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.

 

[ECMO3]

@ECMO3 - You have highlighted exactly the problem I have with casters in 5e. Because 5e is written in plain, conversational English, you get all these weird interactions between rules packets, like spells, and the general rules. Is "grapple" an attack or not? See, if you rule that it is an attack, then Sanctuary remains a pretty solid defensive spell. However, if you rule that it's not an attack, then Sanctuary becomes a much more powerful spell, as you have demonstrated.

For clarity, Grapple is clearly an attack when you make it. It uses the attack action and if you grapple someone while in sanctuary it does end sanctuary.

Maintaining a grapple is not an attack though. It is not an action at all. Once you have someone grappled (using the attack action), on subsequent turns you can use any action you want and the person remains grappled. You do not need to attack to continue the grapple.

It is similar to a net. If I throw a net, that is an attack and if it hits the enemy is restrained and the enemy stays restrained until he breaks out of the net with a strength check (or destroys it with slashing damage). If you are in sanctuary when you throw the net it breaks sanctuary, but if the Cleric casts santuary on you after you throw the net, it is not broken merely because the enemy is still restrained by the net.

In the example combat I used Sanctuary was not cast until after the grapple was in place and after the grappler was done making at attack. If he did not succeed on the grapple check he did not get Sanctuaried.

 

[Hussar]

Play that then.

Because... actually fixing the problem is impossible? I'd point to 2024 D&D as actually going a long way to implementing a lot of the fixes I'm talking about.

It's hillarious. The conversation seems to be:

Me: I'm having problems with spells and casters in D&D.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.
Me: But, you've changed a boatload of spells and effects in the game. You wouldn't do that if there wasn't a problem.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.
Me: But... WotC has acknowledged that this is a problem and has issued fixes in Tasha's for a shedload of spells and now in 2024 for another round of spell fixes.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.

 

[Hussar]

it is likewise unreasonable for those folks to think can complain free from response.

But, it is reasonable to expect that complaints won't simply be brushed off with strong implication that the person complaining is flat out lying about their experience.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Umm, you realize 100 feet is the distance to first base right? Y'know, that distance you can pretty easily throw a baseball. That children can throw. Accurately? A 30 yard pass is hardly a long one in football. A bit long, maybe, but, again, something a non-professional can do with pretty decent accuracy. 100 feet is not a long distance.

You have changed the terms of your example though. Now it's a non-moving target, who has had time to set up an ambush point, taking the time to make a blind. Probably prone. Sure, you can hide then. A 9 foot, half ton troll moving through that same terrain, likely isn't all that hard to spot...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because... actually fixing the problem is impossible? I'd point to 2024 D&D as actually going a long way to implementing a lot of the fixes I'm talking about.

So problem solved?

It's hillarious. The conversation seems to be:

Me: I'm having problems with spells and casters in D&D.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.
Me: But, you've changed a boatload of spells and effects in the game. You wouldn't do that if there wasn't a problem.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.
Me: But... WotC has acknowledged that this is a problem and has issued fixes in Tasha's for a shedload of spells and now in 2024 for another round of spell fixes.
Response: The problem doesn't exist. Go play another game.

Whether the problem exists seems to be somewhat subjective. It existed for me a bit, so I banned some spells. I am merely offering suggestions that you can actually implement to fix the issue for you.

 

[TheSword]

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

I’m not sure that is reliably true. Why would a person feel strongly that it was important to make very effective and competent characters to the point of the groups detriment in one system but not others? The logic of why they would do that doesn’t make sense to me.

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.

It doesn’t suit everyone. Many people like a healthy amount of granularity and complexity and don’t want to see that stripped out so every spell is turned into a 15ft burst doing your Best Stat Bonus + 2d6. Some like the many moving parts provided by race, feats, class, background and equipment etc without feeling the need to create bladesingers with AC 25

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.

As I said there’s no such thing as a perfectly balanced complex system. Making one that’s impossible to over -optimize is a fools errand.

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.

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.

There’s nothing wrong with designing competent characters. There is a problem with one player deciding that it’s a good use of the groups game time is to elaborate their own personal pun pun. The player who acts out their simulacrum wish strategy round the table - rather than as a white room theory for sport - is demonstrating a social contract issue not a game issue - because many players can use that spell without twisting it into a corkscrew (if they get to that level).

I use the phrase over-optimizing because it describes a pattern of taking rules past the point that it’s complimentary to the rest of the group - the point of being a personal distraction. I’ve got no time for that and I would have an honest conversation with someone who did it. I wouldn’t kick them, I’d ask them to modify their behavior. It’s about putting the health of group’s game before personal kicks.

 

[Oofta]

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?

I've made a handful of very minor changes to spells. I've also made a few very minor changes for martial characters. I never said I haven't had casters, I said I just started a new campaign and we only have 1 caster. Most campaigns have been pretty caster heavy.

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.

I was trying to get details on what you perceive as the issue since outside of maybe a half dozen spells, which are easily modified or banned, I don't see an issue. Even in games that run it straight out of the book I haven't seen much of an issue, although that would be AL which my experience is primarily at lower levels.

 

[Oofta]

Umm, you realize 100 feet is the distance to first base right? Y'know, that distance you can pretty easily throw a baseball. That children can throw. Accurately? A 30 yard pass is hardly a long one in football. A bit long, maybe, but, again, something a non-professional can do with pretty decent accuracy. 100 feet is not a long distance.

You have changed the terms of your example though. Now it's a non-moving target, who has had time to set up an ambush point, taking the time to make a blind. Probably prone. Sure, you can hide then. A 9 foot, half ton troll moving through that same terrain, likely isn't all that hard to spot...

I've been in a forest where something was 20 feet away and I didn't know what it was. Since it was heavy grizzly territory and we had already found scat I didn't really want to know.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

Building on this, I don't see the potential for extreme character optimization as a flaw in 5e. I think it is very much a feature for a certain type of player, so I concur that the real issue is making sure that you are copacetic with your group, which generally requires some give and take.

I don't think a complex RPG system exists that doesn't allow for optimization - it's just the nature of having that many moving parts. I think 5e does a remarkable job of keeping the classes fairly balanced while still mostly maintaining distinct class identities. I agree that this breaks down somewhat at very high levels, and particularly with players who focus on optimization. Though I think that if you invite even a serious optimizer like ECMO3 to design an optimized high level group there will be a variety of classes represented.

I argue that no perfectly balanced system can exist for a system as complex as D&D5e - aside from the rules themselves, the context will change from setting to setting and DM to DM. That's not to argue that there is no room for improvement - hello 2024 monk - but that we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 5e is still a very healthy baby.

What a weird metaphor to finish with. Oh well.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I’m not sure that is reliably true. Why would a person feel strongly that it was important to make very effective and competent characters to the point of the groups detriment in one system but not others? The logic of why they would do that doesn’t make sense to me.

If making competent characters causes detriment to the group this is a system problem. The other thing is competence threshold.

It doesn’t suit everyone. Many people like a healthy amount of granularity and complexity and don’t want to see that stripped out so every spell is turned into a 15ft burst doing your Best Stat Bonus + 2d6.

I'm not aware which system does this. If it's meant to be a dig at 4e that system is more granular than most and makes different elements behave differently and have different riders and normally templates rather than just doing hp damage in a shape.

Some like the many moving parts provided by race, feats, class, background and equipment etc without feeling the need to create bladesingers with AC 25

So they can play 4e or 5e. Or any of a number of other systems that are D&D adjacent.

As I said there’s no such thing as a perfectly balanced complex system. Making one that’s impossible to over -optimize is a fools errand.

Which is no reason not to get near enough.

There’s nothing wrong with designing competent characters. There is a problem with one player deciding that it’s a good use of the groups game time is to elaborate their own personal pun pun.

And there is a problem with a system eo broken as to allow Pun-Pun. And especially one where the breaks are myriad.

The player who acts out their simulacrum wish strategy round the table - rather than as a white room theory for sport - is demonstrating a social contract issue not a game issue - because many players can use that spell without twisting it into a corkscrew (if they get to that level).

This is again 100% a problem with 3.X turning people into bad players. And as mentioned the problem here is that simulacrum -wish is a combo accessible in character. The player's problem is that they are playing a character used to risking their life and who is supposed to be smart. But somehow they are supposed to not take the pro-social action of, at cost only to themselves, of gaining enough power to protect their friends.

Your choice of game is entirely the thing creating your illustrations.

In AD&D 2e there was an epidemic of rogues stealing from the party because the game told them that was how you gained XP. Take away the toxic rules encouraging that and the problem almost goes away. Pre 4e Paladins were known as inflexible jerks because the rules punished them ridiculously for a single slip. Take the rules encouraging toxicity away and the problem goes away.

In 3.X there were toxic rules that lead to everything you talk about.

I use the phrase over-optimizing because it describes a pattern of taking rules past the point that it’s complimentary to the rest of the group - the point of being a personal distraction.

And which is the result of a bad system that encourages this.

I’ve got no time for that and I would have an honest conversation with someone who did it. I wouldn’t kick them, I’d ask them to modify their behavior. It’s about putting the health of group’s game before personal kicks.

And when it is obvious that it is what the system encourages I would know where the real blame was - and dump 3.x.

Or at the very least mix it up so the toxicity doesn't bed in. There is no perfect skill system.