D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[Lanefan]

For interest's sake, here is the breakdown of primary character classes from my (mostly) beginner campaigns since I started using DnDBeyond, about three years ago.

Artificer: 5
Barbarian: 7
Bard: 6
Cleric: 8
Druid: 3
Fighter: 8
Monk: 7
Paladin: 5
Ranger: 5
Rogue: 9
Sorcerer: 4
Wizard: 5
Warlock: 5

All other things aside, that's an impressively even spread.

 

[bedir than]

I think the Warlord should just be made as the complex fighter. Break it from the old 4E definition so that commanding others is just one of many potential things it can do via subclasses. At 11th level+ have it make a decision between being a mythic warrior or the best strategist ever.

I'm thinking about folding the Purple Dragon Knight into the Battlemaster completely, which would then give stronger options for Warlord-esque abilities

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, this sounds pretty much like the concern I raised at the time. That is, this data set actually does deviate in a noteworthy number of ways (for example, dwarf has gone from "not even in the top 5" to third place, while dragonborn, which had been just behind humans, elves, and half-elves, has fallen quite far) from data we've gotten from DDB in the past.

I strongly suspect a significant portion of these scraped characters are either
a) not active/"real" characters, but just tests/mockups/practice
b) DM-made NPCs or other characters that are "real" in the sense of being used, but not truly being played
c) not even remotely serious, e.g. the ones with all 0s for stats, and thus junk data

AIUI, no data filtering was done on the data set. It was taken exactly as is. That's an issue I raised when this was initially brought up, and the creator was both brave and honest enough to make an account and respond. I have no ill will toward them, but I genuinely believe that the data in this set doesn't really tell us much of anything. It certainly doesn't actually tell us things like "nobody actually likes playing Wizards" or "people actually really do love the Fighter exactly the way it is and you shouldn't change ANYTHING about it because they would definitely hate any other alternative." Which...yeah, I've already seen people literally come to that conclusion in different words.

Even if 10% of the data is chaff, the other 90% still shows more than enough to determine general trends and patterns; which is all anyone is really looking for from something like this.

And yes, trends in what gets played do come and go. Even in my own games I've seen times when Dwarves were as rare as hens' teeth and other times when we've been buried in them; no reason not to think the same can't happen on a broader scale.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm thinking about folding the Purple Dragon Knight into the Battlemaster completely, which would then give stronger options for Warlord-esque abilities

This does nothing for me and others who want a more complex and robust martial. Dang, so not only can the FIghter not be updated, but all new options have to be folded into the fighter too? Is the Fighter the unseen tyrant of D&D, claiming all ideas ala the Wizard but for martial space?

 

[ichabod]

Nobody said they were faked?

What are you talking about?

My apologies for misinterpreting your skepticism.

 

[Scribe]

At this point, forum users have to accept that the vast public very much enjoys the very stripped down fighter and even the no subclass features from 3-9 rogue.

Forum users and other terminally online types would do well to use this as a reminder that what may appear real here and in other online echo chambers, is potentially (likely imo) not in step with reality at all.

Nope. Unless and until we actually get a real, well-constructed survey (something WotC is not willing to pay the money to do), we don't at all know that. Indeed, we know nothing of the kind, and the only people who might potentially know--WotC themselves--are absolutely not ever going to give us the data we would need to verify any claims they themselves make.

The only data Wizards is going to have, is going to come from the minority of their 'user base' anyway.

The vast, likely overwhelming, majority of the people they are putting in the D&D player bucket, have zero connection to forums, zero connection to online D&D at all.

I continue to remind myself of what Maro said of the majority of Magic the Gathering players that they did poll and do focus groups with, paraphrasing.

"The majority do not know what a planeswalker is." unless my memory (likely) fails, it was in fact over 70% not knowing what they are.

Now, I dont know if you are a MTG player, but anyone, literally ANYONE, I have played Magic with, against, or discussed online with, knows what a Planeswalker is, yet the MAJORITY of actual players, people who have bought and shuffled, and played a commander deck, whatever, do not (edit) know what a Planeswalker is?

If it was coming from anyone but Maro's mouth (or fingers) I would not believe it. Its a staggering piece of information to me.

"We" the perpetually online, hyper connected, obsessive types, are such a miniscule outspoken niche of the mighty WotC pie of users aka players, and what may appear to us, in our excessively loud echo chambers as 'true' or 'real' quite likely is nothing of the sort.

walks off muttering about the impossibility of not knowing what a Planeswalker is as a Magic player...

 

[bedir than]

This does nothing for me and others who want a more complex and robust martial. Dang, so not only can the FIghter not be updated, but all new options have to be folded into the fighter too? Is the Fighter the unseen tyrant of D&D, claiming all ideas ala the Wizard but for martial space?

I just think the Purple Dragon Knight's Second Wind boosting allies fits the Warlord vibe, but the rest of its power is weak. Adding it to the Battlemaster makes a deeper Fighter capable of doing more

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let a whole new wave of making inferences with incomplete data sweep over this great land!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My apologies for misinterpreting your skepticism.

Fair enough - by skeptical I mean I believe the data is low-quality and contains a lot of junk, not that it's fake. And that any analysis suffers because of this.

 

[Incenjucar]

It would be lovely to have "how much did you play this", "why did you play this", "how much did you like it", and "why didn't you play something else" questions for these. Maybe also "did you use homebrew rules, and if so, did that impact any of the above".