D&D 5E D&D Beyond Releases 2023 Character Creation Data

D&D Beyond released the 2023 Unrolled with data on the most popular character choices for D&D. The full article includes a wide variety of statistics for the beta test of Maps, charity donations, mobile app usage, and more. However, I’m just going to recap the big numbers.

The most common species chosen by players are Human, Elf, Dragonborn, Tiefling, and Half-Elf. This contrasts with the stats from Baldur’s Gate 3 released back in August 2023 where Half-Elves were the most popular with the rest of the top five also shuffling around.

Also, keep an eye on the scale of these charts as they’re not exactly even. It starts with just over 700,000 for Humans and 500,000 for Elf, but the next line down is 200,000 with the other three species taking up space in that range. This means the difference separating the highest line on the graph and the second highest is 200,000, then 300,000 between the next two, 100,000 between the next, and finally 10,000 separating all the others.

Top classes start off with the Fighter then move onto the Rogue, Barbarian, Wizard, and Paladin. The scale on this chart is just as uneven as the last, but the numbers are much closer with what appears to be about 350,000 Fighters at the top to just over 100,000 Monks in next-to-last with under 80,000 Artificers. This contrasts far more from the Baldur’s Gate 3 first weekend data as the top five classes for the game were Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlock, Rogue, and Bard.

And the most important choices for new characters, the names. Bob is still the top choice for names with Link, Saraphina, and Lyra seeing the most growth and Bruno, Eddie, and Rando seeing the biggest declines from last year.

Putting that together, it means the most commonly created character on D&D Beyond is Bob the Human Fighter. A joke going as far back as I can remember in RPGs is, in fact, reality proven by hard statistics.

 

[TheSword]

I think with a complex system like D&D / Pathfinder / WFRP with a lot of moving parts there are going to a number of challenges that get thrown on. Some will see them as bugs, others will see them as features.

I think there are some people that think challenges needs to be resolved by working with the system. Others think it can be fixed by working with the people.

I personally think folks vastly overestimate how effective systems are at fixing out of game problems - like rules lawyering, grand standing, dominating games, over-optimization etc and believe you have to get the right people. You can’t fix out of game problems with in game solutions is a mantra I’ve agreed with for a few decades now.

Other folks perhaps aren’t able to regulate the people so have no choice but to target the system. As futile as I think this is. Somewhere in between is probably the happy medium. I’m definitely looking forward to a new DMG and am interested to see what spells to get tinkered with to close loopholes - like forbiddance.

 

[Oofta]

I think with a complex system like D&D / Pathfinder / WFRP with a lot of moving parts there are going to a number of challenges that get thrown on. Some will see them as bugs, others will see them as features.

I think there are some people that think challenges needs to be resolved by working with the system. Others think it can be fixed by working with the people.

I personally think folks vastly overestimate how effective systems are at fixing out of game problems - like rules lawyering, grand standing, dominating games, over-optimization etc and believe you have to get the right people. You can’t fix out of game problems with in game solutions is a mantra I’ve agreed with for a few decades now.

Other folks perhaps aren’t able to regulate the people so have no choice but to target the system. As futile as I think this is. Somewhere in between is probably the happy medium. I’m definitely looking forward to a new DMG and am interested to see what spells to get tinkered with to close loopholes - like forbiddance.

Maybe that should be a separate (+) thread.

 

[bedir than]

@bedir than - I like your picture. However, couple of points. Number one, on your computer screen, that horse is a couple of inches high. In real life, that's a seven foot, several hundred pound animal that is not exactly stealthy. If that horse got within 60 feet of you without you noticing, you really have no business being in a forest. At 30 feet, that's a pretty easy kill shot with a hunting bow by a competent hunter. True, behind the tree, it would have cover, but, the idea that I wouldn't know it was there? Yeah, not likely. Notice you have clear sight lines pretty much to the ridge, some 100 feet behind.

We should operate from the idea that I took the picture. Luca was just hanging out there, not attempting to hide and not moving. I was there in real life, approaching him. I was surprised at how hard it was to see him.

And since I'm actually trained in ranged combat, I assure you that 100' feet in an actual forest and the edge of a cleared pasture is concealment for non-moving individuals.

You're writing as if you're a hunter, so you know this. This is why you set up a blind. And even if you don't you don't try to approach in heavy brush because you are sacrificing your concealment by moving.

And no, 100' feet behind would involve crossing a dip deep enough that a horse standing in it would only have a head above the near ridge.

 

[Lidgar]

Looking at the top species and classes, good to see this guy still on his throne.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think with a complex system like D&D / Pathfinder / WFRP with a lot of moving parts there are going to a number of challenges that get thrown on. Some will see them as bugs, others will see them as features.

I think there are some people that think challenges needs to be resolved by working with the system. Others think it can be fixed by working with the people.

I personally think folks vastly overestimate how effective systems are at fixing out of game problems - like rules lawyering, grand standing, dominating games, over-optimization etc and believe you have to get the right people. You can’t fix out of game problems with in game solutions is a mantra I’ve agreed with for a few decades now.

I also think folks vastly underestimate how effective complex and flawed systems with lots of moving parts are at causing issues by rewarding specific behaviours. (Or even simple but flawed systems are). For example there are a whole lot of systems I don't think I've ever seen a rules lawyer in - and over-optimisation is a consequence of there not being guard rails written into the system and not setting reasonable expectations.

You can't fix out of game problems with in game solutions - but in game problems can create what appear to be out of game ones. And rules lawyering and over-optimising are fundamentally in-game problems.

 

[TheSword]

I also think folks vastly underestimate how effective complex and flawed systems with lots of moving parts are at causing issues by rewarding specific behaviours. (Or even simple but flawed systems are). For example there are a whole lot of systems I don't think I've ever seen a rules lawyer in - and over-optimisation is a consequence of there not being guard rails written into the system and not setting reasonable expectations.

You can't fix out of game problems with in game solutions - but in game problems can create what appear to be out of game ones. And rules lawyering and over-optimising are fundamentally in-game problems.

So rules lawyering and over-optimization varies player to player within the same system. So it is clearly a player driven behaviour. The same people I see optimizing in 5e were the same people in every other edition and system that I saw optimizing and arguing for corner cases and always trying to get the edge. It’s not system
dependent.

Not designing a system to to make over-optimization impossible is not the same as encouraging it. We learn self control as part of acting as a society.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So rules lawyering and over-optimization varies player to player within the same system. So it is clearly a player driven behaviour.

It also varies system to system for the same player. So clearly it is also system driven.

I would rather change the system to something that suits everyone than kick people out for the sake of a flawed set of game rules.

The same people I see optimizing in 5e were the same people I saw optimizing and arguing for corner cases and always trying to get the edge. It’s not system

Meanwhile as long as they are not outright cheating this is not actually a problem in a well balanced system. It being a problem is caused either by an unbalanced system or a problem person unwilling to let others have their fun.

And actually good systems make the strongest moves into the most fun ones.

Meanwhile regardless of the system anti-optimizers are problem players who want to prohibit interacting with either system or setting in sensible ways. In other words anti-optimizers are people who are trying to prevent others roleplaying.

dependent.

Not designing a system to to make over-optimization impossible is not the same as encouraging it. We learn self control as part of acting as a society.

And in civilised society we consider diversity a good thing - and when a tool (which is what a system is) is causing problems we consider adapting it to people to be more important than forcing people to fit a procrustean bed.

As for "we learn self control as part of a society" we also learn to stay alive. And the more dangerous the situation the more staying alive matters. The future belongs to those who turn up. Having a problem with in-character decisions (such as equipment and spell selection) not being optimised is in any sort of game with regular lethal combat having a problem with people who play characters that value their own lives.

 

[ECMO3]

One quibble about the troll's tactics: according to the MM,

I wonder if that would affect the outcome much.

It would probably affect it, but not enough for the Troll to win most of the time.

The Barbarian has a 74% chance of successfully grappling Troll in turn 1, which takes away his ability to attack anyone else without breaking the grapple first.

Once he is grappled, it is an action to break the grapple, so that is 3 attacks he loses and it is not automatic. Troll has a +4 and the Barbarian has a +5 and advantage in Rage. Every time Troll tries to break the grapple he is losing 3 attacks and even if he succeeds the Barbarian can try to grapple him again next turn and move him back on the fire.

Where this might help is if the Barbarian misses the grapple in turn 1. If that happens and the Troll takes an AOO and goes right for the Wizard it would win almost always on a missed grapple. So as a back of the envelope guess, it would raise it from 15% TPK to probably around 30% TPK.

 

[Hussar]

I've had plenty of casters in my group, I haven't had to "police" them any more than anyone else. Which is virtually never. Occasionally I've had to make a ruling here and there but it's been across the board. But I've had some people bend the rules in every edition.

I just can't imagine why you have such issues when I haven't seen them in any game I've been involved with over a decade with dozens of different people and groups.

But, yes you have. And, hang on, you just said, earlier in the thread, you actually HADN'T had a lot of casters in your group. That your groups fall pretty solidly in line with the WOtC demographics in the OP. So, which is it?

Every single time people bring up spells or effects, you talk about how you've changed effects, altered your game, altered how NPC's or monsters act. You've repeatedly talked about this. You've talked about this in this thread.

But, besides that, good for you I guess? If you have nothing constructive to say, why are you bothering to respond to me? Do you really need to strongly imply I'm lying? Catch me out? Your failure of imagination is not my problem. So, if all you're going to do is deny my experiences and tell me I'm lying, please, stop responding to me.

 

[Hussar]

Are you saying 2E didn't have this problem? Because I sure did have problems in that edition with all sorts of badly worded or remembered spells and abilities that gave me enough headaches I walked away from the system at the tail end of it rather than deal with it.

Oh, no. I'm saying 2e had this problem in spades. I'm saying that I haven't had to police D&D this much since my 2e days. Sorry for the confusion.