.

I also think there's a bit of exaggeration. Level +2 solo bosses are not that deadly at level 1, I've been through many such encounters without any character death. The only ones that are really deadly are level +3 solo bosses which are qualified as "Severe- or extreme-threat boss" and I'm not sure I've ever faced one at level 1.

From a simple search on the Internet it looks like we learn faster when we are challenged. I don't know if it's true or not (Google is not omniscient) but I know for sure it applies to me.

So challenging first levels may actually be a very conscious choice to quickly get beginners up to par and avoid massive discrepancies in game mastery between players.

I know a lot of games who adopt this difficulty curve, with challenging early game, easy mid game and very hard end game.

But the victims here are the people that fell in love with the old oracle, not the oracle class itself

That's a very weird statement.

The old oracle had quite a bit of friction that made it a problem if the group couldnt handle it. And I personally dreaded the sight of an oracle at public tables.

Is it an overstatement? Because your experience is nowhere close to mine. I've had much more issues with Barbarians and Paladins than with Oracles.

Instead it seems like more people are actually playing an enjoying oracles

I don't say it's wrong, but I think it's unfounded and also doesn't change the fact that those who played preremaster Oracles have a real reason to feel screwed.

It's better to have a game with consistent challenges

Why?

You've got some folks saying make L1 encounters survivable without knowing all the tactics (i.e. allows for incremental learning).

There's factually no link between incremental learning curve and L1 survivability. You are reaching a conclusion based on a ton of untold assumptions.

You are an adult with strong experience in board and ttrp games. As I said before, you probably think this level's about you. But it isn't. It's about my kid's junior high role playing club, which has a massive 40+ kid membership and organizes 8-10 tables of low-level play every Wednesday. Those are Paizo's 2030 customers, the people who will buy their content long after you and I stop. As a direct competitor to that other game PF2E is, yes, going after the "played once, or haven't yet played but interested" market. Not just folks like you or I with decades of experience and a 'seen it, done that' equilibrium towards tpks. Paizo does make lots of content for us. But not 100% of it. Having the early level content to be for folks like that club rather than folks like you or I simply makes a lot of sense. At least, to me.

But not necessarily to Paizo. We need to get information about their marketing goals, which population they target and such.

Neither Ford nor Mercedes sell bikes and still they manage to sell their cars.

If Paizo really wants to design the game to teach itself, it needs to make a VTT module with pregen characters that plays like a choose-your-own-adventure novel. Extremely on rails, but with choice at certain branching paths, simple AI scripts for the enemies, and full rules automation. Anything less can be failed by a new GM very easily.

What you're describing is a tutorial. And tutorials can't explain more than the basics of a game. PF2 is too complex to be taught that way. To learn PF2 you need to play it.

I dont even want to call oracles victims, I think they are just better outright in pretty much every single way.

There have been long discussions about that. Those who love the preremaster Oracle loathe the new one and vice versa.

I also have 2 Oracle victims but I'll speak about my Barbarian:

Czav is... well, was, a Dhampir from Ustalav. He spent his youth bullied because of his blood, mostly by divine servants who were seeing in him an undead abomination. It fueled his rage, rage he fully embraced once he reached Rahadoum and called it home. After decades fighting divine casters and developing specific anti-divine abilities (Superstition Barbarian) he decided to become a Pathfinder. He realized that his anti-divine abilities were actually effective against all traditions of magic and he became a mix of clericide, witch hunter and mage slayer.

Unfortunately, the new Superstition Barbarian is just an idiot who's frightened by magic and can't even accept to wield it while my character was actually extremely knowledgeable about magic with even some magic abilities (Arcane Sense feat to be able to Detect Magic as it's rather useful for a mage slayer). Overall, the new Superstition Barbarian is different enough that my character stopped making much sense.

I may speak later of my Oracles. I've been able to turn one into an Animist, I find that the Animist embodies quite well what the preremaster Oracle was. But for the other one... well, it's currently in retirement.

There's just been a couple hundred posts with one set of folks suggesting that some adjustment be made to early levels to reduce single-bad-roll character death likelihood, but not necessarily objecting or saying anything about later level play. The above split is thus, IMO, a very inapt description of the discussion going on here, since neither side of this debate fits either of your two categories.

I was only answering the previous post. I've just skimed through the discussion and I don't think it's really interesting.

"Teaching", as it's the core of the discussion, is a complex job. I'd quote Wikipedia: "Small effects or lack of statistically significant effects have been found when evaluating many teaching methods rigorously with randomized controlled trials."

So the answer to the original (implied) question is certainly that there's no way to do a good or bad job at teaching new players how to play.

There's nothing inherently bad with different difficulties. Some like it hard, some like it easy, everyone has fun. It seems good to me.

I find there are 2 kinds of players/GMs when it comes to difficulty: Those who consider that character death should always be on the table and those who consider that character death should only happen for a reason. And in general they can't play together without a lot of frustration on one side or the other.

Side note: I also have the feeling from reading here and on Reddit that Reddit users are less about crunch, optimization and difficulty than the official forum users. But I may be wrong about that, I know more this community than the Reddit one.

Again, the gameplay experience is a completely different thing than the actual under the hood math. Player skill growth can easily outpace dev expectation and the cranking of the "math difficulty" to provide the perception of easy.

I remember of Bard's Tales where all encounters were fully random, with low level groups having a 20-30% chance of gaining a fight because of that. That was literal reverse difficulty curve. And it's been, at that time, a great hit.

Now, I don't advocate for reverse difficulty curve as that's ridiculous. But many games have exceptionally hard moments during low levels, a tendency to get rather easy at mid levels and then a tough endgame experience. Which is PF2 difficulty curve and why I'm not surprised it is that way.

They really, really, do not. It may feel that way to noobies, especially those new to the genre, but games with actual in-the-math reverse difficulty curves are absurdly rare because of how much of a fun-killer they can be.

That's not my experience.

I agree with RPG-Geek, the low level experience in PF2 can nearly be considered a feature.

You are supposed to play inexperienced adventurers at level 1, not heroes. The high casualty rate and how swingy it is actually convey rather well this feeling.

I have played games where right at level 1 characters can feel fully fleshed out and effective and I must admit it doesn't carry the charm of carefully levelling your wannabee hero.

SuperBidi wrote:

Early APs/adventures made the error of featuring tough early game but it's now over. As a GM, you should focus on a nice and fast early game, keeping the tough things for later.

Can you name a bunch of low level APs that you think get the balance right? Witch mentioned Season of Ghosts, so that's one I guess.

I have unfortunately played more early APs and adventures than later ones. But I clearly remember Plaguestone to be an absolute grind fest (we got 4 deaths in 3 levels :D). Age of Ashes has really tough moments at rather early level, Extinction Curse book 1 is also awful. I've found Abomination Vaults to still be tough but more balanced between levels (it's overall rather tough). Lately, I've played Sky King's Tomb and the early levels are trivial with more difficulty once you get to book 2.

I have a better vision of PFS as I've played nearly all adventures and this trend is very clear in its case: Earlier adventures are sometimes deadly when later ones are nearly all easy.

Noticing that there's a HUGE crack in the system's math where 75% of the game has a peculiar High fantasy feel and the other 25% has a weird ass half old school half modern d20 system feel (read feel as: ratio between health and damage) Is not a personal opinion, Is a fact that we're Building an argument onto.

It's not 25% of the game.

At level 1, a level +2 enemy does twice more damage than an at level enemy.
At level 2, a level +2 enemy does slightly more than 50% extra damage than an at level enemy.
At level 3, a level +2 enemy does 1/3rd extra damage compared to an at level enemy.

Level 3 is also an important moment as healing roughly doubles in effectiveness at that level. So while healing at level 1 and 2 may feel lackluster compared to the damage taken, it gives much more survivability at level 3.

Level 1 (especially) and 2 (slightly) are hard to play. It's not just about hp/damage ratio but also because a lot of builds lack an important item or feat (Paladins in medium armor have ridiculous AC, the first general feat at level 3 unlocks many builds, same goes for the first archetype feat at level 4, casters have a very steep progression at low levels, etc...). So I quite like that fights are so fast, as a lot of characters are not fleshed out enough to give nice sensations to those who like the tactical side of the game.

Early APs/adventures made the error of featuring tough early game but it's now over. As a GM, you should focus on a nice and fast early game, keeping the tough things for later.

I personally consider that a PC going down is expected on any non trivial fight. I start worrying (as a player but also as a GM) when 2 PCs are on the ground.

I play in general in 5 or 6 PC parties. In 4-(wo)man parties, one PC down is still rather common but 2 is much more dire.

From my experience, healing on casters is rare.

Being attacked as a caster happens mostly in 3 cases:
- Surprise attack: An unforeseen attack targets the caster but then the party reposition themselves and the caster can safely get to the backline. The goal in that case is just to survive the round it takes for you to escape the nasty situation.
- The frontline is crumbling: The enemies are hitting hard and your martials start to get down, leaving gaps in the frontline that enemies start to exploit. And in that case, the healing (if there's any left) tends to favor the martials so they can get back on their feet and resume their defensive tasks.
- Everyone's hit: Enemies use AoE attacks that target the entire party. In that case, healing is needed on everyone. It's the case where casters may receive healing, especially if they fail their saves more than anyone else. But it's mostly a high level thing, so there's no need to take it into consideration right away.

Well that's not exactly the sense I got from your prior comments this. The new comment amounts to: don't waste time in combat on healing that could be done out-of-combat.

Not at all.

I've seen enough fights turning deadly because someone decided to heal a downed PC that I know it's in general a bad tactic. But it looks like I made an error: It's not a beginner mistake, it's just a common mistake. People blame the dice, the monsters or the downed PC player actions without getting to the original mistake because it happened 3 rounds earlier: The healing.

I'll just highlight how easy it is for those questions to be a yes.

If you heal a downed PC, they are on the ground with low hit points and at a position where they can take quite some damage (as they took quite some damage already). If they go down again they reach Dying 2 (at least) and are now at actual risk of dying. Considering that they certainly haven't acted enough to get your 2 actions back, you are now in real trouble.

So, the question boils down to: Has this encounter real risks of ending with a PC death? If yes, then raise the downed PC. If not, they please don't, not everyone likes to die during a Moderate encounter because an idiot Battle Medicined you and the dice then decided to hate you.

Moderate encounters being way more common than deadly ones, raising downed PCs is in general a very bad idea.

As a player, I've already refused healing, especially low healing like potions, Battle Medicine or Soothe (with a maxed out 2-action Heal, my chances of going down again are rather low).

Unless you are 1 single turn from ending the threat yourself, spending 2A to heal a downed PC is the better move in like 90+% of scenarios.

You need 2 rounds to get back the actions you lost, not 1. Considering you're taking a great risk by healing the PC (they're Wounded 1 with low hit points and now at actual risk of dying) and also a potential waste of resources (free healing is rare), it's a strategy to keep for extreme cases.

It's much more effective to heal before they go down. Healing downed PC is a beginner mistake.

Math's constructed scenario is a good example to demonstrate how this specific low HP issue creates a death spiral, where all the party's actions and choices change in response to a PC dropping; no longer being spent to win the fight, but are instead spent to prevent dying.

Classic beginner mistake. I generally play healers, I don't heal downed PCs. And when I go down I refuse being healed unless there's no real danger left.

But it has nothing to do with low HPs, I see the same mistake being done at every level.

Sounds like you just don't like rascal but that's no reason to exclude it from the guide.

Let's not jump to such conclusions ;)

I'm fine having a debate about Rascal. I'm still not finding a reason to play one from a mechanical point of view.

Also, as I state in "Swashbuckler Styles" chapter: Styles are rather unimpactful. Unless you use a specific combo you can go for whatever Style you want. That's why I don't speak much about Styles, it's not just Rascal, it's also Wit and Fencer and I provide a single Battledancer build (which is more of an oddity).

a strength/int build doesn't utilize das the best either compared to dex/int since tumble through is your go to when you roll well (but not too well) you're not considering the versatility in panache choices here

Tumble Through doesn't do anything in and by itself, it's only useful when you need to move and build Panache simultaneously. So I disagree on it being the "go to", it should be the "run away from".

But I agree you will always need it. Now, as you are aiming for a failure, the only thing you need is to update your Acrobatics item bonus and your Acrobatic proficiency every now and then and you should be fine when it comes to building Panache with Tumble Through. No need for high Dexterity.

I play a Dual Dagger Justice Champion in Age of Ashes alongside a Shield of Reckoning Justice Champion.

In terms of damage, the Shield of Reckoning Justice Champion is ridiculous. He makes one attack per round in general (having to Raise their Shield to get their juicy reactions), considering that his reactions are not triggered that often (especially Shield of Reckoning, adjacency is hard to get at level 10).

As I can throw my daggers I trigger more free attacks from Ranged Reprisal and still don't get it every round, far from it.

A Shield of Reckoning Champion is in the extreme low end in terms of damage. Also, reactions are very far from a given, the only ones that can be triggered consistently are those akin to Opportune Backstab or Topple Foe.

As a side note: Despite its rarity, Shield of Reckoning is massive when it triggers. And the Shield of Reckoning Justice Champion is an absolute tank, there's no doubt about that. But it's nowhere close to an average damage dealer.

I've added a build around Devise a Stratagem, it's actually a good reason to choose Intelligence as secondary attribute. Thanks for the idea.

But I'm sorry: It's no solution for Rascal.
First, if I want to benefit the most from Dastardly Dash I'd go for a Gymnast, both because Trip is significantly better than Dirty Trick but also because the Exemplary Finisher is excellent. And because we are dealing with unconventional builds, going Strength/Intelligence is not an issue by itself.
And otherwise, there's Tumble Behind which gives a similar bonus to Dirty Trick but with a full Stride, earlier access and without affecting MAP. It's hard to sell Dastardly Dash against Tumble Behind.

I understand that sometimes a player wants to play a specific kind of character even if it's weaker but jumping through hoops just to get the feeling you're playing a Rascal doesn't feel like a solution. I've added a note to encourage GMs to remove the Attack Trait from Dirty Trick if one of their players want to play a Rascal. I think it's a better solution overall, houserule is not an insult :)

I've always loved the Swashbuckler class and even released the first Swashbuckler guide back in the days. But I was a bit annoyed by the Remaster and the brand new Bravado trait and decided to let others provide updated guides. I was doubly wrong.

First, after a thorough reading of the remaster Swashbuckler I can safely say it's awesome, in a completely different way than it used to be, but it's awesome (and also balanced, it's now a competitive martial in my opinion).

Also, I've looked at the available content when it comes to remastered guides and they haven't grasped what I consider the essence of the remaster Swashbuckler.

So here's my Remaster Swashbuckler optimization guide

I've called it an "optimization guide" so I can avoid all questions about what a Swashbuckler should look like.

Also, as the difference in effectiveness between optimized and non-optimized is rather low in Pathfinder 2, you can build a satisfying Swashbuckler without following these guidelines. So don't be pissed if you disagree with me.

And finally I haven't described every Swashbuckler feat, mostly because of a lack of time to do so. I may do it in the future, depending on this guide's reception.

I have mixed feelings about this guide. There are good things in it and it's definitely a high quality guide but there are also a lot of mistakes that need to be addressed to make it a perfect guide. So I'll start with the ones I see:

- Stating that the Chirurgeon is not a healer is objectively wrong. Once you put your hands on Combine Elixir, your combined Elixirs of Life heal like a 2-action Heal. It's as early as level 6. At level 13, you heal like a level 10 2-action Heal precisely (125 hps).
So there's a discussion about the Chirurgeon being the best healer in the game at high level, stating that it's bad at healing is clearly missing something.
Now, Medic Dedication is not a bad advice as it can increase your healing when you need to move but as a Chirurgeon I think it's better to make sure you never have to move (either through reach or free moves like the one from a mount).

- There's a mistake on Supreme Invigorating Elixir, it doesn't give you master class DC at level 15, that doesn't change and is acquired at level 17. I also think it should be rated much higher as it's definitely the pinacle of the Invigorating Elixir feat line.

- A word on Invigorating Elixir: It doesn't remove the condition, it counteracts the effect applying the condition. So it dispel spells, can get you out of poison and things like that.

- The "Classic Alchemist" is clearly misleading. Bombs are limited to Bombers only. Mutagenists will be in general Strength-based, Toxicologists use their hands for weapons and Chirurgeons don't have the Versatile Vials to produce Bombs (nor the feats to improve them). That's the main difference between the preremaster and postremaster Alchemist: The basic Alchemist weapon switched from Bombs to Bestial Mutagen. And I think it's important to state it, I've seen too many people making a Dex-based Chirurgeon and some had to retrain to a Bomber at level 6 when they realized they can't use Elixirs of Life at all due to a shortage of VVs.

- There's also a rule issue around Poisons in the Pernicious Poison feat. If you produce a Poison with Quick Alchemy you have one round to "activate" it. But once on a weapon it stays for 10 minutes. I know this rule is not completely clear and there have been discussions about it but it's the way I've seen it played by most players as otherwise it would make poisons created with Quick Alchemy close to impossible to use. It makes Pernicious Poison a pretty usable feat (as otherwise it'd be completely useless I agree).

- A small one but Sticky Poison and Pinpoint Poisoner have the same relative effect: roughly +25% chances to poison an enemy. But Pinpoint Poisoner is higher level and needs the enemy to be Off Guard so you definitely should reverse your stars on these.

- I also see a clear delineation in your guide between Mutagenist, Chirurgeon and Toxicologist. This delineation doesn't exist actually. Mutagens, Elixirs of Life and Poisons can be used simultaneously by the same builds and as such they're best considered as a single Research Field. It's not the case for Bomber as Bombs will eat all your resources (VVs, feats, daily items) and as such are exclusive to Mutagens, Elixirs of Life and Poisons.

- Summoner is definitely not a 1-star Dedication. There's a Chirurgeon with Summoner Dedication build I play that is working wonderfully. It's true that it's a specific build but it's worth mentioning in my opinion.

- For Choker-Arm Mutagen, you missed the combo with Chirurgeon. It allows you to deliver your Elixirs of Life at range and as such avoid moving. And the drawbacks can be avoided by using spells as your main attack option (or with an Eidolon like I do).

- Titanic Fury Cocktail is the base of the Reach Mutagenist. And Energy Mutagen is extremely useful if you want to play a Dual Weapon Alchemist (same goes for Weapon Siphon). I find that your description doesn't explain how to use them and your color code doesn't do them justice.

- The Injection Reservoir is not "automatic". You need an action once you hit to inject the poison. It makes it pretty bad.

What is the difference between those?

The main difference is based on the story. If the players have their win, then you are certainly at the end of the adventure and you don't want to teleport the villain away as it would just rob the players of their victory.

But if you just want the villain to make an appearance and run away, or if the ever teleporting villain is either a gimmick or an element to take into account to catch him, then you don't want the PCs to have their win, at least not before the final confrontation. And in that case you'll use plot armor (teleport or whatever) so the villain survives.

There are numerous adventures using plot armor, it's a classic storytelling tool. It can even be generalized to the plot itself (there's actually a conversation about plot vs common sense that speaks about that). As a GM, you sometimes have to protect your plot as otherwise the adventure would just be a disappointment.

Whatever the merits of separating the design principles of PCs and monsters in general, I don't think it ever sounds great to say, "the villains need the cool toys they lost in the conversion from PF1E, but you don't. They can escape, but you can never follow them even if you want to or know where they're going."

It doesn't have to be "never". As I said, it depends if it's used for the story or just for gotcha moments.

For example, if the PCs stumble on a crime scene at the beginning of the adventure, it's nice to have the BBEG escaping from it so the PCs can put a face (or roleplay, voice) on him. There's a lot of funny roleplay interactions that can then emerge from this knowledge. Knowing that the mayor is the assassin but without any proof nor motive can lead to excellent dialogues. And you can even add a twist with a twin brother or dominate spell to congratulate your players if they managed to go through the adventure without resorting to cold blood murder.

So I disagree. Plot armor is not a bad thing if it's used for the enjoyment of the table.