Human Fighters Most Common Race/Class Combo In D&D

*Deleted by user*

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For those who read skepticism about conclusions drawn from this data as burying one's head in the sand or refusal to allow one's picture to be clouded with facts:

Does being popular mean that a thing is liked for every characteristic it has, or can something be popular for people liking just some subset of its characteristics, indifferent to or even in spite of others? Does being popular guarantee that even most users approve of all the components thereof?

As for the data itself: nice to see Dragonborn in the top five, even if it's self-serving to say so. Might finally get people to shut up about how Dragonborn don't belong in D&D. Elves being the second-most popular is no surprise, I played WoW, I know the score on that front--and even if I didn't, elf And half-elf are so overstuffed with features I still wouldn't be surprised. (And if you merge elf and half-elf, the two are far and away the most popular race-group: again, no surprise.) More surprised to see dwarf so high, but not much more.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the data itself: nice to see Dragonborn in the top five, even if it's self-serving to say so.

Er...how? Are they your invention?

Might finally get people to shut up about how Dragonborn don't belong in D&D.

Sure they belong - they make fine opponents for the PCs to fight, just like Hobgoblins, Orcs and Bugbears.

Elves being the second-most popular is no surprise, I played WoW, I know the score on that front--and even if I didn't, elf And half-elf are so overstuffed with features I still wouldn't be surprised.

Elves being overpowered is nothing new - they were over-the-top in 1e too, even if you were strict about their level limits; and nothing's changed.

More surprised to see dwarf so high, but not much more.

The one that really took me aback was that Halfling (Hobbit) was so low.

Lanefan

 

[Alexemplar]

For those who read skepticism about conclusions drawn from this data as burying one's head in the sand or refusal to allow one's picture to be clouded with facts:

Does being popular mean that a thing is liked for every characteristic it has, or can something be popular for people liking just some subset of its characteristics, indifferent to or even in spite of others? Does being popular guarantee that even most users approve of all the components thereof?

I think *most* people like a concept first and just go with whatever race/class/background is closest and then address it's shortcomings afterwards while doing what they can in spite of them. I mean, I know some people who play certain combinations purely because they enjoy them mechanically, but I find that if someone loved playing Elven Rangers, Dwarven Clerics or Human Fighters in 5e and played in other editions, they likely played the same characters in those editions too. And when they play other games that are D&D, they're often drawn to those so same archetypes.

As for the data itself: nice to see Dragonborn in the top five, even if it's self-serving to say so. Might finally get people to shut up about how Dragonborn don't belong in D&D. Elves being the second-most popular is no surprise, I played WoW, I know the score on that front--and even if I didn't, elf And half-elf are so overstuffed with features I still wouldn't be surprised. (And if you merge elf and half-elf, the two are far and away the most popular race-group: again, no surprise.) More surprised to see dwarf so high, but not much more.

I can't say I'm surprised, seeing as people have been clamoring for Dragon-folk as far as I've been playing D&D. There were already a dozen or so prestige classes, feats, templates, and races that allowed you to play some kind of dragon person. The introduction of Dragonborn as they work in 4e got rid of all that in favor of a single generic non- Level Adjusted Half-Dragon-ish race. 4e also had a generic Half-Vampire race in the form of Vryloka, an undead race in the form of Revenants.

3e Eberron also introduced Warforged as non-LA construct characters, Shifters as non-LA lycantrhope characters, Changelings as non-LA shapeshifter characters. They proved rather popular as well, as I remember players clamoring for ways to introduce them into non-Eberron settings being a rather hot topic.

 

[Yaarel]

There's nothing about the sword that's necessarily holy. It's got quite a lineage in a setting where things like that matter, but no evidence of holy in the way D&D treats things as holy.

I was about to disagree, but ... thats probably true. If anything, the sword Excalibur probably best translates into D&D as Fey. Lady of the Lake and similar nature spirits.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Er...how? Are they your invention?

They're my favorite race bar none. Being happy they're doing well is "self-serving" in the sense that "ooh, my biases have been confirmed!" My apologies for the confusing phrasing.

Sure they belong - they make fine opponents for the PCs to fight, just like Hobgoblins, Orcs and Bugbears.

You'd be surprised how many people won't even give them that, but point taken I suppose.

Elves being overpowered is nothing new - they were over-the-top in 1e too, even if you were strict about their level limits; and nothing's changed.

Fair enough I guess!

The one that really took me aback was that Halfling (Hobbit) was so low.

Lanefan

Being tall has too much cultural cachet. It hurts literally all races that tend to be (noticeably*) shorter than average human height--dwarves, gnomes, hobbits, kobolds, etc. People feel self-conscious about their height, and are thus more likely to play taller characters. You see a similar effect in the height distribution of characters in MMOs that allow height variation: most players play the tallest characters they're allowed to play, a handful play the shortest they're allowed to play, and the veeeery tiny remainder is spread out in some way or other through the middle. Or how those races which conform to Western standards of beauty best will tend to attract the most attention, e.g. the population of the Horde ballooned after Blood Elves became an option, because you could finally be pretty as a female Horde character, or svelte as a male Horde character. Nothing to do with design quality or success of implementation, everything to do with player psychology.

It actually takes some fairly significant divergence in power, favoring races that diverge from Western beliefs about height, weight, facial features, musculature, etc. to get things to shift even to being more-or-less equal in an MMO context. D&D players are remarkably more adventurous than MMO players are, based on this data set, when it comes to what races they'll play.

*I say "noticeably" because, IIRC, D&D elves are traditionally a little bit shorter than humans. But they're of pretty "normal" height, in that their average height is close to average *female* height for real humans, and tall elves are still taller than the average human. A tall dwarf is still shorter than the average human--indeed, probably shorter than most very short humans. That hurts the bottom line.

I think *most* people like a concept first and just go with whatever race/class/background is closest and then address it's shortcomings afterwards while doing what they can in spite of them. I mean, I know some people who play certain combinations purely because they enjoy them mechanically, but I find that if someone loved playing Elven Rangers, Dwarven Clerics or Human Fighters in 5e and played in other editions, they likely played the same characters in those editions too. And when they play other games that are D&D, they're often drawn to those so same archetypes.

This was part of my intended point, just stated rather than hinted at with pseudo-Socratic questions. That is, I'm asserting that these things would absolutely be popular regardless of implementation...because they've been popular across a huge range of implementations. I therefore meet with a very skeptical eye those saying that, because it is popular, it must have been done well. That doesn't follow. It could be that it was done excellently, or merely adequately, or decently-but-could-be-better, or even a bit poorly but not so bad that it drives people away (because, as noted, things typically need to be quite worse-off to overcome many of our inherent attractions to that which is both "relatable" and "meriting social approval," e.g. in a range overlapping with human height but capable of being taller than an average human because height is culturally linked to social worth in the West). We cannot actually separate out these confounding variables to be able to draw such conclusions, but people freely do so all the time.

Also, to the inevitable replies I expect (likely from others): None of the above should be taken as excluding that part of the Fighter playerbase which does directly value the characteristics of the 5e Fighter class. It's merely noting that, despite the 4e Fighter being very different in several ways--ways which pro-"simplicity" Fighter fans disliked, but pro-"depth" Fighter fans liked--both versions consistently rank as the most popular class of their edition in literally every poll I've ever seen, official or not, formal or not. This would seem to pretty clearly indicate that Fighter fans just like Fighters, and will put up with implementations whether or not they conform to their preferences because they're Fighters--and that using play-frequency statistics (or, well, a loose approximation thereof) gives you little to no information about whether a particular Fighter implementation is succeeding at the mathematically-testable design goals set for it.

I can't say I'm surprised, seeing as people have been clamoring for Dragon-folk as far as I've been playing D&D. There were already a dozen or so prestige classes, feats, templates, and races that allowed you to play some kind of dragon person. The introduction of Dragonborn as they work in 4e got rid of all that in favor of a single generic non- Level Adjusted Half-Dragon-ish race. 4e also had a generic Half-Vampire race in the form of Vryloka, an undead race in the form of Revenants.

No race, in my experience, has received more vitriol and gleeful exclusion than Dragonborn have. I have literally been told, to my face (well, via forum post), that I should be happy that Dragonborn got included at all because they don't truly belong in D&D. I have heard numerous posters openly brag about how they shut down players who like Dragonborn, how they would never allow such inappropriate races in their home campaigns. I have never seen any other race referenced so often by official designers, not simply everyday folks, as being weird, out there, or a thing said designer would exclude if it weren't for their pesky players liking such a ridiculous option, even if it's said with tongue in cheek.

Disliking Dragonborn is practically a fad at this point.

3e Eberron also introduced Warforged as non-LA construct characters, Shifters as non-LA lycantrhope characters, Changelings as non-LA shapeshifter characters. They proved rather popular as well, as I remember players clamoring for ways to introduce them into non-Eberron settings being a rather hot topic.

Can't really comment, tbh. Never played in Eberron and frankly just don't hear that much discussion of Warforged, Shifters, Changelings, or the like. Dragonborn are the hot topic, and it seems like their detractors literally can't stop talking, not just about how much they dislike them, but how justified they are FOR disliking them.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No race, in my experience, has received more vitriol and gleeful exclusion than Dragonborn have. I have literally been told, to my face (well, via forum post), that I should be happy that Dragonborn got included at all because they don't truly belong in D&D. I have heard numerous posters openly brag about how they shut down players who like Dragonborn, how they would never allow such inappropriate races in their home campaigns. I have never seen any other race referenced so often by official designers, not simply everyday folks, as being weird, out there, or a thing said designer would exclude if it weren't for their pesky players liking such a ridiculous option, even if it's said with tongue in cheek.

Well, they're sort of a tricky subject in the official campaign settings, and any home campaign settings, that originated before 4E. (Except for Krynn, of course.)

Also, they're practically furries, so there's that stigma lurking in the background.

 

[Lanefan]

They're my favorite race bar none. Being happy they're doing well is "self-serving" in the sense that "ooh, my biases have been confirmed!" My apologies for the confusing phrasing.

No worries!

Being tall has too much cultural cachet. It hurts literally all races that tend to be (noticeably*) shorter than average human height--dwarves, gnomes, hobbits, kobolds, etc. People feel self-conscious about their height, and are thus more likely to play taller characters. You see a similar effect in the height distribution of characters in MMOs that allow height variation: most players play the tallest characters they're allowed to play, a handful play the shortest they're allowed to play, and the veeeery tiny remainder is spread out in some way or other through the middle. Or how those races which conform to Western standards of beauty best will tend to attract the most attention, e.g. the population of the Horde ballooned after Blood Elves became an option, because you could finally be pretty as a female Horde character, or svelte as a male Horde character. Nothing to do with design quality or success of implementation, everything to do with player psychology.

I can see how this would be relevant in MMOs where your character/avatar is right there on the screen for all to see...never mind that in what seems like a typical combat* there's so much going on that a short character would be impossible to find.

* - from what little I've seen via looking over the shoulder of someone playing WoW

It actually takes some fairly significant divergence in power, favoring races that diverge from Western beliefs about height, weight, facial features, musculature, etc. to get things to shift even to being more-or-less equal in an MMO context. D&D players are remarkably more adventurous than MMO players are, based on this data set, when it comes to what races they'll play.

Quite possibly because most of it is in the imagination. Further, the minis that we use to represent the PCs have been getting bigger over time - many Dwarf minis seem as tall as Human or Elf minis now, while Gnome and Hobbit minis have grown to Dwarf size.

Also, to the inevitable replies I expect (likely from others): None of the above should be taken as excluding that part of the Fighter playerbase which does directly value the characteristics of the 5e Fighter class. It's merely noting that, despite the 4e Fighter being very different in several ways--ways which pro-"simplicity" Fighter fans disliked, but pro-"depth" Fighter fans liked--both versions consistently rank as the most popular class of their edition in literally every poll I've ever seen, official or not, formal or not. This would seem to pretty clearly indicate that Fighter fans just like Fighters, and will put up with implementations whether or not they conform to their preferences because they're Fighters--and that using play-frequency statistics (or, well, a loose approximation thereof) gives you little to no information about whether a particular Fighter implementation is succeeding at the mathematically-testable design goals set for it.

There's also a much more practical-at-the-table element: a party can never ever have too many front-liners. Got 6 players? Wizard-Rogue-Cleric-Fighter-Fighter-Fighter (or close variants thereof) is the most likely - and probably most versatile/effective - end-result party lineup in any edition, maybe after a few experiments have been culled and replaced.

No race, in my experience, has received more vitriol and gleeful exclusion than Dragonborn have. I have literally been told, to my face (well, via forum post), that I should be happy that Dragonborn got included at all because they don't truly belong in D&D. I have heard numerous posters openly brag about how they shut down players who like Dragonborn, how they would never allow such inappropriate races in their home campaigns. I have never seen any other race referenced so often by official designers, not simply everyday folks, as being weird, out there, or a thing said designer would exclude if it weren't for their pesky players liking such a ridiculous option, even if it's said with tongue in cheek.

Disliking Dragonborn is practically a fad at this point.

Can't really comment, tbh. Never played in Eberron and frankly just don't hear that much discussion of Warforged, Shifters, Changelings, or the like. Dragonborn are the hot topic, and it seems like their detractors literally can't stop talking, not just about how much they dislike them, but how justified they are FOR disliking them.

I'm not a fan of Dragonborn or half-Dragons or anything of that ilk as PCs, in all honesty; but Tieflings are even worse.

Lanefan

 

[Mephista]

Disliking Dragonborn is practically a fad at this point.

Huh. Well, I usually see such addressed to the new tiefling style in the same breath, so I tend to assume its tied to 4e fan hate more than anything. Grante,d I'm a tiefling fangirl, so my bias might be standing out a bit.

More than once, I've had people tell me that they don't want tieflings because then people would freak out about them being devil people. I'm all like, "sure, that's great. I'm all for it." And they look at me blankly, not getting I -like- that part of the rp. It invariably comes down to the fact they don't like the race and want to ban it while trying to make anyone who likes them feel bad and ashamed.

 

[Lanefan]

Huh. Well, I usually see such addressed to the new tiefling style in the same breath, so I tend to assume its tied to 4e fan hate more than anything.

Both D'born and Tieflings existed (with different names) well before 4e. Didn't like 'em then, either.

Grante,d I'm a tiefling fangirl, so my bias might be standing out a bit.

Fair enough...we all have our biases.

More than once, I've had people tell me that they don't want tieflings because then people would freak out about them being devil people.

That's actually the one reason I don't have for disliking them.

The main thing I have against Tieflings or part-Demons or whatever, along with Dragonborn/half-Dragons, Drow-as-PCs, and all the rest of those "monster" races being baked into the game as PC-playable is that those sort of creatures are supposed to be what the PCs go out and fight! I don't mind an occasional rare exception for RP reasons or whatever, but when I see a party lineup consisting racially of a couple of Tieflings, a Dragonborn and a Goliath my first response is "why is everyone playing monsters?".

Lanefan

 

[Satyrn]

! I don't mind an occasional rare exception for RP reasons or whatever, but when I see a party lineup consisting racially of a couple of Tieflings, a Dragonborn and a Goliath my first response is "why is everyone playing monsters?".

Because the Federation is full of more races than just Human and Vulcan.