D&D 5E D&D Stats: What The Typical 5E Party *Actually* Looks Like

[Parmandur]

At a guess, they could see whether the character is being regularly updated and progressed in level.

They go into the details in the actual video Dev updates, but basically this is it.

 

[Mistwell]

 

[Dausuul]

When your interpretation of the data leads you to conclude that the typical 5E party has every single character taking levels in fighter, it's time to step back and rethink whether you understand statistics well enough to write an article like this. (I'll give you a hint: You don't.)

 

[Ashrym]

I like statistics but take them with a grain of salt. Too easy to manipulate or mislead.

I took the results to indicate Fighters, Clerics, and Hexblades are popular; Humans and Half-Elves are popular; multi-classing is popular and exceptionally popular with sorcerers, warlocks, and clerics; some classes that get a rep as powerful are not as popular as that rep should indicate (eg druids and bards aren't more popular than monks); pure wizards and rogues aren't more popular than pure warlocks and sorcerers.

At least going by the tools used.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I don't really think multiclassing favoring Fighter and Rogue is all that surprising. Multiclassing a spellcaster is generally a terrible idea, while 1-4 levels of Fighter (Action Surge, Second Wind, Fighting Style, Martial Weapons, Medium Armor, Shields, Archetype) or Rogue (Cunning Action, Sneak Attack, Expertise, Light Armor, Thieves' Tools, Rogue weapons, Archetype) is extremely profitable, and the requirement (13 Str or Dex) is so meager that it's basically irrelevant.

What surprises me is that so few Barbarians multiclass as the class is all but dead after level 8. I guess it just goes to show how few campaigns really get to high level.

I definitely understand multiclassing a Cleric, though. The Cleric's spell list and abilities at higher level are almost as dead as the Barbarian. Levels 10 through 16 mark one of the longest nearly dead stretches in the entire game; all you get are ASIs and new spell levels, and the spell list for Clerics is pretty terrible at high level. Lots of restorative spells and true seeing, but not much more. Conjure Celestial is a good example of how much of a slap in the face these spells are. 7th level, 1 minute casting time, requires concentration, lasts up to 1 hour, and you get: one celestial creature of CR 4 or lower. For reference, that's a Pegasus or a Couatl, and that's it. You can't even get a Unicorn.

 

[Parmandur]

When your interpretation of the data leads you to conclude that the typical 5E party has every single character taking levels in fighter, it's time to step back and rethink whether you understand statistics well enough to write an article like this. (I'll give you a hint: You don't.)

Yeah, the article writer junps to some weird conclusions, not founded in data.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Parmandur]

I am reminded of the original GIGO- the telephone poll that predicted that Humphrey would destroy Roosevelt. Which was erroneous, of course, because the sample was people that had telephone (at that time, very few people - and they were very wealthy).

Given the elf data, which flies in the face of everything I know (really.... one of the least popular races ... less than Bugbear, or shifter, or Gith, or Orc, or Kalashtar ...which I think was just made up?) ... I can't take this seriously.

Dude. elves are the same popularity as centaurs. Something Is wrong with data.

The data does show something: peiple willing to spend several hundred dollars on seperate digital copies of all 5E crunch books aren't that into Elves. This is useful for WotC and D&DB to know, since this might indicate Elf fans are satisfied with their options that they are willing to pay for already. However, it doesn't speak to player popularity overall, the way the article thinks.

 

[Blue]

some classes that get a rep as powerful are not as popular as that rep should indicate (eg druids and bards aren't more popular than monks);

I don't think popularity and power are a linear correspondence. For example, many Bard subclasses are even more support than Clerics until higher levels (7+), and even if powerful that's only going to interest a subset of players who like to play that style.

It's like back in 4e where the average party would have 2+ strikers but only one defender and one leader. It's a popular style.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*