|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Hey there folks. Some of you all may have seen Broken Zenith's "How to round out your party" spreadsheet. I liked the idea so much I went and made my own. All credit goes to him for the idea and the basic layout.
Party Picker v2.0
Just pick one of the classes with the highest scores at the right of the screen. As you pick, the scores change. It calculates scores based on fulfilling party roles (traditionally filled by the cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard paradigm) as well as partially based on TarkXT's post here: On building a balanced group
It also assumes a four person party, but you can continue to add members to the group. After four people, it goes negative but as before, look for the biggest number (-1 > -2 > -3, etc.).
The second best thing is this: on the second tab (located near the bottom), you alter the ratings to fit your idea of how each class performs. If you don't think a barbarian rates a 5 in melee, change it to whatever you think is appropriate. Although, keep in mind that even though a character may carry both a greatsword and a longbow, he will primarily use one or the other. If you feel he uses both equally, you may want to adjust the ratings slightly to compensate for having two categories of DPR.
The best thing is this: you can add your own custom builds to cover what's not already there. You have a multiclass sorc/monk/gunfighter? Enter it in there and add your ratings and it will not only adjust the party scores, but it'll give you a rough idea of how your character rates in comparison to other builds. Just scroll down to the bottom of the builds on the second tab and add the class name, the build name, and the ratings.
Feel free to offer advice/critiques/questions. If something doesn't seem right, maybe it isn't. There may still be some tweaking to be done in the formulas.
Now, google spreadsheets does not support conditional formatting, but the original file makes it much easier to see which recommended builds are highest and color codes the builds into four rankings. If you want the original file, go here: Original
P.S. If you do think the ratings aren't right, please correct them and send me the corrected ratings. With enough people's ratings, I can recalibrate the Party Picker for greater accuracy. I'm also working on some other tools and could use some beta testers. One is a spreadsheet that shows character progression from level 1 to 20, including hp, ac, dpr, etc.
lol, why didn't anyone tell me you couldn't edit it?
It's fixed now :)
One thing I'm noticing is how hard it is to see which build the Party Picker recommends. If you get the original file (linked in OP), it should be much easier to see.
Does anyone have any questions/comments?
Sensten, this is really cool, but your ratings are strange. I think I get where you are coming from with putting in so many low scores. If you are trying to simulate action economy, then it stands to reason that if some class is mostly doing X then it wont have much time for Y so even though it is ok at Y you give it a 0 out of 5?
Example: you have ranged Paladin as 0 melee ability? even though they will for certain have a decent Str, various melee buff spells, and all martial weapons available. I can only assume this is because you feel they would never want to melee.
You should make it very clear what way you want to go with this or will get a big spread back from your survey.
Also summoner melee:2? tank:0???, have a word with yourself. Try 4 or 5
Anyway just my thoughts.
yea, I like the idea as well, but you should wait for the results of your survey first - some of your ratings are just not reasonable.
But this is really, really cool, can you explain more about the raiting system? How did you figure out the "need"?
It might be worth streamlining the spreadsheet a bit, this advice might be a bit late as your survey is out already.
I would roll utility crafting and magical utility into one tab. For example of the reason why;
Ranged Rogue (one of the worst class/specs in the game) gets an overall rating of 26.67 largely due to 20 points from out of combat score, Traps:5 Scouting:5 Utility:5 Face:5, what utility does a Rogue bring that is not dealing with traps, scouting and stealth or face duties? because if its only a lot of skill points that score it Utility:5 then why does Witch an Int class that will have tons of skills only get Utility:1?
In the above example you score a Ranged Rogue as more valuable than any Bard, any Alchemist, any Paladin, all bar one Sorcerer build, any Fighter etc.
Also you scored nobody as 5 for buffing, why? surely your scale should range from no ability to do something at 0 to the ability to assume that role in the party in a very effective way at 5?
Same goes for debuffing one witch spec has a 5, but no other spec or class even manages a 4?
If its just that you dont value the role as important then adjust the weighting in your spreadsheet, dont say nobody can do it well.
What I would do if i were re-designing the spreadsheet is I would imput all the info from your survey to get what classes can bring to the party. Then I would check that Wizard, Summoner, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid and Witch were all at the top as befits the tier 1 and tier 2 status of those classes. If the they were not at the top then i would look to see what was wrong with the weightings in my spreadsheet and correct it as required to have a true representation of class power.
I know that the purpose of your spreadsheet is to find a balanced party, It should still do that even when reletive character power is more in line with where it should be.
At the moment somebody might pick a Rogue to start then your spreadsheet would tell them to pick master summoner, then life oracle then hexcrafter magus. Now I really really like master summoner and hexcrafter magus, life oracle is a bit meh and obviously I think rogues suck a bit, but I am not sure I think that is an optimized party.
If I pick God Wizard as my first class, it pretty much tells me to still pick up a magus a life oracle and a rogue, WTF? rogue, magus and life oracle over-valued a little i think.
If I pick a Fighter to start......you guessed it Master Summoner, Rogue, Life Oracle, I think a non uniform role weighting would result in a more diverse selection of complimentary party members baced on what is allready in your party. Another option would be to not have scores at all, and just have a colour guide(same colours you have now but with the numbers hidden) that way if i have a Rogue a Fighter and a Wizard, the chart would recomend any druid, any cleric, any witch or life oracle without sugesting as it does now, that life oracle is the best choice.
Anyway, if any of this is useful to you great, if not just ignore me.
Cheers,
Steve.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The original How to Round Out Your Party is here, if you guys are interested.
PathfinderSteve wrote: A lot of valuable insight I'm so happy to get some feedback
I know a bunch of my ratings were off. That was the reason for the survey in the first place, but since I wasn't getting many results, I went ahead and filled it out as best I could. Once I get a sufficient amount of ratings from the survey (or from people sending me adjusted spreadsheet ratings) I can really get to work.
As for balance, I tried to model it after the Tier discussion from another thread (as you're suggesting). I didn't do it perfectly and, as mentioned, several of the ratings are off. One of the big issues there is that I'm not entirely familiar with all the different builds so I based it off a best guess. Again, once I get enough feedback, I can calibrate it all properly.
As for why certain classes get more representation than others? Generally it's because, if you look at the forums, those classes are called out as singularly better than other classes in the same tier (for various reasons, like action economy, etc). That said, while the spreadsheet recommends one or two specific builds, it also highlights builds that aren't listed highest but are listed higher than others. In general, if you're lacking a battlefield control type build, wizard, witch, and summoner will be among the highest options, with summoner generally being the best. If you're looking for a healer, all the cleric builds plus the life oracle will be up there. And so on.
Depending on the party composition, which character fills which role changes as well. If you have a fighter, a wizard, and a rogue, you will almost certainly end up with a cleric or life oracle. But if you have a paladin, a witch, and a bard, you'll likely end up with something else because all three of those classes, while basically filling the same roles, also all have their own healing.
Anyway, yes, I need to get better ratings, but I need more feedback for that. Otherwise, your suggestions are great and I'll certainly take them into consideration for version 3.0
Wasum wrote: yea, I like the idea as well, but you should wait for the results of your survey first - some of your ratings are just not reasonable.
But this is really, really cool, can you explain more about the raiting system? How did you figure out the "need"?
Great question. Most of the equations are based on current ratings, which will likely change once I get enough feedback. That said, I created them based on several factors
1st: That all roles are covered within a party. This meant weighting certain roles more than others and finding out how much of this or that was needed to get a "balanced party" (wizard/rogue/fighter/cleric)
2nd: the thread by TarkXT on building a balanced group (link above), which gave valuable insight of the balance of different combat roles
3rd: the thread on tier systems in terms of out of combat usefulness
4th: before I weighted anything, I tried to rate the classes as best I could and created six or seven different parties to see what the minimum/average scores were for each role. Then I calibrated the formulas to ensure that each minimum was met and that the roles that were missing were weighted much higher than the roles that were partially filled which were rated higher than the roles that were completely filled
All considered, it does a decent job of recommending top choice and a top tier of choices for each member, although it could easily be better. As mentioned, more feedback on this project means more accuracy in the spreadsheet.
Broken Zenith wrote: The original How to Round Out Your Party is here, if you guys are interested. For those unaware, this was the inspiration for my version :D All thanks to Broken Zenith for helping me get started
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In light of this thread's title, I propose an official animated .gif for "The Party Picker"
You may view it here (perfectly safe for work)
PathfinderSteve wrote: Sensten, this is really cool, but your ratings are strange. I think I get where you are coming from with putting in so many low scores. If you are trying to simulate action economy, then it stands to reason that if some class is mostly doing X then it wont have much time for Y so even though it is ok at Y you give it a 0 out of 5?
Yes, I tried to consider action economy as well as the primary function. If you're building a ranged build, even though you CAN engage in melee, you won't do so unless you have to (in general). For instance, a wizard can technically score at least a 4 or 5 in almost every category if he prepares the right spells. But on a typical day, what is he MOST LIKELY to prepare? That's what I was going for. It's clear that I haven't quite succeeded, but that's my own inexperience speaking.
There's also another issue that I'm unsure about how to deal with. That is what a build is capable of vs what it actually does. The easiest way to look at this is damage vs dpr. If someone looks at a plain rogue and sees they do 1d6 every 2 levels, they might think: powerhouse. But it fails to consider the situation nature of sneak attack as well as the 3/4 BAB and lack of feats. There's multiple threads on why rogues suck, so I won't get into that, but I will touch on one thing that a lot of them sort of blow over. Even if you can consistently get Sneak Attack, you need to start with a +3 to hit and it needs to increase by 1 every three levels to 10 and then 1 every 2 levels thereafter. And that's JUST for a 50% chance to hit and ONLY on the average monster AC. Keeping in mind that a 50% chance to hit typical halves your dpr... And damage/dpr is the EASIEST thing to account for. As mentioned a wizard can do practically anything, but what is he realistically capable of? So you can see why some of my ratings may appear bizarre :D (though, to be fair, some of them probably are just plain wrong)
When I saw Broken Zenith's spreadsheet I thought of dissecting so you could mode the class ratings based on a particular build. God bless you and BZ for tackling this.
Both are built for a 4 person team. Would it be possible to mod for different party sizes? I run with 5 players. Could also help a 4 player party when someone picks up leadership.
The Bald Man wrote: Would it be possible to mod for different party sizes? I run with 5 players. Could also help a 4 player party when someone picks up leadership. Technically, you can just keep adding people. You still look for the highest number but since all the numbers are negative, it's a little harder. There's also in there, somewhere, a general rule of thumb taht a party should have a combat score of 6*# char and a out of combat score of 15*# of chars.
However, I've been thinking about ways to alter it so that it's easier/more accurate for different sized parties. With a fifth and sixth member, the priorities change a bit. Often it's the support classes (like bards) that get nominated for that fifth spot. I need to figure out how to incorporate that shift into the planner. It's also be helpful if anyone has any general criteria they tend to apply to fifth/sixth/nth party members as well (such as, the fifth member should boost the effectiveness of the other members).
Just wanted to pop in and compliment the title of the post. Awesome.
thats all
Awesome spread sheet. Quick question though, when I download the sheet and run it on my local copy of excel it does not like the L column. It works in google docs but doesn't work in excel 2010.
Is anyone else having this issue?
I used open office and it was fine.
At work now but will look at it later
Tormad wrote: Awesome spread sheet. Quick question though, when I download the sheet and run it on my local copy of excel it does not like the L column. It works in google docs but doesn't work in excel 2010.
Is anyone else having this issue?
Are you downloading the original file or the google spreadsheets file?
I recommend using the original, but if you use the google file, there are some versions of excel that require a trick to use certain types of formulas. The formulas in column L are that type.
If you know anything about excel, the formulas in column L are array formulas, so use the CTRL+SHIFT+ENTER trick to get them to work. If you don't know anything about excel, PM me and I'll walk you through it.
The Original file is working very nicely, thank you. I failed my check to notice it in the original post.
Thanks again, this will be a fun tool to play around with.
Tormad wrote: The Original file is working very nicely, thank you. I failed my check to notice it in the original post.
Thanks again, this will be a fun tool to play around with.
Happy to be of service :)
Aren't the Monk's scores a little high?
4 melee and 5 tank? I wouldn't even give them 3s
Macona wrote: Aren't the Monk's scores a little high?
4 melee and 5 tank? I wouldn't even give them 3s
A lot of the scores are not as accurate as I would like them to be. As soon as I get more feedback, I can adjust them properly. To give me feedback, do one of two things. Download the original, adjust the ratings for each class to your liking and pm me for an email to send the adjusted scores to (recommended). OR go here and fill out a survey. Once enough people give me their ratings, I'll have a statistically objective score for each class.
I appreciate any other comments or questions or criticisms you may have :)
Sensten wrote: I appreciate any other comments or questions or criticisms you may have :)
This was awesome. Yes I dont agree with all the scores but I can change them when its needed. Also this adds alot for someone being able to take trait that gives diplomacy and pick up skill focus (Diplomacy) and they are as good of a party fast as anyone.
I can even change the value of Traps or Face catagories depending on the DM you run with. Beautiful.
GREAT WORK!
My comments would include adding something to allow more than 4 characters before getting neg numbers. Also, without reading the tread I wouldnt have understood what "Ideal >6/char" was. I get it now. Maybe better way to convey what your meaning on that.
Slacker2010 wrote:
This was awesome. Yes I dont agree with all the scores but I can change them when its needed. Also this adds alot for someone being able to take trait that gives diplomacy and pick up skill focus (Diplomacy) and they are as good of a party fast as anyone.
I can even change the value of Traps or Face catagories depending on the DM you run with. Beautiful.
GREAT WORK!
My comments would include adding something to allow more than 4 characters before getting neg numbers. Also, without reading the tread I wouldnt have understood what "Ideal >6/char" was. I get it now. Maybe better way to convey what your meaning on that.
Thank you :)
I have a few ideas to fix the party size problems. I'll see what I can do about making the "Ideal" numbers clearer. But I've been resisting putting together another version until I get more responses on class ratings. I only have three right now (not including myself).
All that said, thank you again for taking the time to look at and comment on it. Outside comments are the only way I know what needs fixing
It looks like some people have finally added some custom classes to the google version. That's pretty cool :)
It also looks like some of the ratings have been changed. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but be aware that ratings are now even more subjective than before. I have no idea what criteria someone might have used to change a rating.
To establish a more objective rating system, download the original file, adjust the ratings and email the adjustments to senstenpathfinder@gmail.com. Once I get enough people to respond, I'll do maths to it and post the results
A friend sent a link to the thread. First thing I thought when I read the title was: "Slim Pickens does the right thing..."
Interesting idea. Filling out survey.
You know, I'm not sure why I went with this title, but as a lot of people seem to enjoy it, I'm glad I did. Even if it's not entirely relevant.
Awesome, now we have just need another dozen people to give me some ratings and we'll have a ...small sample. But it'll at least be a double digit sample, which we don't currently have.
|
