Statistically objective build ratings

[Sensten]

Recent posts have let me to wondering about the strengths and weaknesses of various builds and how each person has a different take on them. In the same sort of way that A man in black wanted an objective sense of DPR for comparison purposes, I'd like to get as objective (and accurate) an idea of class ratings. At least, as objective and accurate as statistics can provide.

To that end, I've created a survey with a list of builds and a bunch of categories (Melee, Ranged, Traps, Etc). I'll gladly share whatever results I may obtain as well as whatever develops from that information.

Survey

I'm looking to rate each build from 0-5 in the various categories. Try to rate within the confines of the listed build; even though some classes can do many things well, builds tend to specialize in only a couple things. If there's a build you want to rate that's not on there, feel free to post it here with ratings.

Some examples (just rough ratings):
A blaster wizard might be a 0 in melee, a 5 in area damage, a 2 in buffs, and a 3 in crafting.
An invulnerable rager barbarian would be 5 in melee, 0 in ranged, 5 in tank, 0 in Magic Utility.
An archeologist bard might be a 3 in melee, a 1 in tanking, a 5 in traps and face. And so on.

Credit goes to Broken Zenith for inspiring my curiosity.

[Aioran]

This takes forever X_X so gruelling.

[Aioran]

Done. Would be interested in the results :o

[Sensten]

Aioran wrote:

Done. Would be interested in the results :o

So would I :D

Other than myself, you are the first to complete it. The purpose was to get accurate ratings for this: Party Picker

It may be easier for anyone else to just download a copy of the original, change the ratings to suit you and send me the revised copy. either way, once you have the Party Picker, you can customize the ratings anyway so it won't really matter; it would just be nice if the default ratings were accurate.

(In case you don't want to look into the thread)
Original
Google Spreadsheet
The google version isn't as good as the original because google doesn't support all the features.

[Aioran]

Wait what, I don't get it D:

Why are there so many different things? does that mean there's not much point in doing the survey?

How did my results compare to yours? :o

[Elosandi]

That was large. It would have been helpful if things were rated out of 10.

I came into a problem with measuring healing.

The healing focused cleric ended up at 4, since they're far behind the oracle of life's Charisma based casting (hence getting extremely potent channeling as well), additional spells per day, and various revelations adding even more healing ability to them.

So, Oracle of Life: 5, Healing Focused Cleric: 4

It seemed wrong to place the healing focused cleric at the same level as the standard cleric.

So Oracle of Life: 5, Healing Focused Cleric: 4, Standard Cleric 3

On the other hand, the standard cleric has a huge advantage over the master of undeath through having some access to positive energy channeling, and spontaneous cure spells.

So Oracle of Life: 5, Healing Focused Cleric: 4, Standard Cleric 3, Master of Undeath 2

The master of undeath has far more powerful healing spells available (restorations, heal, mass heal, etc.) than the half-casters such as the bard, inquisitor and alchemist.

So Oracle of Life: 5, Healing Focused Cleric: 4, Standard Cleric 3, Master of Undeath 2, Half-Casters/UMD 1

Any healing is leagues ahead of no healing.

So Oracle of Life: 5, Healing Focused Cleric: 4, Standard Cleric 3, Master of Undeath 2, Half-Caster healers/UMD 1, Characters with no built in healing, few skill points, and little reason to include charisma into their build (i.e. Fighter, Barbarian)0

[PathfinderSteve]

I think the rating system should be 0-3 or 0-10, with 0-3 giving 0=no healing, 1=can do some healing, mostly weak or out of combat, 2=multiple healing options including good in combat options, 3=great healer, would be useful to the party even if the healing just just about all they brought.

However thats workable in a 0-5 system too, life oracle and healing focused cleric are easy 5 each, any positive energy cleric is 4, paladins and other clerics are 3, druids etc are 2, anybody else with minimal healing are 1, no healing=0.

IMO a healing focused cleric is as good if not a better healer than an oracle of life.

Above anything else I look forward to seeing the results of this poll.

[Sensten]

PathfinderSteve wrote:

Above anything else I look forward to seeing the results of this poll.

I grab the data as soon as anyone completes the survey, but (including myself) you are only the third person. I'm working on a way to not only average the ratings, but also present a meaningful breakdown of differences and agreements between raters.

Again, if it would be easier, check out and download the file, either from the google spreadsheets link or the original file link (linked above). Alter the ratings as you see fit and pm me for an email to send it to.

Elosandi wrote:

That was large. It would have been helpful if things were rated out of 10.

Yes, that was a consideration. But I based part of the calculations for the Party Picker (and the build ratings in it) on the discussion of tier ratings, so I wanted to get something that could roughly conform to that. Whether I succeeded on that is up to anyone that looks at the data after (or looks at the build ratings in the Party Picker, though you can of course customize the ratings in that file).

As always, I appreciate your comments/criticism :D

[PathfinderSteve]

Unfortunatly I will not be filling it in myself, with over 1100 entries even if i spend an average of only 5 seconds on each one deciding a score and filling it in, the whole thing will take over an hour and a half.

I might just fiddle with the scores in the spreadsheet over the next couple of days and get back to you. If i get to somewhere i like with it I will send you a PM.

Good luck with it anyway.

[Sensten]

PathfinderSteve wrote:

Unfortunatly I will not be filling it in myself, with over 1100 entries even if i spend an average of only 5 seconds on each one deciding a score and filling it in, the whole thing will take over an hour and a half.

I might just fiddle with the scores in the spreadsheet over the next couple of days and get back to you. If i get to somewhere i like with it I will send you a PM.

Good luck with it anyway.

Thanks

There's a reason 10 people started it but only 3 completed it, hehe. I honestly recommend changing the stats in the spreadsheet and sending it to me that way. It's easier for you (and you get to see my Party Picker and comment on it for me). Once I have a decent number of people respond (ideally 50+ but realistically 10+), I'll post up a breakdown of ratings for everyone.

[PathfinderSteve]

I downloaded it and commented on it in your other thread, I like the spreadsheet, and I don't like many of the values in it.

I will fiddle with the spreadsheet and see what I can come up with.