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]

One option is that power is totally irrelevant to players. I think this conclusion is well-meaning but mistaken. That is, I don't believe players don't care about power and balance etc. Instead, I think it's that they make their choices based around other things, and then become frustrated if those choices end up being inferior for no reason other than because they're just inherently weaker than other, seemingly-equivalent options.

I have not seen this in my experiences.

I don't know if power is totally irrelevant to players, that would require insight I don't have. I can say the many players I generally play with do absolutely make choices based around other things, but IME those players who choose less powerful choices are not frustrated over class selection, including me.

I play about 20-30 hours of D&D a week for the last several years, and there are precious few players I can remember that got visibly frustrated due to their class choices or their objective weakness compared to other PCs at the table and as a DM I have never had a player express this to me.

I have seen two players I can remember get frustrated with their builds. Both of these players "optmized" their characters using online guides around some very narrow class mechanics and those optimizations did not play out in the campaign. One with a V.Human GWM-PAM Fighter (maybe with Barbarian levels?) on a 1-13 campaign where we never found a magic polearm. Another was an Eladrin Undead Warlock-Fey Wanderer Ranger in a level 16 one shot who specialized in fear or charm effects and we ended up fighting a bunch of enemies immune to those conditions. Both of these "optimized" characters were overshadowed by other more pedestrian PCs, in the first case including less "optimized" martials who were pretty happy with their classes.

I can put a 3rd example in here, although I think it was a player problem, more than a class problem - I played in 2 games with a player who played a Warlock in one and then a Wizard in another. He got frustrated when other characters could do things he could not. Specifically he got upset when the Scout Rogue I was playing used cunning action and asked the DM if he could homebrew the rules so every class could hide as a bonus action, he aslo got upset that Rouge I was playing had a much better Deception than he did (14 Charisma and expertise). Finally in a long fight (as a Warlock) where he ran out of spells but our Wizard didn't and asked the DM if he could just ask his Patron for another spell slot, then it turned to how about if I make a roll for it to get another spell. Then playing as a Wizard he asked the DM to allow him to use 2 actions because the Fighter in the party just did. This player was clearly frustrated with being overshadowed, but in this case I think it was a player personality problem and giving cunning action to a Warlock or action surge to a Wizard were things he wanted, but hardly class weaknesses, when you consider what he did have. This player was frustrated about the limits of his classes and being overshadowed by other PCs, but he was not playing "weak" classes and as a Wizard he was actually playing the strongest class and was still upset.

Another conclusion we can draw, however, is that popularity is not a good indicator of how players like design. It is, instead, an indicator of how much players like the concept or theme of an option.

I would agree with this, but I don't know that there is a better metric that evaluates how players like design.

Which, if true, poses a pretty significant problem for any design that predicates "this must be good" on "people are playing this a lot." I'm not well-convinced that WotC is correctly differentiating "X is picked by a lot of people" from "people actually do enjoy using X at the table."

How would they get the data on the second?

Also while I agree with your hypothesis here I am not convinced if they had the data it would indicate players did not like the design of most of the martials. I think it would actually indicate the opposite, except for Monk. IME most players are very happy with the martial design except for Monk (I am personally happy with Monk, but I'm probably the exception there).

It is possible I am wrong, but the playtests do offer place for written commentary, as did the original playtest. Presumably players are providing feedback on design there and presumably WOTC is incorporating it. They certainly have changed UA Wizards, Monks and Druids a lot duing this current playtest. That is presumably because they were told by players that the players did not like things about those classes.

On the other hand they did not listen to my feedback that weapon mastery sucks and should not be incorporated. Since they disregarded that, I think I am probably in the minority of players who think this is a bad design.

A community that makes choices primarily based on theme, but which still cares about design, is one that can give very confusing signals if one conflates pick-rate with player contentment.

I would agree with that. This is why I base most of my opinions on contentment on what I see at the table.

 

[Nikosandros]

The people who play dragonborn obviously aren't concerned about white room analysis of which species is "best". They likely just want to play something that feels different and a bit unique.

Yes, many players are not very concerned (if at all) about optimization. Still, the player of the dragon born in my Dragonheist game, was very happy with the improvements from the Fizban UA that we immediately adopted (and actually kept until the end of the campaign, even after the book came out).

 

[Oofta]

Anyone who casts spells is a caster. A lot of the PCs being played in the "non-caster classes" are in fact casters. You would need more granular metrics to really evaluate this.

I had a 6th level Drow Eldritch Knight Fighter that could cast Detect Magic at will, along with Faerie Fire, Dissonant Whispers, Levitate, Misty Step, Darkness and Dispel Magic once a day and had 4 more spells known, 3 more 1st level slots and two cantrips on top of all that.

In terms of leveled spells; that is 5 first level, 3 second level and 1 3rd level spell she could cast every day in addition to at will detect magic. That is 9 spells, which is the same number as a full caster and includes a 3rd level spell, which is the highest level spell a full caster can cast at that level.

So she was at that point a single-class fighter, but she was not a "non-caster" by any stretch

Your experience is different than mine. Other than runecasters, which sort of use spells, most fighters don't cast spells. I've never seen an eldritch knight in play that I remember.

 

[ECMO3]

Well there are less options, customization, and continued support for noncasters.
The top four races all are customizable with many subraces, spells, or feats (human, elf, dragonborn, tielfling). All of which are magicky.

I don't think "magicy" is the same as caster.

Caster means spells IMO. Dragonborn and humans are not casters (from their race), High Elves and Drow and Tieflings are casters, although most of the Tiefling subraces are from MTOF and are deprecated.

Like I say often,5e attempted to make noncasters "grounded" to appeal to grognards who complained about magic warriors and "weeaboo fightin' magic". No BO9S. No Warlord. No Exploits. No High level feats. No Heroicaly skilled nonmagically subclasses.

I don't know the reason for it, but I am one who likes that most of these things are not in 5E (not sure what BO9S). Spells are very easy to get in 5E and I love the idea that everyone can get them easily if they want them (and the mechanics that come with them), but I don't particularly want the other things you mention.

But the grogs never bit and stuck to OS and 3.X games.

I started 1E played 3X and getting rid of that stuff is the biggest single improvement to the game I think. Bounded accuracy is probably the second biggest.

I play 5E almost exclusively now.

The 5e fans who stayed or later joined adapted. Lacking the grand heroic abilities of the past, they adapted with magic. They still played fighter and rogue but took magic in races, feats, and subclasses.

Yeah I love this about 5E!

 

[bedir than]

The people who play dragonborn obviously aren't concerned about white room analysis of which species is "best". They likely just want to play something that feels different and a bit unique.

This is true for a vast majority of people who play the game. The story is why the pick what they play, not a 0.24 edge on DPR

 

[Minigiant]

But I don't think "magicy" is the same as caster.

Caster means spells. Dragonborn and humans are not casters (from their race), High Elves and Drow, Tieflings are casters, although most of the Tiefling subraces are from MTOF and are deprecated.

That's why I said magicky.

Human is most customizable. And that customization allows for magic.
Dragonborn allow for many types of magicky blasts.

I don't know the reason for it, but I am one who likes that most of these things are not in 5E (not sure what BO9S). Spells are very easy to get in 5E and I love the idea that everyone can get them easily if they want them (and the mechanics that come with them), but I don't particularly want the other things you mention.

BO9s is Book of 9 Swords.

My point is

Magic has tons of options and scales.
Not-Magic has few options and 80% of them don't scale.

I played 3X and getting rid of that stuff is the biggest single improvement to the game I think. Bounded accuracy is probably the second biggest.

They kept the grognard stuff though. Forcing people to lean on magic.

 

[Oofta]

This is true for a vast majority of people who play the game. The story is why the pick what they play, not a 0.24 edge on DPR

Yeah, that's how I look at a lot of the "This [insert class combo, feat or build as necessary] is soooo much better!" When you actually look at the numbers it just depends on assumptions and even then it's .5 more DPR per turn at level most people don't play. I play PCs I think will be fun.

 

[Clint_L]

Just looking at the DDB data, it is true that a minority of characters are non-spell casters. Only 4/13 classes do not use magic...and that's before taking sub-classes, feats, and multi-class into account. However, it is also true that the more "mundane" classes are overrepresented - they are only 4/13 of the class options, but represent a significantly higher ratio of characters. So I think we can at least say that they more than competitive options, at least in this large but kind of opaque data set.

This squares with what I see in running a large number of campaigns, with high turnover in the ones at school, which are mostly beginners. Players mostly choose based on class fantasy - in other words, in general they aren't worried as much about optimization as about their character concept. 5e has done an admirable job of (mostly) balancing the classes so that they are close enough that no one is obviously disadvantaged by their choice; even monk, the consensus weakest class in the current rules, is by no means unplayable or unable to have their moments.

I find that a minority of players do focus more on optimization in a serious way as they gain more knowledge of the rules (I think most players optimize at least a little, but I think we know what I mean by serious optimizers - your bugbear pole arm masters and so forth). Yet even there I still see mundane classes getting chosen. For instance, the one experienced player in my current school group is a fairly committed optimizer, and he is playing a fighter. And an Eldritch Knight, at that!

If you are focused on doing builds for very high levels and seeing the best possible combinations you can come up with using all 20 levels, then I do think the game is less balanced. But that is such a tiny niche that I don't think you can build the game with it in mind. In the game as it is actually played, class balance is remarkably good while still retaining meaningful differences between classes, which I consider a seriously impressive design feat.

 

[Clint_L]

One more note: measuring class balance is also very subjective, so my experience obviously is just that. Balance also depends on what you consider most important in your games, so if you are combat heavy, then classes like fighter are going to come out ahead, if you really prioritize exploration and puzzle solving it might be more about rogues and druids, if there's a ton of role-play and social interaction, then maybe it's bards, and so forth. I get that, and don't claim to be speaking for anyone but myself and what I have seen and experienced.

 

[Oofta]

Just looking at the DDB data, it is true that a minority of characters are non-spell casters. Only 4/13 classes do not use magic...and that's before taking sub-classes, feats, and multi-class into account. However, it is also true that the more "mundane" classes are overrepresented - they are only 4/13 of the class options, but represent a significantly higher ratio of characters. So I think we can at least say that they more than competitive options, at least in this large but kind of opaque data set.

This squares with what I see in running a large number of campaigns, with high turnover in the ones at school, which are mostly beginners. Players mostly choose based on class fantasy - in other words, in general they aren't worried as much about optimization as about their character concept. 5e has done an admirable job of (mostly) balancing the classes so that they are close enough that no one is obviously disadvantaged by their choice; even monk, the consensus weakest class in the current rules, is by no means unplayable or unable to have their moments.

I find that a minority of players do focus more on optimization in a serious way as they gain more knowledge of the rules (I think most players optimize at least a little, but I think we know what I mean by serious optimizers - your bugbear pole arm masters and so forth). Yet even there I still see mundane classes getting chosen. For instance, the one experienced player in my current school group is a fairly committed optimizer, and he is playing a fighter. And an Eldritch Knight, at that!

If you are focused on doing builds for very high levels and seeing the best possible combinations you can come up with using all 20 levels, then I do think the game is less balanced. But that is such a tiny niche that I don't think you can build the game with it in mind. In the game as it is actually played, class balance is remarkably good while still retaining meaningful differences between classes, which I consider a seriously impressive design feat.

I play Solasta, a game based on D&D core rules now and then. People have mods that now have gone up to 16th level while tracking statistics, and the numbers that people claim just don't match up. Fighters generally do more damage that paladins or rogues, all three do more damage then wizards over the course of the game. Meanwhile two weapon fighting tends to be the highest damage dealer, although GWF (with a polearm-master like feat that grants you a bonus attack) is a close second.

So I take all white room analysis with a grain of salt. It depends too much on how the campaign is run, items received, what enemies you face and tactics on both sides of the equation.