PF And statistics! :D

[Mr. woop woop]

Using the 3.5 Class Creator I Found the Average score for each pathfinder class(Pathfinder doesn't have it's own class score system.)

(click to show/hide)

Ranger: 272
Sorcerer: 272
Magus: 269
Bard: 268
Paladin: 255
Druid: 250
Samurai: 249
Monk: 236
Barbarian: 232
Ninja: 232
Fighter: 229
Rogue: 225
Gunslinger: 206
Cleric: 200
Wizard: 199

Range: 73
Mode: 272, 232
Median: 236
Mean: 239.6
σ: 24.4998

YAY! Numbers!
Now this is a bit flawed. But using this, it is a bit easier to standardize the power of custom PF classes and group them into groups. Also, the average as said on the site for a 3.5 character is 215.

[FlaminCows]

The class point system values prepared spellcasting with access to the full list much lower than it should, because there's no way the Wizard and Cleric should be the smallest-value classes.

[Stratovarius]

I'm curious how Sorcerer is one of the best classes, and Wizard is one of the worst, when it's fairly universally agreed Wizard is one of the 2-3 strongest classes in the game (mostly thanks to splatbook support, but still)...

Also, Ranger better than Druid and Paladin better than Cleric? That's a laugh.

[Mr. woop woop]

The reason Wizard and cleric are so low down is because those classes are actually very bear bone and such. mixed with a low HP cost and a low BAB / Saves They are low on points. the reason these classes are normally ranked so high. Is because of there versatility. While a wizard will start off "weaker" class point wise. They will, very quickly, over power other classes through there spells and ability to give themselves other abilities. It's just that there base Is weak. The reason sorcerer is way up there is because of there spells per day and the sheer amount of extra things there class gets. Same with ranger but for ranger it's more the fact that they get a large BAB and good saves with high HP which still make up a good amount of points. I think 108 of the wizards points came from it's spells alone. and ~150 of the sorcerers also came from spells. If you got rid of there spell casting capabilities these classes would be the weakest by far.

[Mr. woop woop]

Ranger is beter than druid because they have the same basic spell usage but the ranger class has more things it gives you. where as druid lets him change into other things. This system is not based off of what can be done. It is based off of the attributes and abilities the class gives.

[FlaminCows]

But the Ranger does not have the same basic spell usage as a Druid. The Druid has nine levels of spells, the Ranger has only four. A ranger has a caster level of only one-half his class level.

Either the system is so inaccurate that it is useless, or you counted it wrong somehow. I'll read up on it to be sure.

EDIT: The system is useless. I got a lower total than you for Ranger, but it was still too high, and it valued spellcasting far too low. I won't even bother with calculating the wizard.

This is more than a bit flawed. You would be better off using your own judgement rather than using this points system.

[Mr. woop woop]

Druid has a lot less "Powerful abilities", a smaller BaB scale, a smaller hit dice, less skill points per level, less skills, and less weapon Proficiency, ... than a ranger.

[Mr. woop woop]

How does it value spell casting to low? A wizards spell casting is worth 105 points. that is like using d20's or more for your hp or having a BAB scale that ends at a +40 ... or more.

Also the flaw comes in when you have to chose if something is a powerful of minor ability. Because it doesn't give you an exact , This is a powerful thing and this isn't, So it's open to interpretation on what is powerful or not.

other than that it is a sound system. I'm guessing you didn't read into the magic part of it enough. It is a very specific system. there are a lot of multipliers involved in that part. Also i forgot to multiply the cp for the lower level skills. Which would set the classes even further apart.

[Gribel]

How does it value spell casting to low? A wizards spell casting is worth 105 points. that is like using d20's or more for your hp or having a BAB scale that ends at a +40 ... or more.

Also the flaw comes in when you have to chose if something is a powerful of minor ability. Because it doesn't give you an exact , This is a powerful thing and this isn't, So it's open to interpretation on what is powerful or not.

other than that it is a sound system. I'm guessing you didn't read into the magic part of it enough. It is a very specific system. there are a lot of multipliers involved in that part.

It values spellcasting too low because wizards are rated as the weakest, while they are actually (one of) the strongest.

[Mr. woop woop]

How does it value spell casting to low? A wizards spell casting is worth 105 points. that is like using d20's or more for your hp or having a BAB scale that ends at a +40 ... or more.

Also the flaw comes in when you have to chose if something is a powerful of minor ability. Because it doesn't give you an exact , This is a powerful thing and this isn't, So it's open to interpretation on what is powerful or not.

other than that it is a sound system. I'm guessing you didn't read into the magic part of it enough. It is a very specific system. there are a lot of multipliers involved in that part.

It values spellcasting too low because wizards are rated as the weakest, while they are actually (one of) the strongest.

This Is from a statistical Point of view. If I showed you it's stats on a piece of paper and DIDN'T tell you, This guy can increase any of these with his spells, Would you think it is strong? Wizards are week as hell from just it's stats it's BaB health and saves are pitiful and it gains no class abilities. The reason a wizard is ranked so high on tier lists is because it can cast 15 fireballs in a round or buff all his allies to infinity or he can block off an entire army with a wall of force then create a pit under it having them all fall to there deaths.
A wizard is strong because they are versatile. Not because they are spell casters.

[Stratovarius]

A Binder and a Factotum are both versatile. They aren't in the same power level as the Wizard. It's because the Wizard is a caster that he's powerful. So, bluntly, the point system is wrong. It's not valuing casting anywhere near high enough.

[Garryl]

This is a joke, right? The system values the total spellcasting ability of bards as 19 points (see the example at the bottom of the page). It also values 19 points at roughly 2 skill points/level, or the difference between their d6 HD and a d10 hit die, or adding proficiency with heavy armor + shields (though not the ability to cast in them), or adding in 2-3 bonus feats or other class features within the first 5 levels. I'm not even going to try to count the number of spells that can outdo multiples of those at a time.

Oh well. At least it doesn't rank monks the highest like that other point-based system that keeps popping up.

How does it value spell casting to low? A wizards spell casting is worth 105 points. that is like using d20's or more for your hp or having a BAB scale that ends at a +40 ... or more.

Also the flaw comes in when you have to chose if something is a powerful of minor ability. Because it doesn't give you an exact , This is a powerful thing and this isn't, So it's open to interpretation on what is powerful or not.

other than that it is a sound system. I'm guessing you didn't read into the magic part of it enough. It is a very specific system. there are a lot of multipliers involved in that part.

It values spellcasting too low because wizards are rated as the weakest, while they are actually (one of) the strongest.

This Is from a statistical Point of view. If I showed you it's stats on a piece of paper and DIDN'T tell you, This guy can increase any of these with his spells, Would you think it is strong? Wizards are week as hell from just it's stats it's BaB health and saves are pitiful and it gains no class abilities. The reason a wizard is ranked so high on tier lists is because it can cast 15 fireballs in a round or buff all his allies to infinity or he can block off an entire army with a wall of force then create a pit under it having them all fall to there deaths.
A wizard is strong because they are versatile. Not because they are spell casters.

Wizards are also statistically strong. Take a loot at what spells can do from the numerical benefits alone. AC bonuses, attack rolls, damage bonuses, extra attacks, skill checks, and that's not even getting to the ones that deal with the same issues from entirely different angles, like concealment/miss chances instead of AC, or turning normal attacks into touch attacks, or bypassing damage entirely with a save or die, or just calling a monster with better stats than you to fight instead. Willfully ignoring all of this is as bad as falsifying your data.

[Mr. woop woop]

A Binder and a Factotum are both versatile. They aren't in the same power level as the Wizard. It's because the Wizard is a caster that he's powerful. So, bluntly, the point system is wrong. It's not valuing casting anywhere near high enough.

A wizard has 36 ( I don't count level 0 because you have inf of those) spell*3 or 108 cp or a 80 BAB (25 per 20) or 12 skill points(+int) per level or d100's for class HP. So ... Please tell me how a BAB of 80 or a D100 for hp isn't op? or at least makes the cp for spells wrong???

This is a joke, right? The system values the total spellcasting ability of bards as 19 points (see the example at the bottom of the page). It also values 19 points at roughly 2 skill points/level, or the difference between their d6 HD and a d10 hit die, or adding proficiency with heavy armor + shields (though not the ability to cast in them), or adding in 2-3 bonus feats or other class features within the first 5 levels. I'm not even going to try to count the number of spells that can outdo multiples of those at a time.

Oh well. At least it doesn't rank monks the highest like that other point-based system that keeps popping up.

How does it value spell casting to low? A wizards spell casting is worth 105 points. that is like using d20's or more for your hp or having a BAB scale that ends at a +40 ... or more.

Also the flaw comes in when you have to chose if something is a powerful of minor ability. Because it doesn't give you an exact , This is a powerful thing and this isn't, So it's open to interpretation on what is powerful or not.

other than that it is a sound system. I'm guessing you didn't read into the magic part of it enough. It is a very specific system. there are a lot of multipliers involved in that part.

It values spellcasting too low because wizards are rated as the weakest, while they are actually (one of) the strongest.

This Is from a statistical Point of view. If I showed you it's stats on a piece of paper and DIDN'T tell you, This guy can increase any of these with his spells, Would you think it is strong? Wizards are week as hell from just it's stats it's BaB health and saves are pitiful and it gains no class abilities. The reason a wizard is ranked so high on tier lists is because it can cast 15 fireballs in a round or buff all his allies to infinity or he can block off an entire army with a wall of force then create a pit under it having them all fall to there deaths.
A wizard is strong because they are versatile. Not because they are spell casters.

Wizards are also statistically strong. Take a loot at what spells can do from the numerical benefits alone. AC bonuses, attack rolls, damage bonuses, extra attacks, skill checks, and that's not even getting to the ones that deal with the same issues from entirely different angles, like concealment/miss chances instead of AC, or turning normal attacks into touch attacks, or bypassing damage entirely with a save or die, or just calling a monster with better stats than you to fight instead. Willfully ignoring all of this is as bad as falsifying your data.

I said if you ignore the spell casting the class is bad. the spell casting.. 108 cp Is what is giving it most of it's strong side. You can't sit there and say "But this one spell gives it a higher BAB" because then we have to calculate what if's. we aren't looking at what spells can do it's what the class is given.

[FlaminCows]

If the points system does not take into account what spells can do, then the points system is useless. Yes, if I ignore all the spells and look at only the Wizard's class features, he is a commoner with a pet. But to look at it that way is completely retarded. The very first thing I would ask when you show me a Wizard's stats on a paper is "Where are his spells? What do they do?"

I did look at the magic section: the multipliers are fractional, which means they reduce the value rather than increase it. The value of spellcasting is hilariously low.

That's not the only thing wrong with this system, either. For example, it rates a d12 hit die as being worth 20 points more than a d10 hit die. The difference is one hit point per level. You could take a single feat and it would do it better. Likewise it rates Simple Weapon Proficiency and Light Armour Proficiency as being worth 10 points each, when they, too, can be gotten with just a feat. A one skill point per level increase is counted as worth 8.5 points, when that is also just one feat. Meanwhile, it rates a bonus feat as a Normal Ability with 1 point, multiplied by 4 if I get it at low level. The guy who wrote this had good intentions, but didn't know the value of anything.

[Stratovarius]

And given we know that a Wizard is far stronger than a ranger, that means Wizard casting is undervalued by at least 170 pts, based on the numbers at the top of the post. So, clearly, it's a joke of a system.

[Libertad]

I'm curious how Sorcerer is one of the best classes, and Wizard is one of the worst, when it's fairly universally agreed Wizard is one of the 2-3 strongest classes in the game (mostly thanks to splatbook support, but still)...

Also, Ranger better than Druid and Paladin better than Cleric? That's a laugh.

Nah, there's still a lot of 3.X gamers who insist that the game's totally balanced, or that mechanical problems don't exist since they've never personally seen it happen in their own games.  Coincidentally, they're often the same people who throw a hissy fit whenever martials get something nice or something that spellcasters can do.

[Power]

So...

Wizards and Clerics are worst.
Druids are inferior to Rangers.
Samurai, Monk, and Ninja are all superior to the Fighter.

I think we can all agree this point system is laughably bad. The only one who seems to think it's any good is you, OP.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

(tangent , but in the ballpark)

I vaguely recall a poster around here
linking to a Custom Something at PF.
It might have been races , idk ?
I didn't commit it to memory ... problematic enough as is 

Provided it could be found, it would be
concrete examples of what PF says
are points equivalent to some things.


EDIT --- didn't find the thread around here, but did find it over there.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/creating-new-races

[linklord231]

You mean the Race Points thing? Posting from my phone, or I'd link the pfsrd

[awaken_D_M_golem]

That's it exactly (partial ninja'd)

edited link on last post