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.

 

[Hussar]

Are you sure that you just don't hate reading...

That... is totally fair.

But, it does get back to my original complaint. It's not that I hate reading. Honest I don't. It's that I hate that I have to comb over every single line of casters to make sure the players didn't miss stuff. And, if I miss a line, it means that I wind up with a big steaming mess on my hands.

It's not that I hate reading. It's that I hate being forced to police the players. Mostly because it's not consistent. I'll double check and most of the time, the players are right. I mean, Project Image is described as intangible, same as Manifest Mind, and it CAN pass through objects. It specifically says that objects pass through it. Which begs the question, how do you do any damage to it to make it disappear? If objects can't touch it, I guess you can do magical damage to it. But, physical attacks shouldn't do any damage.

So, my mistake is kinda understandable. One intangible thing can pass through objects, but, another can't. Why? Well, because the rules say so. It's completely inconsistent. And, it's not unreasonable for the players to see "intangible" in one place and think that it means the same thing in another. I don't think my players were deliberately misinterpreting things. They simply saw "Intangible" and didn't bother reading more. Pretty much what I did as well.

 

[Clint_L]

Something was six paces away from you and you didn't know what it was? That must have been one HELL of a forest. Amazon jungle perhaps?
But, given the repeated insistence that sight lines in a forest are basically limited to arm's length, I can see why you insist on the encounters you have. That is one way to keep things up close and personal. Going into a forest shortens sight lines down to what you would normally expect in a heavy blizzard or dense fog. Fair enough.

I'm not sure what forests are like where you live, but I live in the Pacific Northwest. Not only can you be almost on top of something and not know it's there, that is normally what happens - animals either run or hide and stay still when people are around. I was jogging, decided to go off the path where I thought it was clear, and almost ran right into a buck that was resting.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not sure what forests are like where you live, but I live in the Pacific Northwest. Not only can you be almost on top of something and not know it's there, that is normally what happens - animals either run or hide and stay still when people are around. I was jogging, decided to go off the path where I thought it was clear, and almost ran right into a buck that was resting.

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that that buck was STILL further than 30 feet away.

And, yet, funnily enough, I've been walking in the forest behind my place and heard the deer walking around lots of times. I'm sure there are times when they have been there and I missed them, sure, but, y'know what? I hear them pretty often. I don't think I'm missing them that often. Never minding seeing deer at the tree line nearly routinely growing up.

Dude, it's 20 freaking feet. Less than 10 paces. Good grief, my living room is bigger than that. My classroom is bigger than that and my students can still see me and read the board. You're seriously suggesting that you are limited to less than 20 feet sight lines in forests? Seven paces? You cannot see further than 7 paces in every forest you've ever been in?

This is one of the more ludicrous discussions I've seen in a while. Holy cow. We've gone from 100 foot sight lines (which is generally fairly reasonable in most forests - with obvious obstructions for trees to jungles so thick that you couldn't possibly walk through them.

I think people are seriously estimated just how far 100 feet is. 30 yards? As in the distance to first base? This whole ludicrous sidebar started because someone wanted to start every single encounter within a single movement - that starting an encounter more than 30 feet away was unbelievable. Good grief.

 

[Clint_L]

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that that buck was STILL further than 30 feet away.

You’d lose that bet. When I wrote that I nearly ran into, I meant that literally. I was within a metre of it. This is not unusual in and around Victoria, as Lanefan can verify.

And, yet, funnily enough, I've been walking in the forest behind my place and heard the deer walking around lots of times. I'm sure there are times when they have been there and I missed them, sure, but, y'know what? I hear them pretty often. I don't think I'm missing them that often. Never minding seeing deer at the tree line nearly routinely growing up.

Dude, it's 20 freaking feet. Less than 10 paces. Good grief, my living room is bigger than that. My classroom is bigger than that and my students can still see me and read the board. You're seriously suggesting that you are limited to less than 20 feet sight lines in forests? Seven paces? You cannot see further than 7 paces in every forest you've ever been in?

No, I’m suggesting that things can hide or just be still and easily not be seen in forests. Yes, within 20’.

This is one of the more ludicrous discussions I've seen in a while. Holy cow. We've gone from 100 foot sight lines (which is generally fairly reasonable in most forests - with obvious obstructions for trees to jungles so thick that you couldn't possibly walk through them.

I’m questioning how much time you’ve spent in serious forests. I live in coastal BC. You are not spotting an animal 100' away that does not want to be seen, unless you surprise it or it just doesn't care much.

I think people are seriously estimated just how far 100 feet is.

30 yards? As in the distance to first base? This whole ludicrous sidebar started because someone wanted to start every single encounter within a single movement - that starting an encounter more than 30 feet away was unbelievable. Good grief.

Dude, I’ve walked up on a black bear closer than that. Watch some nature documentaries - see how close animals get before they "roll for initiative."

 

[Hussar]

You’d lose that bet. When I wrote that I nearly ran into, I meant that literally. I was within a metre of it. This is not unusual in and around Victoria, as Lanefan can verify.

No, I’m suggesting that things can hide or just be still and easily not be seen in forests. Yes, within 20’.

I’m questioning how much time you’ve spent in serious forests. I live in coastal BC. You are not spotting an animal 100' away that does not want to be seen, unless you surprise it or it just doesn't care much.

Dude, I’ve walked up on a black bear closer than that. Watch some nature documentaries - see how close animals get before they "roll for initiative."

Again, and this will be the last time, I do not respond to fisking. I refuse to line by line go through posts.

But, ok, you win. You are absolutely right. It is impossible to see anything further than 20 feet away in the forest because forests are so dense that you couldn't possible see further than that. Anyone who claims to see further than that in a forest is lying and has never actually been in a forest.

Edit to add.

Ok. Ok. I surrender. You have shown me the true path. No other forested biome exists anywhere. Temperate west coast rain forest is the only forested biome in the world and it is so thick and verdant that no one could possibly ever see further than ten paces in any direction. It is the ideal form from which all forests are derived. Nothing else is worthy of the name forest.

Forever more shall I insist to my players that upon entering any forested area, regardless of climate or elevation, con they ever see further than 30 feet nor may they ever hear anything further away either. It is truly a Limbo netherworld of lost souls forever tormented to wander nearly blind and deaf.

So shall it be.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that that buck was STILL further than 30 feet away.

And, yet, funnily enough, I've been walking in the forest behind my place and heard the deer walking around lots of times. I'm sure there are times when they have been there and I missed them, sure, but, y'know what? I hear them pretty often. I don't think I'm missing them that often. Never minding seeing deer at the tree line nearly routinely growing up.

Dude, it's 20 freaking feet. Less than 10 paces. Good grief, my living room is bigger than that. My classroom is bigger than that and my students can still see me and read the board. You're seriously suggesting that you are limited to less than 20 feet sight lines in forests? Seven paces? You cannot see further than 7 paces in every forest you've ever been in?

This is one of the more ludicrous discussions I've seen in a while. Holy cow. We've gone from 100 foot sight lines (which is generally fairly reasonable in most forests - with obvious obstructions for trees to jungles so thick that you couldn't possibly walk through them.

I think people are seriously estimated just how far 100 feet is. 30 yards? As in the distance to first base? This whole ludicrous sidebar started because someone wanted to start every single encounter within a single movement - that starting an encounter more than 30 feet away was unbelievable. Good grief.

For some context, I have been a farmer and I have walked into a field of calves in short grass and gotten to 2 -3 meters of a calf lying down without noticing it. You would be amazed at how well animals can hide just by lying down.

 

[Hussar]

For some context, I have been a farmer and I have walked into a field of calves in short grass and gotten to 2 -3 meters of a calf lying down without noticing it. You would be amazed at how well animals can hide just by lying down.

I get the feeling that there's a couple of different conversations going on. The original point was that it was unrealistic to start an encounter with a troll at about 50 feet because, apparently, trolls are capable of closing to within 30 feet of PC's without being noticed, reliably. That it was totally unrealistic that I would start a troll encounter from 50 feet away.

Am I being unrealistic? Really? Starting an encounter with a troll at 50 feet is totally unrealistic and unbelievable?

For some reason that has morphed into trying to tell me that animals can hide.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I get the feeling that there's a couple of different conversations going on. The original point was that it was unrealistic to start an encounter with a troll at about 50 feet because, apparently, trolls are capable of closing to within 30 feet of PC's without being noticed, reliably. That it was totally unrealistic that I would start a troll encounter from 50 feet away.

Am I being unrealistic? Really? Starting an encounter with a troll at 50 feet is totally unrealistic and unbelievable?

For some reason that has morphed into trying to tell me that animals can hide.

The troll encounter depends on terrain and to a degree on the troll. Context matters, including the context of the table. If the group wants a banging fight with the troll 30 feet is fine but if the groups wants to sneak around first (or something else) then 50 feet or longer would be better.
Realism/realistic is a meaningless descriptor in online discussion because everyone has their own take on what that is and it has little to do with reality.
You are not being unrealistic but neither is the other bloke.

 

[Oofta]

I get the feeling that there's a couple of different conversations going on. The original point was that it was unrealistic to start an encounter with a troll at about 50 feet because, apparently, trolls are capable of closing to within 30 feet of PC's without being noticed, reliably. That it was totally unrealistic that I would start a troll encounter from 50 feet away.

Am I being unrealistic? Really? Starting an encounter with a troll at 50 feet is totally unrealistic and unbelievable?

For some reason that has morphed into trying to tell me that animals can hide.

Did anyone say it was unrealistic? I said it was a choice by the DM to set up the encounter that greatly favors the party by choosing a monster that had no ranged attacks and relatively low move speed. Then you stated that the troll could never run away and still always be in line of sight at distances of 100 feet or more.

The combat could start with the troll half a mile away or 20 feet away. Which one is chosen will change the balance of the encounter and IMHO should be based largely on the terrain involved and is one of many factors outside of CR that determine difficulty. The terrain should also be taken into consideration if the troll decides to do a tactical retreat to heal which I think would be a basic tactic for the monster.

What we are arguing against is this idea that a DM should never start an encounter at fairly close distance or that it's impossible for a large animal to be difficult to see while relatively close. You state that I was making misleading statements when I told you my nephew and I were likely close to a bear in the brush that we could not see or that I walked around a bend in a trail and practically walked into a moose*. I've provided pictures both representative of the areas I've seen or pictures I've taken myself and you still are insisting we're somehow trying to be deceptive.

You can start your encounter distance as near or far as you want. It can, however, dramatically change the difficulty of the encounter. I'm also going to disagree with you if you state that it's impossible for a creature in a forest to be a 100 feet away and unseen because I can guarantee that it is not only possible, it is likely.

*In both cases the distance was likely 20-30 feet.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Again, and this will be the last time, I do not respond to fisking. I refuse to line by line go through posts.

But, ok, you win. You are absolutely right. It is impossible to see anything further than 20 feet away in the forest because forests are so dense that you couldn't possible see further than that. Anyone who claims to see further than that in a forest is lying and has never actually been in a forest.

Edit to add.

Ok. Ok. I surrender. You have shown me the true path. No other forested biome exists anywhere. Temperate west coast rain forest is the only forested biome in the world and it is so thick and verdant that no one could possibly ever see further than ten paces in any direction. It is the ideal form from which all forests are derived. Nothing else is worthy of the name forest.

Forever more shall I insist to my players that upon entering any forested area, regardless of climate or elevation, con they ever see further than 30 feet nor may they ever hear anything further away either. It is truly a Limbo netherworld of lost souls forever tormented to wander nearly blind and deaf.

So shall it be.

It is also pretty amusing, this depiction of trolls as these cunning, capable, stealthy hunters..

When (in 5e at least) they are literal giants..with negative mental attribute modifiers..across the board..and no stealth proficiency (their only stealth benefit is a +1 dex)..and no mention of cunning or hunting or stealth..at all..in their statblock or description.

Like..not one piece of the characterization is supportable based on what the game tells us about the monster