I don’t want to come across as dismissive but there are some major flaws in the entire title / premise of this thread :
- as pointed out “classic fantasy builds” is the title and concept but then the list really isn’t made up of classics at all.
> I have never seen “Bard-barian” in any classic fantasy . Ever . And Skald as the name used in PF1 does not mean Skalds are a missing trope. Skalds are Norse poets and so largely covered by bards. Unless we have a very different idea of “classic” which seems likely
> sword and buckler men : this is a real world fighting style. Not often a classic idea . Indeed it is my understanding that both versions of pathfinder have misunderstood the real world purpose of a buckler
- there is the whole realisable / viable part thrown in which then has qualifiers attached to it seemed purely to try and discount the obvious counter that all of these builds are “realisable” in PF2 because they can all be made . So that part of the title is misleading even if it then changed in the into blurb
- as has already been addressed many of these work perfectly fine if not better under PF2 than PF1 unless significant mental gymnastics are performed or the goalposts changes mid discussion
All this really points to a very biased premise where hard work has gone into trying to find holes/deficiencies in the system that do not really exist .
And I don’t see how that is helpful as a discussion piece given it is set up solely bash the system. This is shown by the definitive statement “i effectively couldn’t” and no invitation from others to show how you can do these things (although that is of course implied and was such responses received anyway).
There are some gaps and potential errors in the proficiency system that point to some flaws in the system. But not being able to achieve these “classic” fantasy builds (when you can and they are not) is not one of the flaws - the topic of this thread
I have, in general, provided evidence as to why they're not viable in PF2 but either are or are not in other systems. If you'd like to refute some of that evidence, go ahead. If you're just going to make vague accusations and say "I don't mean to be offensive" but then go on and be offensive, I don't find this of much value.
Regarding some of your points, "Singing viking barbarians" are, at least in my mind, a classic fantasy build, and something that's been talked about enough online. Your argument that a sword and buckler build isn't "classic fantasy" is... odd. Sword and buckler fighting (or "small shield" style, really) is amazingly common, particularly in the pirate genre.
One note regarding builds, I do think the finesse fighter in 1e CRB (others have made this point) isn't really viable relative to other builds, so I'll admit I was wrong there, though in 5e, it still works completely fine.
Note: I have specifically defined what I mean by "realizable" in the opening paragraphs of my post. If you're going to ignore that and then claim that "any of these can be built", that's not really a valid criticism.
Also note: You say that that there's no invitation for others to show how this can be done, please note from my original post: "Note that my point here isn't strictly to poo-poo 2e, I just want to a) figure out if I'm wrong about these builds not being realizable, and b) if they're not, hopefully raise awareness that this should be addressed either through errata (where it's odd rules combinations that are prohibitive) or through additional content."