What's in a guide?


Advice


Alternative title: PF2e guide to writing guides

So pathfinder 2nd edition has a handful of really informative guides. They go into detail on how to play/build certain classes while also helping you avoid weaker options you might not have noticed at first. I’ve been getting the ich to make a guide lately (on gunslinger or PFS character building) but am kind of struggling on where to start. So given that I kind of wanted to “poll” the community in what they think makes a good class guide!

Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine? Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay? 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? Also formatting, is there a particular method of presenting information you find most efficient? I guess anything is better then a wall of text but its a subtle aspect of writing that I think helps in the long run.

I think those are some of my core questions but feel free to throw in extras! Thanks for the help in the responses ahead of time incase I can’t keep up.

Radiant Oath

Quote:
Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine?

I certainly want someone with time playing the class.

Quote:
Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay?

Some kind of balance.

Quote:
Are equipment loadouts/character build examples useful to you?

Yes, but they're not necessary. A guide without them can still be very useful.

Quote:
Do you like it when guides go through all published character options?

Yes. I like this a lot. It's important to me that a guide covers everything.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine?
-It's a deficit if the author has no experience, yet it could be overcome. Too often people who've actually played the class (and in APs, a communal baseline for discussion) will disagree wholeheartedly with comments made by those who haven't played and are working off of speculation. Something to be wary of.
One should have a good sense of how a class faces off not just in a typical round vs. typical foes (i.e. meaty humanoids), but how they tackle setbacks too. Ex. a melee Champion's very resilient in normal battles, but put them in difficult terrain and they'd better have invested in some non-Champion way to overcome that, so a guide for Champions should point that out, as well as how ranged combat might be an issue, etc.
Or I've seen people point out the domination of Giant Instinct Barbarians without noting how vulnerable they make themselves (not great in a party w/ little in-combat healing IMO) or the space issues they might have (Kobold lair? Again!).

Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay?
-I enjoy math, yet that's secondary IMO, mostly because of how tactical PF2 is compared to other RPGs. Math has a hard time tackling the breadth of a class's functionality. For example, the Magus has great math, yet juggling its actions outside of a white room takes finesse that the running of other classes with good math doesn't need. And gameplay & roleplay IMO are subjective, and IMO not part of a binary w/ math. One could include both, yet still lack enough info.

Are equipment loadouts/character build examples useful to you?
-Suggested equipment (esoteric items that mesh well with specific aspects/builds of the class) and build summaries or feat combos/synergy, yes. I seldom bother to do more than scan through thorough builds. PCs grow organically through play and should adjust to a campaign's particular obstacles (etc.), so it seems pointless to map out terrain one hasn't seen. Don't need the minutiae and personally tend to get caught up in the flaws of the builds! I'd rather focus on the core.
So yeah, a summary suffices, and the extra effort might better be used showing a range of build options.

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?
No, I don't like that, do prefer principles > specifics. Pointing out the synergy of specific abilities with the class is mandatory IMO, but running through them all makes my eyes roll. Yes, Field Medic is strong, yet I don't need that pointed out with every iteration of every guide. Perhaps a Guide to Backgrounds might be in order...thought they're pretty obvious in nature, aren't they? Of course, if making a "helpful healer" version for a class then sure, Field Medic should be on the list of possible Backgrounds, yet IMO wouldn't need any further explanation.

Also formatting, is there a particular method of presenting information you find most efficient?
-Several people prefer a color-coded guide to work equally well for those who can't discern color (so maybe a star system instead?).
I prefer bullet points and brevity, with occasional explanatory paragraphs re: the principles and reasoning, i.e. one's methodology.

One difference I'd like to see more of is factoring in the different directions one could go with a class. Ex. The Wizard typically doesn't require Charisma and can contribute socially with Society (Int), languages, and Recall Knowledge. Yet they also have the best metamagic for subterfuge which relies on Deception, and that would benefit from whatever Charisma the Wizard could afford.
Often there are these feats which are "X is mediocre unless playing the A variant of this class, in which case it's mandatory". That situation defies a simple coding system IMO, and would likely better be framed in terms of the variants.
Ex. If playing variant A, feats W, X, & Z make a strong foundation, while these other feats become weaker.
If playing variant B, feats M, R, & Y make a strong foundation, yet also consider...
Or more likely for the feat by feat rundown:

Feat X: basic description
Build A: Very strong, makes good use of one's free hand.
Build B: Weak, you don't have the free hand to use this often.
Build C: Beware, you have the free hand, yet performing this feat drops you out of your Stance.

Or often
Feat X: basic description
This feat is only useful for Build E.

So for a Fighter one might cover archers, sword/shield, dual-wielding, switch hitters, etc. A rundown of the strengths and weakness of each meta-choice would be cool too, like how a Dex Fighter gains versatility (ranged + melee), Acrobatics, and some defense (Ref saves) vs. damage bonus, Athletics maneuvers, and larger weapon dice.

Maybe that puts too much on your plate, sorry! And maybe I'm not your target audience since most guides don't mesh with my tastes yet please other players. But maybe that'd helpful to you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It just struck me, perhaps a bit late, that listening to disparate opinions might distract you from whatever it is you want to put into the guide. Guides don't have to jump through some editor's hoop, they only have to, well, guide. The overarching principle I think would be to pare down so you don't dilute the good data and reader's come out understanding the class and how to pursue the various directions they might take. Then bonus material could be distinct, so it doesn't clutter for those who consider it clutter and is available for those who deem it valuable.

This might be down with spoiler tags, i.e. for those who want the breakdown on how you derived your math results.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the most part I am going to second the statements by Castilliano. That was well said.

StarlingSweeter wrote:
Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine?

First-hand (actually played a character of the class) or second-hand (watched a friend play a character) is best. Pseudo-experience (building actual characters, setting up, and running through various scenarios) is also workable. Pure theorycrafting should come with a disclaimer identifying it as such. Too often things sound good in theory until the dice start hitting the table and actions are scarce.

StarlingSweeter wrote:
Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay?

I personally prefer more of a gameplay feel presentation. If there is something where the math becomes important, present it. Other than that it is often more confusing that useful. People don't generally have an intuitive understanding of complex probability theory topics like expected value and combined probability of multiple independent events.

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.


StarlingSweeter wrote:


Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine?

Not necessarily. Even partying up with a that class played by somebody else is good enough. Given the fact this 2e is more like a boardgame, it's easier to do the math.

StarlingSweeter wrote:

Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay?

Lots of math.

I prefer the class well explained in terms of mechanics and math ( eventually compared with other classes ). Stuff like "this feat is better than" or "I wouldn't go with that one becuase is X% less efficient" is something I'd like to know.

This doesn't mean I dislike concepts or extras though, like "you could build a vampire hunter by taking that dedication and these items" or similar

StarlingSweeter wrote:
Are equipment loadouts/character build examples useful to you?

Yes, they are part of the game, and affordable to everybody ( apart from unique items ). Rarity changes the availability, but there's always a chance to get something rare. If I can buy the last one picture of a dead painter within this 2e, I can buy a rare Item if I want to.

StarlingSweeter wrote:

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? Also formatting, is there a particular method of presenting information you find most efficient? I guess anything is better then a wall of text but its a subtle aspect of writing that I think helps in the long run.

I'd like for the guide to be well organized.

There can be room for anything else, but chapters have to be built apart from each other, in order for the user to properly navigate through the all stuff.

Using Colors ( many of Paizo users from this forum use them ) is an efficient way to enlight stuff, making the reader able to understand what stuff is optimal, what circumstantial, what bad, and anything else.

Though It would be nice to have a filter for those options.
Something like "just show me the blue ( optimal, for example ) stuff".
That'd be great!


I usually parse guides for ideas I may not have thought of. They are another source of information for possible uses of class abilities.

I don't think you can assess how something works very well until you play it. Most guides are built on theoretical ideas of how to use something rather than experiential data collected during gameplay. I find many ideas presented in guides or in various discussions often do not play out in game as illustrated in the theory. So I'm fine with a guide writer using theory with some experience when writing a guide as they cannot possibly play all combinations or use every ability in game. You can find out if it works when you try it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Write what you want to write. Everyone is different and enjoys different aspects of the hobby. There is nothing wrong with how you and your group enjoys the game.

My advice is just expect that you will have gotten a few things wrong - everyone does. Be willing to accept feedback and improve. Be willing to disagree anyway. Never take it personally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I primarily expect guides to make recommendations.

For me, the reason to read a guide is to have someone steeped in the interplay between various options lay out some choices so that I don't have to study and understand all the rules (and how they interact) in order to create a character.

It's helpful to look at a guide and have it say "if you're trying to build a character does X well, then select these options"

Like Porridge, I don't want a detailed description of all the options. I just want a few that tell me what's most useful, along with a few options that are just about as good.

So, if I decide I want to play a 'Friar Tuck' or an 'Indiana Jones', I can read your guide about monks, priests, rogues, or whatever and put together a character sheet that lets me roleplay that person.

Even more helpful is for the guide to make leveling up suggestions so I can build toward that character at higher levels.

I don't have the time (or interest) to intensely study all the rulebooks and new material. I know there are people out there who love to do that. Share your knowledge by making it clear what works for certain standard roles so that lots of less informed people can make good choices.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no way you can have first or secondhand experience of everything you will cover in a class guide. You sometimes have to rely on theorycrafting. That said, the more expereince you have with the class the best guide you will be able to make. There are lots of important things you will only pick up if you have seen the class in play a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I notice that the guides are made with a certain play style in mind. It would be useful to know what that style is to gauge the guide's advice's relative worth to your own table's style.

For instance, the Fighter feat Combat grab requires an empty hand (or a Free Hand off-hand weapon) to use and has the Press trait.

The difference is that Grapple targets Fortitude and Combat Grab targets Armour Class. Still, with usually a -4 MAP compared to a full bonus on a grapple check, why bother? Well, if you happen to have a melee-adverse Rogue in your party who insists to fight with a bow (the elven ponce), it is the difference between a Hide - Ranged Strike - Take Cover routine vs. a Ranged Strike - Ranged Strike - Take Cover one. Any sneak attack or second attack damage, that that Rogue manages to inflict, is thanks to the Fighter making the target flat-footed via Combat Grab. Usually makes up for the loss of damage of not Double Slicing or not having a shield. So, worth a consideration.

But then again, if the Fighter is the only front line melee guy, maybe tell that Rogue to man up and grab a rapier...

But yeah, if I wasn't lazy, I could point out a few ways Fighters are the martial debuff bros who can make their fellow martials (and to some extend, caster buddies) awesome.


Lycar wrote:

I notice that the guides are made with a certain play style in mind. It would be useful to know what that style is to gauge the guide's advice's relative worth to your own table's style.

For instance, the Fighter feat Combat grab requires an empty hand (or a Free Hand off-hand weapon) to use and has the Press trait.

The difference is that Grapple targets Fortitude and Combat Grab targets Armour Class. Still, with usually a -4 MAP compared to a full bonus on a grapple check, why bother? Well, if you happen to have a melee-adverse Rogue in your party who insists to fight with a bow (the elven ponce), it is the difference between a Hide - Ranged Strike - Take Cover routine vs. a Ranged Strike - Ranged Strike - Take Cover one. Any sneak attack or second attack damage, that that Rogue manages to inflict, is thanks to the Fighter making the target flat-footed via Combat Grab. Usually makes up for the loss of damage of not Double Slicing or not having a shield. So, worth a consideration.

But then again, if the Fighter is the only front line melee guy, maybe tell that Rogue to man up and grab a rapier...

But yeah, if I wasn't lazy, I could point out a few ways Fighters are the martial debuff bros who can make their fellow martials (and to some extend, caster buddies) awesome.

Yeah you can play Fighters this way. It works reasonably. But now I'm going to argue against it.

The fact of the matter is Rogues can take care of organising flat footed anyway. Its more important to them and there are a number of ways they can do it with a few feats. Its not often worthwhile to go to the action cost that you are talking about. I rarely see Rogues (who have put an effort in) have problems gaining the flatfooted condition most of the time.

Then you get back to the problem that the Fighter has to have one hand free. Which cost in other ways like weapon dice. Plus you are only grabbing, there is no chance of the critical success and the restrain - which is the real gravy for a grappler.

No I don't really like most of the fighter feats with Press trait. Many of them are Ok but marginal enough that they don't rise above the threshold of what else can I do here instead. Perhaps Furious Focus is good if you plan on doing a lot of Power Attacks. But I look at it and think about what I'm going to be doing with my third action - then I go maybe I'll only use this 1 round in three. So its good, but compulsory no.

So back to your point. Yes writers have a particular playstyle in mind. A good writer will give you advice about multiple play styles. Many of these guides do that. Will the writers opinion shine through ? Of course. But hopefully there is some useful information there to judge the issues.

Personally I like guides because they give an opinion that is not mine. What I'm looking for when I read guides is ideas I haven't thought of. Just grabbing a top few rated ideas off a guide is not really going to get you a great build and it will, characterwise and mechanical theme wise, probably be inferior. But it is a starting place and very worthwhile if you are poking around in the dark.


Gortle wrote:

The fact of the matter is Rogues can take care of organising flat footed anyway. Its more important to them and there are a number of ways they can do it with a few feats. Its not often worthwhile to go to the action cost that you are talking about. I rarely see Rogues (who have put an effort in) have problems gaining the flatfooted condition most of the time.

Then you get back to the problem that the Fighter has to have one hand free. Which cost in other ways like weapon dice. Plus you are only grabbing, there is no chance of the critical success and the restrain - which is the real gravy...

The problem is a ranged Rogue can't get his target flat-footed easily. That is exactly the scenario where Combat Grab comes in. At level 2. What does the Rogue need to sneak attack at range again? And while getting a target Restrained is nice, Grabbed is enough to impose Immobilised, which prevents Move actions. Just as, say, standing up from prone.

Also, if you are going to use free-hand style, you are likely to want Agile Grace, and when one considers that one will also want to use Combat Grab from a flanking position to begin with, a critical success becomes more likely.

But yeah, should probably have mentioned that it works best for keeping a tripped foe down.


Lycar wrote:
Gortle wrote:

The fact of the matter is Rogues can take care of organising flat footed anyway. Its more important to them and there are a number of ways they can do it with a few feats. Its not often worthwhile to go to the action cost that you are talking about. I rarely see Rogues (who have put an effort in) have problems gaining the flatfooted condition most of the time.

Then you get back to the problem that the Fighter has to have one hand free. Which cost in other ways like weapon dice. Plus you are only grabbing, there is no chance of the critical success and the restrain - which is the real gravy...

The problem is a ranged Rogue can't get his target flat-footed easily. That is exactly the scenario where Combat Grab comes in. At level 2. What does the Rogue need to sneak attack at range again? And while getting a target Restrained is nice, Grabbed is enough to impose Immobilised, which prevents Move actions. Just as, say, standing up from prone.

Also, if you are going to use free-hand style, you are likely to want Agile Grace, and when one considers that one will also want to use Combat Grab from a flanking position to begin with, a critical success becomes more likely.

But yeah, should probably have mentioned that it works best for keeping a tripped foe down.

Dread Striker, Mastermind Rogue are two good options for a ranged rogue. No reason you can't take both. That's before you start working stealth.


Gortle wrote:
Dread Striker, Mastermind Rogue are two good options for a ranged rogue. No reason you can't take both. That's before you start working stealth.

So Mastermind: You need to a specific one of 5 rackets and use an action.

Dread Striker: Requires the target to have a Fear effect active. Too bad that Demoralise not only requires an action, but also only works once per fight. Intimidating Strike on the other hand... But that is a 2-action attack and the Rogue needs to take 1 specific feat out of 12 available at level 4.

And the whole point is that the Rogue does not need to spend actions on Stealth, when his Fighter bro just holds the future pincushion still for him. So yes, a Fighter enables a Rogue's ranged sneak attack that way. Who then neither needs to be a Mastermind, nor has to take Dread Striker.

Just one example how a Fighter has feats to help enable another player's combat style. Because PF 2 is a lot more about teamwork then being a one-man-army. And I would find it useful if a Fighter guide points out such synergies.


Lycar wrote:
Gortle wrote:
Dread Striker, Mastermind Rogue are two good options for a ranged rogue. No reason you can't take both. That's before you start working stealth.

So Mastermind: You need to a specific one of 5 rackets and use an action.

Dread Striker: Requires the target to have a Fear effect active. Too bad that Demoralise not only requires an action, but also only works once per fight. Intimidating Strike on the other hand... But that is a 2-action attack and the Rogue needs to take 1 specific feat out of 12 available at level 4.

And the whole point is that the Rogue does not need to spend actions on Stealth, when his Fighter bro just holds the future pincushion still for him. So yes, a Fighter enables a Rogue's ranged sneak attack that way. Who then neither needs to be a Mastermind, nor has to take Dread Striker.

Just one example how a Fighter has feats to help enable another player's combat style. Because PF 2 is a lot more about teamwork then being a one-man-army. And I would find it useful if a Fighter guide points out such synergies.

Why not choose the one racket which actually helps ranged rogue? I think the answer to that is trivial. Yeah rogues don't have to stay out of melee and they are stronger in it. But if that is your choice, then own it.

You have a whole party to help with fear effects. There are a lot more ways to do it regardless. Whether its a good tactic or not does depend on what else they are doing. The fighters action requires a second attack so its already at a penalty. I know which I prefer. Even if I had a Fighter with Combat Grab I would still want Dread Striker.

By the way have you heard of this character class called Bard and Dirge of Doom?

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Two things I would greatly appreciate :

1- A guide made according to builds. For example, a Fighter guide where all the info really relevant to two-handed fighting were in the same place rather than having to fish for the relevant info disseminated throughout the entire guide.

Same for blaster in a Wizard guide.

2- A chapter specific to PFS, taking into account the PFS rules for Access and the boons, that most of your play will be between levels 1-6 and that you can completely rebuild your character when hitting level 2.

Which makes me think that not that many guides take retraining into account, even though some options are great at low levels and worse later on.


Gortle wrote:

Why not choose the one racket which actually helps ranged rogue? I think the answer to that is trivial. Yeah rogues don't have to stay out of melee and they are stronger in it. But if that is your choice, then own it.

You have a whole party to help with fear effects. There are a lot more ways to do it regardless. Whether its a good tactic or not does depend on what else they are doing. The fighters action requires a second attack so its already at a penalty. I know which I prefer. Even if I had a Fighter with Combat Grab I would still want Dread Striker.

By the way have you heard of this character class called Bard and Dirge of Doom?

What if someone simply doesn't want to be a Mastermind, only to be able to sneak attack with arrows?

What if there isn't a Bard in the party?

What if the Bard prefers to, I dunno, Inspire Confidence and leave the debuffing to others?

There are many ways to get things done in PF2, that is one of the strength of the game. Why are you finding the idea of pointing out, that Fighters have means to enable certain play styles, so revolting? It comes off as being contrarian for the sheer sake of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:
Why are you finding the idea of pointing out, that Fighters have means to enable certain play styles, so revolting? It comes off as being contrarian for the sheer sake of it.

Go back and read my first response. I said it worked reasonably. That was my starting point. I was stating an alternative point of view. I gave reasons. Thats the idea. Thats what forums are for - discussion.

Do I find it revolting? Not at all.
Concede that it it the best or most optimal? Never going to happen. But that is the natural of preference.
Encounters and parties in PF2 are normally complex enough to defy that sort of simple analysis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please take it elsewhere if it needs to continue.

Things I like in guides:
★Alternative ratings. Both in terms of conclusions (as said ad nauseaum above and below, feats can be better or worse for different builds and circumstances) and in terms of format. Color-coding is fine, but don't make it your only thing, it's less convenient on its own for a variety of reasons. (Color-blindness, sometimes not scanning as well when skimming, not being able to differentiate ratings with a text search.)
★Not saying things super authoritatively. This might sound like a weird backwards request, because...well, a guide should come from a place of knowledge and thus "authority" in the subject. But people can play PF2E and have entirely different experiences from one another, between luck, GM styles and the vast quantity of content. So just saying that Feat X is "garbage" is unpleasant, demoralizing to the readers who showed interest in it, and frequently not even true. Remember that retraining is a default thing and try to keep in mind that other people can have very different experiences, wording things accordingly. (I can’t think of scenarios beyond "you favor certain specific spells and want to be prepared for capture or other item loss" to take Eschew Materials, but that doesn’t mean I need to be rude when recommending against it.)
★Convenient formatting that's easy on the eyes. In other words, probably don't do what I'm doing with this small forum post where walls of text are all slammed together, and also don't have so much whitespace it takes forever to get anywhere. If you're using a service with tables of contents or outlines, like Google Docs or something, make use of that feature.
★★Related to the above, seeing as most guides like to touch on most aspects of the game as they relate to their specific class or whatever, brevity is an important tool. If you find yourself really rambling about something minor, it might be good to evaluate whether you can get the same point across with less text. And at the same time, obviously, saying too little about options (even ones you think are self-explanatory) can be frustrating to people who wanted some guidance on their pros and cons or intended use.
★★★(Everything in moderation. I myself ramble a lot, but I'm just blabbing on a forum rather than making a guide, y'know? In the rules/houserules document I'm writing, everything gets aggressively edited down to be as succinct and compact as I can make it, while explanations and alternatives go in Google Docs's comments and are thus off to the side and not limited by page space.)
★Focusing on what a character wants to do and the options for a class that can help with that, rather than the class as a vague total. This can probably apply to options besides classes, as well. A guide to certain equipment or archetypes can say whether they think an option is "good" or "bad" just as a power level in a vacuum, but it would be nice to know what situations and characters that applies to.
★★(For example, since it's on my mind: Wellspring Mage is a very different experience and value proposition for Summoner compared to unbounded casters and Sorcerer compared to the rest, and how it's used is different between different kinds of supportive casters, as well as when compared to generalists and dedicated blasters.)
★★★(And speaking of, people will want to play dedicated blasters no matter how many times mathy people say it does poorly compared to support or falls off. Even if you could never imagine this working in your tables, others could have GMs adapt one way or another, or have specific benefits or cons or playstyles which make it shine, and of course most casters can benefit from some blasting potential. So again, don't couch things in absolute terms — you might as well spill a little ink on what you think about the various options to support blasting and what situations/spells the reader should know about.)
★Having at least some experience with the options being written about. It doesn’t even have to be your own experience. If you want to make a Monk or Oracle guide despite very limited experience with the classes in question, just to fill a void (a preposterous idea which has certainly never applied to me, someone with ADHD who has consistently been quite busy with school, work or family affairs since 2017 or 2018 or something), drawing on your time with that one Mountain Monk or Bones Oracle you played is obviously very useful, but you can also check out actual plays, read others' accounts, or talk to people who've played other versions of those classes for their experience and opinions. The reasons to do so are simple: PF2E has a lot of intricacies and details that aren't always apparent, so it's important for a guide to cover them for people with even less knowledge, and you obviously don't want to write super biased or flat-out wrong stuff in an informative document.
★★It's useful to make a guide in a format that can be easily edited, since no one is perfect and there will be errors to correct or weird biased conclusions to reevaluate. It's just nice to try to minimize that before publication, and experience helps you catch such things. (The specifics of Oracle curses meaning that after refocusing you can only use your extra focus point by overwhelming yourself before Lv 11, for example, is something that wasn't obvious to me before playing one.)

I think that's all I've got for now. Try not to burn yourself out working on or coming up with the groundwork for a guide. It might help to write an outline filled with dummy text — easier to look at and edit that than stare at a blank page, as I can tell you from how long it's taken to work on my houserules which touch what feels like almost every part of the game. Good luck ¯\_('v')_/¯

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
StarlingSweeter wrote:
Does it matter to you if the author has a lot of first-hand experience with the class or is knowing the class in theory fine? Do you prefer lots of math in your guides or do you prefer it more on gameplay feel/roleplay? 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? Also formatting, is there a particular method of presenting information you find most efficient? I guess anything is better then a wall of text but its a subtle aspect of writing that I think helps in the long run.

I think more experience is definitely preferable to less experience. But it's good to keep perspective here. For example, you might have played a class a lot but it was one character in a particular AP with a particular party and the character's abilities were really picked with those specific other characters in mind. Compare that to someone who hasn't played the class themselves but has seen a dozen different ones of them throughout the typical levels of PFS in action, some working better than others. Both of these people have some valuable insights to offer but not the same ones. So like Alfa/Polaris said, it's good not to sound too authoritative, because noone has seen it all.

What I'm looking for in a guide is insight. What makes this class tick? What are the gotchas? What are less obvious things you might not know when making a character? I get more of that from a thoughtful analysis of why a few feats are good or bad, than from someone exhaustively ranking all the feats as just plain good or bad.

It's good not to drown in details. If you're writing a Champion guide you could discuss all the different magical shields, but most of them are just irrelevant because they're not Sturdy. But what's quite interesting is looking at how a shield gets repaired - a hidden requirement for the build is that someone in the party can deal with high DC Crafting checks because that level 10 Sturdy shield is a DC 27 check to repair. Oh, and the Crafter's Eyepiece and Quick Repair feat are quite relevant.

Ranking every ancestry, I wouldn't. It's worth talking about the CRB ones whether they're good or bad for the class and Why. And any standout other ones that are either particularly good, thematic, or allow an interesting alternative build.

Backgrounds, there are hundreds of them already, it'd be insane to rank all those. Again, focus on what's interesting: what's good, what's thematic, what allows a surprising alternative build?

Formatting is important. Short, focused paragraphs are easier than a big wall of text. Section titles are great. A table of contents is really great (google docs and its rivals will usually make one automatically for you if you label things as section titles).

Math: math can be useful if you want to figure out if a famous feat is actually good or bad, and why it's so good or not actually as good as people think it is. But watch out for white room math, because there are lots of things that are hard to quantify. A one-ish handed fighter build clearly does less damage than a 2H weapon build, but has more freedom to interact with objects, doors, maneuvers and so forth, and how much is that worth?

The discussion here above about whether combat grab is any good is I think a good example of where a guide can do good work: you can showcase these scenarios where a few characters coordinating their builds together can make something work that normally doesn't, like the eldritch trickster rogue racket. They definitely wrote the books with the idea in mind that classes have feats that hook into each other, but it takes some studying to find the cool cross-class combos. That's where a guide is nice.

Rules issues: some classes do have them. Questionable rules where not all GMs rule the same way, and whether a feat or build is worth it really depends on that. Like if mastermind rogue is even workable with the retrying recall knowledge rules. Some guides are very opinionated and insist on one interpretation. I find that less useful than a guide that says "hey watch out this is controversial, and this is the argument and here is why it matters to you".

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / What's in a guide? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.