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]

I was trying to get details on what you perceive as the issue since outside of maybe a half dozen spells, which are easily modified or banned, I don't see an issue.

And no amount of details is apparently enough. Half dozen spells? Good grief, I've mentioned more than that in just this thread.

My point is, I LOATHE having that conversation with players. Player says, "I'm now level X, and I've picked spell Y". Fair enough, frankly, I want to trust the system to the point where I honestly don't really check that often. Then it comes into play. And it turns out that no, this spell, feat, whatever, actually burns me so freaking often. Lessee, in just the past few months, just from memory:

Manifest Mind - intangible, virtually unkillable sensor with a 300 foot range, can see in the dark (and comes with it's own light source if needed) that can basically walk through walls, doors, whatever solid objects and telepathically inform the caster what it sees. Also allows the caster to cast spells through it if needed.

Forbiddence: as mentioned.

Banishment - a 4th level spell that becomes more powerful the higher the level of the party because it becomes virtually guaranteed that every monster you meet is extra planar of some sort at higher CR's. Becomes a save or die spell for most encounters. Not bad for a 4th level slot. ((Yes, yes, for the ultra-pedantic, I know the monster isn't dead, but, it's been sent to another plane and most monsters have no way back - close enough to dead.))

Project Image - allows the casters a sensor that can walk through walls, out to 500 miles for a day. All sorts of shenanigans for this one.

On and on and on. It never stops. Just endless. But, of course, since I can't actually create an exhaustive list for you, you just keep telling me that there is no problem and i'm just making things up.

I KNOW you aren't having this problem. Thank you for telling me that over and over again. Howzabout you let people who ACTUALLY HAVE THIS PROBLEM help me resolve this issue instead of repeatedly telling me that I'm either lying or incompetent? What are you trying to achieve by denying my experience? You aren't having this issue? Great? You have repeatedly stated that you don't have a lot of casters in your group and your games end before double digit levels. So, yeah, of course you aren't having this issue.

 

[Hussar]

I've been in a forest where something was 20 feet away and I didn't know what it was. Since it was heavy grizzly territory and we had already found scat I didn't really want to know.

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.

 

[TheSword]

If making competent characters causes detriment to the group this is a system problem. The other thing is competence threshold.

I'm not aware which system does this. If it's meant to be a dig at 4e that system is more granular than most and makes different elements behave differently and have different riders and normally templates rather than just doing hp damage in a shape.

So they can play 4e or 5e. Or any of a number of other systems that are D&D adjacent.

Which is no reason not to get near enough.

And there is a problem with a system eo broken as to allow Pun-Pun. And especially one where the breaks are myriad.

This is again 100% a problem with 3.X turning people into bad players. And as mentioned the problem here is that simulacrum -wish is a combo accessible in character. The player's problem is that they are playing a character used to risking their life and who is supposed to be smart. But somehow they are supposed to not take the pro-social action of, at cost only to themselves, of gaining enough power to protect their friends.

Your choice of game is entirely the thing creating your illustrations.

In AD&D 2e there was an epidemic of rogues stealing from the party because the game told them that was how you gained XP. Take away the toxic rules encouraging that and the problem almost goes away. Pre 4e Paladins were known as inflexible jerks because the rules punished them ridiculously for a single slip. Take the rules encouraging toxicity away and the problem goes away.

In 3.X there were toxic rules that lead to everything you talk about.

And which is the result of a bad system that encourages this.

And when it is obvious that it is what the system encourages I would know where the real blame was - and dump 3.x.

Or at the very least mix it up so the toxicity doesn't bed in. There is no perfect skill system.

All these responses just read like an abrogation of personal responsibility to me. The system doesn’t stop me doing something therefore it’s encouraging me to do it? That’s not a great mantra to live by. Paladins and Necromancers in the same group trying to kill each other, stealing from the party, and PVP in general, are out of game problems where player care more about themselves than the party and their fellow players. No system stops players fighting in character. There’s no rule in 5e saying PVP isn’t acceptable. Usually new players to a group just get warned OOC look mate we don’t do PVP here.

You seem to believe players need reasons to act fairly and genially towards other players (including the FM). I say if you need strict rules for that to be the case, you’re better off going to play a board game of a CRPG. BG3 should occupy you for a few days.

 

[Hussar]

I think one needs to be careful to take things in context. For myself, at least, I'm not saying that 5e is some garbage game that is unplayable. Far from it. I mean, come on, I've played for about ten years now, just like many of you. It would be pretty hypocritical of me to claim that the game was unplayable.

No, for me, this is simply an area which causes me grief. Most of the game runs fine. I mean, I just started a quickie Phandelver game with my main group to give me some down time from our main campaign. Played our first session today. This campaign was set up entirely to give me a break, so, no full casters, and no feats that grant spells. I'm going for a much lower magic vibe. Game plays unbelievably fast. Lightning fast. It was fantastic. Such a huge breath of fresh air.

And, honestly, it might simply be that I need that breath of fresh air. Between the Candlekeep campaign and then the Spelljammer one, I've been buried in high level, high magic games. It could easily be that I just need a break to get some perspective. Entirely possible. Again, it's all about play experiences. For the past four years or so, it's been super high caster groups, super high magic. All the time. It's quite possible that I just need a bit of a break.

 

[Neonchameleon]

All these responses just read like an abrogation of personal responsibility to me.

And this just reads like an abdication of responsibility and of care towards fellow players to me. It reads like you are trying to make the entire game about your personal tastes and fighting the system and the players to do it.

The system doesn’t stop me doing something therefore it’s encouraging me to do it? That’s not a great mantra to live by. Paladins and Necromancers in the same group trying to kill each other, stealing from the party, and PVP in general, are out of game problems where player care more about themselves than the party and their fellow players.

Not when it is what the game itself encourages.

There is a boardgame called Diplomacy where the core of the game is lying to and tricking your fellow players in order to set them up. The game encourages it through various methods including complete calculation being possible and concealed actions. If players were to pull the deeply set up betrayals of Diplomacy in most other games they would be complete jerks. But anyone playing Diplomacy and then whining that there were betrayals is going to get told that that's part of the game. For that matter it's the player who never tries betrayal that's the bad actor in Diplomacy.

No system stops players fighting in character. There’s no rule in 5e saying PVP isn’t acceptable. Usually new players to a group just get warned OOC look mate we don’t do PVP here.

No system stops players fighting in character - but some systems encourage it. Or are even about it. Smallville, for example, is a game where all the PCs are going to find themselves on collision courses at different points because that is what is statted out. If you don't want some PVP don't play Smallville - and a player who doesn't have their character conflict with others and a GM who doesn't encourage this are the ones not playing the game.

Meanwhile my games aren't free of PvP but it's never at a Smallville level. And having some clashes and tension makes the game better IME.

The gameplay a system encourages is the most important thing about that system. And one of the things 3.x encourages is what you call "over-optimising". And paladin falling rules encourage stick up their backside paladins while individual XP for stealing GP encourages stealing from the party.

You seem to believe players need reasons to act fairly and genially towards other players (including the FM). I say if you need strict rules for that to be the case, you’re better off going to play a board game of a CRPG. BG3 should occupy you for a few days.

This is a complete strawman. Playing genially towards other players includes playing the actual game you are given. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different outcomes.

And playing non-genially towards other players includes coming up with a whole slew of non-written rules for them to cross and then blaming them when they do so. You are the one who wants to rule-bind everything and blames people for doing what the game encourages. And I don't think it's a coincidence that you pick the D&D with the strictest and most detailed rules - but if you want your detailed builds I'd suggest FF XV.

And if different people come in and regularly do the same things you can either

1. Work out what is causing this given that the two common links are you and the system - and see if you can change one
2. Accept that it is a part of what you are doing
3. Be anti-social, using force and saying "reapect mah authoritah"

I choose option one. Working with people and picking systems that bring good results. You seem to pick option 3.

Rules lawyers are a consequence of fiddly and detailed systems; there's nothing for them to lawyer in lighter games and after a few sessions they give up. Over-optimisers are a consequence of complex and unbalanced systems where the encounters are won out of rather than in play and no one notices. And someone claiming that people using the system in ways it rewards rather than the unwritten ways they think it should be done and then not picking a better system or fixing it is a textbook example of someone making the game all about them.

 

[TheSword]

And this just reads like an abdication of responsibility and of care towards fellow players to me. It reads like you are trying to make the entire game about your personal tastes and fighting the system and the players to do it.

Not when it is what the game itself encourages.

There is a boardgame called Diplomacy where the core of the game is lying to and tricking your fellow players in order to set them up. The game encourages it through various methods including complete calculation being possible and concealed actions. If players were to pull the deeply set up betrayals of Diplomacy in most other games they would be complete jerks. But anyone playing Diplomacy and then whining that there were betrayals is going to get told that that's part of the game. For that matter it's the player who never tries betrayal that's the bad actor in Diplomacy.

No system stops players fighting in character - but some systems encourage it. Or are even about it. Smallville, for example, is a game where all the PCs are going to find themselves on collision courses at different points because that is what is statted out. If you don't want some PVP don't play Smallville - and a player who doesn't have their character conflict with others and a GM who doesn't encourage this are the ones not playing the game.

Meanwhile my games aren't free of PvP but it's never at a Smallville level. And having some clashes and tension makes the game better IME.

The gameplay a system encourages is the most important thing about that system. And one of the things 3.x encourages is what you call "over-optimising". And paladin falling rules encourage stick up their backside paladins while individual XP for stealing GP encourages stealing from the party.

This is a complete strawman. Playing genially towards other players includes playing the actual game you are given. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different outcomes.

And playing non-genially towards other players includes coming up with a whole slew of non-written rules for them to cross and then blaming them when they do so. You are the one who wants to rule-bind everything and blames people for doing what the game encourages. And I don't think it's a coincidence that you pick the D&D with the strictest and most detailed rules - but if you want your detailed builds I'd suggest FF XV.

And if different people come in and regularly do the same things you can either

1. Work out what is causing this given that the two common links are you and the system - and see if you can change one
2. Accept that it is a part of what you are doing
3. Be anti-social, using force and saying "reapect mah authoritah"

I choose option one. Working with people and picking systems that bring good results. You seem to pick option 3.

Rules lawyers are a consequence of fiddly and detailed systems; there's nothing for them to lawyer in lighter games and after a few sessions they give up. Over-optimisers are a consequence of complex and unbalanced systems where the encounters are won out of rather than in play and no one notices. And someone claiming that people using the system in ways it rewards rather than the unwritten ways they think it should be done and then not picking a better system or fixing it is a textbook example of someone making the game all about them.

You’ve given many examples of systems which have rules to encourage PvP. Unfortunately they aren’t D&D 5e so I honestly don’t see the relevance to a discussion about D&D 5e. Frankly I’m not bothered whether Diplomacy, or Cheat, or Liars Dice or even Poker encourage lying, bluffing and taking from other players. That isn’t D&D.

You seem to be suggesting that because there is an in game benefit to one player to steal from another player, that this is encouraging stealing. Every TRRPG I have ever played has advantages to having magic items or equipment. By your logic every player is being encouraged to steal magic items from other players (or the coin to buy such items). By your logic the system would need to be changed so this isn’t the case otherwise the light fingered players are within their rights to carry on. This is an extra-ordinarily self centered approach that i suspect most people on the boards would reject. Your ability to take my stuff does not give you the right to do so simply because you derive a benefit from it.

No PVP in my game is a good response to someone who disagrees with this basic principle. It doesn’t need to be baked into the rules because a./ that would he cumbersome and b./ some folks like @FrogReaver (I think) have no problem with PVP and don’t have a problem with it. I’m not trying to stop players behaving that way if it fits the tone of the table. Which is why there’s no need to expressly print it in the rules. It is all covered by rule 101 “don’t be a douche”. I include trying to break the game with simulacrum wishes under that rule.

I reject the mantra - nothing is true, everything is permitted. At least on the permissive face value sense. I support the subtext is that you are responsible for your actions whether something is permitted or not.

 

[Oofta]

And no amount of details is apparently enough. Half dozen spells? Good grief, I've mentioned more than that in just this thread.

You've said they're an issue for you, I've tried to explain why many of them are not. Having to challenge a party based on their capabilities is something every DM is faced with.

My point is, I LOATHE having that conversation with players. Player says, "I'm now level X, and I've picked spell Y". Fair enough, frankly, I want to trust the system to the point where I honestly don't really check that often. Then it comes into play. And it turns out that no, this spell, feat, whatever, actually burns me so freaking often. Lessee, in just the past few months, just from memory:

Manifest Mind - intangible, virtually unkillable sensor with a 300 foot range, can see in the dark (and comes with it's own light source if needed) that can basically walk through walls, doors, whatever solid objects and telepathically inform the caster what it sees. Also allows the caster to cast spells through it if needed.

Forbiddence: as mentioned.

Banishment - a 4th level spell that becomes more powerful the higher the level of the party because it becomes virtually guaranteed that every monster you meet is extra planar of some sort at higher CR's. Becomes a save or die spell for most encounters. Not bad for a 4th level slot. ((Yes, yes, for the ultra-pedantic, I know the monster isn't dead, but, it's been sent to another plane and most monsters have no way back - close enough to dead.))

Project Image - allows the casters a sensor that can walk through walls, out to 500 miles for a day. All sorts of shenanigans for this one.

It's a concentration spell, you still need to physically walk around, it is not invisible, if it takes any damage it disappears. I see nothing that says it can move through obstacles or fly so I would rule that it cannot. It can't interact with the world around it other than to speak so I would rule that it can't even open a door.

On and on and on. It never stops. Just endless. But, of course, since I can't actually create an exhaustive list for you, you just keep telling me that there is no problem and i'm just making things up.

I KNOW you aren't having this problem. Thank you for telling me that over and over again. Howzabout you let people who ACTUALLY HAVE THIS PROBLEM help me resolve this issue instead of repeatedly telling me that I'm either lying or incompetent? What are you trying to achieve by denying my experience? You aren't having this issue? Great? You have repeatedly stated that you don't have a lot of casters in your group and your games end before double digit levels. So, yeah, of course you aren't having this issue.

I simply have a document stating what house rules and rulings I make. It's pretty short, less than a page if I printed it out. I've included spell modifications below.

I have no idea what "Manifest Mind" is. It's not a spell, I couldn't find it with a search. Forbiddance - that's actually an interesting use of the spell, personally I'd just add that to my list of "it doesn't work that way". Banishment is one I tweak. See below.

I've tried to tell you what I do to resolve the problems. Part of it is just an agreement with the group, if the PCs use something, I can use it as well. Start counterspelling? Well, I find it boring, but suddenly enemy mages frequently have counterspell as well (I regularly change NPC spell lists anyway). Is that really the kind of game you want to play?

My current house rule list concerning spells is something I include when I invite people to the game and reiterate during session 0. My list is:

For thematic and game play reasons, a few spells have been modified or banned. I don't use standard D&D cosmology, I use realms loosely based on the 9 worlds of Norse mythology, to travel between planes you have to travel the great tree Yggdrasil, and even then unless you are a god passage may be blocked. Passageways exist to travel the tree but they are rare and must be opened with a Plane Shift spell (see below).​

• Banishment doesn't send anything back to it's home plane unless it was summoned. In that case a temporary portal has been opened that can be severed. A creature that is permanently on your current plane can be sent back, if you are close to a passageway back to their home plane of existence.
• Plane Shift can be used to open a doorway passage that leads to a path traversing Yggdrasil to another realm. It does not create a new passageway, it must already exist.
• Teleport is unreliable over long distances and has a much greater chance of failure than standard. An item associated to a location can't be just any random object from that location, it has to have special significance and association to the location.
• Teleportation Circle spell does not automatically grant you the sigils for other circles, the sigils are a closely guarded secret. The spell can, however, be cast as a ritual.
• Raise dead is possible, but this is a cosmology where even gods can die. The spirits of the dead travel through Nifleheim on their way to their final resting place, once there it is virtually impossible to bring them back. Revivify works as normal because the spirit is still connected to the body. Raise Dead requires a special quest. Resurrection is only possible under very unusual circumstances.
• Tiny Hut stops all attacks in both directions, you can't attack anything outside the hut from inside. In addition, the hut does not have an impenetrable floor since it's a dome.

There are some other things that I could add if they were abused I suppose. For example I've never had anyone seen anyone use Forbiddance so it's never come up. I don't ever argue about my house rules with people, I just let people know what they are. I'll discuss how I do things with people but ultimately I make the final call. I let people know that I will do my best to be fair but I don't care for exploits especially because anything the PCs do their opponents can also do. I don't argue with people about any of this, if someone can't accept my rulings they are free to leave.

NOTE: concerning Forbiddance if it ever comes up I'll just make a house rule that if the spell would immediately damage any creature when you cast the spell, it fails. After all, any spell the PCs can use, the opposition can use as well. If someone had taken the spell with this in mind, I'd let them swap it out for something else.

 

[Oofta]

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.

We were backpacking in the Tetons National Park in Montana, ironically looking for a tree to suspend our food bag from so bears wouldn't get it. Something big enough walking around to hear that I could not see. My nephew and I made sure to continue chatting so it knew we were there. Sometimes you can see a hundred feet, usually you can't if it's at all dense. I've walked around a curve in a path and almost walked into a moose (backpacking Isle Royale) before.

Seriously, have you never been in a forest? It just depends on the forest. This image is a forest denser that what we were in but how well do you think you could see something a hundred feet away? It's not a carefully groomed and mowed park.

EDIT:
Even in a dense forest with no undergrowth, site lines can be extremely limited because there are these things called "trees" that block line of sight

or one I took last year because, well, digital.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You’ve given many examples of systems which have rules to encourage PvP. Unfortunately they aren’t D&D 5e so I honestly don’t see the relevance to a discussion about D&D 5e. Frankly I’m not bothered whether Diplomacy, or Cheat, or Liars Dice or even Poker encourage lying, bluffing and taking from other players. That isn’t D&D.

But you do accept the point that system matters?

You seem to be suggesting that because there is an in game benefit to one player to steal from another player, that this is encouraging stealing.

I am suggesting that because there is a mechanical reward for the act of stealing things in AD&D 2e then it is encouraging stealing. The game is literally telling you to steal.

Every TRRPG I have ever played has advantages to having magic items or equipment. By your logic every player is being encouraged to steal magic items from other players (or the coin to buy such items).

But not every TTRPG rewards you for actively obtaining treasure. In a normal RPG you play as a team and are taking part in life threatening behaviours (something you seem to discount). You therefore want everyone to survive. Stealing from your own party rather than sharing the equipment weakens you as a group meaning you are more likely to die. And a rogue with a magic sword does not contribute as much as a fighter does.

Meanwhile if the Rogue is rewarded 2XP for every GP obtained, and the fighter's sword is worth 1000GP then the choice as a party isn't between the fighter with a magic sword and the rogue with a magic sword (anyone sensible will pick the meatshield gets the sword) but the Rogue with a sword and 2000XP that no one would have if the fighter had the sword. And given that 2000XP is the difference between level 1 and level 3 it is legitimate for the rogue's player to consider that the party as a whole and they themselves have a better chance of survival with the blade in the hands of themselves as a level 3 rogue than it would be in the hands of a level 1 fighter with only a level 1 rogue in the party.

And then another rogue player looks at the game and says "clearly taking everything that isn't nailed down is what the rogue is about. This is a game with a hidden semi-traitor mechanic and individual victory conditions. It's a bit like Betrayal at House on the Hill, BSG, or Shadows over Camelot".

Add in players also learning from books (and Dragonlance Kender) so again they think that's what the game is about and you have problems with rogues who steal from the party that are nowhere near as common in other editions. Because contrary to your assertions 2e is not just a generic game but does specific things to encourage this form of bad behaviour.

This is a simple and crude example of course.

I reject the mantra - nothing is true, everything is permitted. At least on the permissive face value sense. I support the subtext is that you are responsible for your actions whether something is permitted or not.

It's not about what is true and what is permitted. It's about what is encouraged. And I know I can trust my players to be adults because I actually look at consequences - which is why there is some PvP but it is kept within the bounds of fun. And if a game were to consistently produce the same bad outcomes (such as rules lawyering) I'd dump that system.

 

[TheSword]

But you do accept the point that system matters?

I am suggesting that because there is a mechanical reward for the act of stealing things in AD&D 2e then it is encouraging stealing. The game is literally telling you to steal.
View attachment 344820

But not every TTRPG rewards you for actively obtaining treasure. In a normal RPG you play as a team and are taking part in life threatening behaviours (something you seem to discount). You therefore want everyone to survive. Stealing from your own party rather than sharing the equipment weakens you as a group meaning you are more likely to die. And a rogue with a magic sword does not contribute as much as a fighter does.

Meanwhile if the Rogue is rewarded 2XP for every GP obtained, and the fighter's sword is worth 1000GP then the choice as a party isn't between the fighter with a magic sword and the rogue with a magic sword (anyone sensible will pick the meatshield gets the sword) but the Rogue with a sword and 2000XP that no one would have if the fighter had the sword. And given that 2000XP is the difference between level 1 and level 3 it is legitimate for the rogue's player to consider that the party as a whole and they themselves have a better chance of survival with the blade in the hands of themselves as a level 3 rogue than it would be in the hands of a level 1 fighter with only a level 1 rogue in the party.

And then another rogue player looks at the game and says "clearly taking everything that isn't nailed down is what the rogue is about. This is a game with a hidden semi-traitor mechanic and individual victory conditions. It's a bit like Betrayal at House on the Hill, BSG, or Shadows over Camelot".

Add in players also learning from books (and Dragonlance Kender) so again they think that's what the game is about and you have problems with rogues who steal from the party that are nowhere near as common in other editions. Because contrary to your assertions 2e is not just a generic game but does specific things to encourage this form of bad behaviour.

This is a simple and crude example of course.

It's not about what is true and what is permitted. It's about what is encouraged. And I know I can trust my players to be adults because I actually look at consequences - which is why there is some PvP but it is kept within the bounds of fun. And if a game were to consistently produce the same bad outcomes (such as rules lawyering) I'd dump that system.

That is one of the weirdest things I have seen argued on the boards. In a discussion about the 5e ruleset and selfish player behaviour. You’ve gone back 25 years and claimed that because a rogue PC in 2e is given XP for the treasure they find, they are incentivized to steal from other PCs.

Firstly I don’t accept that is what is intended by the phrase acquire treasure. I wouldn’t give the rogue XP for things stolen inter-party. Only for their own share. Nothing on that table mentions stealing.

Secondly how on earth is that relevant to 5e? Dude you’re bringing up Kender to justify the behaviour. My mind is boggled. It’s 2023!

System may effect behaviour. However not making something impossible is not the same as encouraging it. Can you find a current example of pvp being encouraged by the system and we can talk more?